Jared v. Hovind

I've watched Hovind a number of times on TV. Imo, where he get's in trouble, for the most part is his young universe stance.What our friends are not admitting is that even if Hovind is wrong on some things, he's is either right on much of what he says, or at least has a viable/sensible argument for many of his alternative interpretations of what is observed scientifically.As for Hovind's education, well, he's educated, having done a lot of homework and just maybe not as programmed into some questionable mainline interpretations of science observations as all those who've been through the mainline assemblyline of conventional science all the way from grade school through doctorate.I haven't seen the debate with Jared yet, but it appears from the comments that he at least held his own on much as debates go.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

My friend, haven't I told you thousands of times not to exaggerate? I don't have a passage perse in mind, but I have to agree with Kent that BB and evolution science assumes far too much pertaining to how things were in the universe scores of millions to billions of years ago, so very distant from physical observation. I agree also that ID is implicated in the degree of complexity that is observed on earth and in the universe; things like DNA, et al. I also agree that science should apply more logic to interpretations of what is observed than they do.(BTW autodidact is in neither my abridged or my unabridged dictionaries. I assume by the syllables of your term that you mean something like an omnivorous self taught teacher. Read my former post carefully, my friend. By this and other stuff I've posted on Hovind, there's some significant differences in my creationism and his. My point here is that I don't buy the degree of rejection that many of you are posting. Imo, in the end after all is said and done in the judgement, Hovind will have ascribed to and taught more actual scientific truth than most of his counterparts in debate.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

I was wondering the same thing. I believe the queen and older adults eat honey that the younger workers bring in. He's likely referring to the workers which eat mostly nectar and maybe some polen.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

My point was that in the end, in retrospect, Hovind will likely be closer than Einstein overal with ID and all. Imo, you and he both have a problem here. As per TDI and as per a proper Biblical understanding, every bit of energy that exists today has eternally existed in one form or another. Well, my friend, I and my Biblical cumbodies think secularist antID teaching is intellectually dangerous to the eternal welfare of everyone. So that leaves us both with concern about what's good and proper.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

From personal experience and also general observation, many highly educated secular science fundy-types tend to simply accept and believe what they've been taught, no matter how preposterously illogical (abe: some of) their claims are.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 04-23-2006 10:30 PM

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

To be fair I should have added two words to my statement. Those two words are some of, making the phrase .....some of their claims..... Obviously I was copying some of Schraf's terms which she used to apply to many devout fundie types in her quite caustic complaint about religious folks and this was one of them.I'll go ahead and edit in the two words.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

Bren, like Schraf, I did not specify which claims which were preposterously illogical and like Schraf's post about religious fundy-types, I didn't say all secularist scientists were preposterously illogical.Furthermore, to get into specifics would be leading this thread off topic, so like Schraf, I don't intend to stray into off topic specifics applicable to other topics.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

Well Schraf, madear, it appears that you've also completely ignored all of the corrections, debates, and outright fights that we religious fundy-type folks get into with each other over evidence and interpretation and whatnot. Edit for typoThis message has been edited by buzsaw, 04-23-2006 10:56 PM

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

I did not specify the preposterously illogical. I've been told by some of you folks that much about science is illogical, so why are you so upset about my comment? Well, er, I was engaging in a joust with Schrafinator's charge on her high horse.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

I have to agree, Inkorrekt. Were it not for Hovind, Gish, Morris, and a host of other counterparts, regardless of their faults, the established science would be left much less accountable for their own claims.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

1. Logic is closely related to reason/reasonable/reasoning. Math can be tricky and produce unreasonable/illogical conclusions, depending on how it is applied and how what is observed is interpreted. What may be logical to one may be totally illogical to another. Some believe some scientists actually have too much faith in the math they use to come to some of their conclusions, somewhat like other folks consider Biblicalists as having too much faith in the credibility of the Biblical record, regardless of the archeological discoveries, the fulfilled prophecies and other evidence some of us fundamentalists use to support it.2. Though mathmatic calculations may produce some logical conclusions, depending on how it is applied, logic is not math. Logic, relative to math, depends on how reasonable the conclusions are because logic is reasoning. Therefore, logic determines whether the math calculation has been reasonable. Whether or not this is so will often be determined on interpretation of what is observed. Scientists of all stripes bang heads together debating these things.3. Millions, including some scientists, for example reason that there's just to much complexity, order and harmony in what is observed to justify any mathmatic calculations which may appear to debunk ID and consider math calculations and other science experiments to be too illogical and unreasonable to have been accomplished absent from ID.4. When folks get into debates on things like the outside of, properties of space, the before the BB and things like that, often some conclusions of some are considered totally illogical and unreasonable, no matter how the math is applied.5. Reasonable and Sensible relate as to definiton. My dictionary relates them, crossreferencing both reasonable and sensible, though not number one on the list of definitions.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW