Jared v. Hovind

In all fairness, you've got to be careful with this site, since it does engage in the occasional quote mining. In context, this doesn't sound as bad is it looks out of context. In the (similar but not exactly the same) version I heard, he was jokingly poking fun at the ignorance of teenagers. That is, its not meant to be taken as a serious scientific phrase.That said, I recognize hearing some of the other stuff in context and its not meant to be taken as a joke.

Ut... my mistake for not checking the source of the quote. Won't be using that one again.

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

It would, in fact, be impossible to ignore the havok centuries of sectarian conflict as wrought on our civilization; after all, when the religious get into disputes over evidence and interpretation and whatnot, people are usually killed.I don't recall anyone dying as a result of relativity surplanting classical physics; even Newton and Liebniz were able to carry on their decades-long disagreement about the origin of calculus without anyone actually killing each other. (In the interests of full disclosure, however, I did observe an outcast lepidopterist mauled beyond recognition at the most recent branch meeting of the Entomological Society of America.)

Hi Jared,I just started listening to your calls to Hovind. I don't want to speak to soon but wanted to offer some advice for future calls. Hovind (and this is an example of his deception, not belief) likes to call on anonymous sources to support wild claims. He needs to be called on these!He makes stetements that are obviously untrue that typically begin with "I was debating a university professor and he said..." usually ending in some ridiculous statement, usually supporting some classic creationist falsehood (no transitionals, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, etc). I would like to see these claims called out. Just my 2 cents worth.

---

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

.Good for you. Go for it. Perhaps, you can enlighten us with your speciality in biophysics and mathematics. I have one question for everybody here. Ph.D is a Ph.D no matter where it comes from. What about the mediocre Ph.D's from prestigious universities? What are they accomplishing. Dr.Hovind may be a "Cook". But, he has stirred up lot of controversy. He is making many in academics to self examine their own positions. He must be complimented atleast for this. This is an accomplishment.

You have managed to keep your 100% streak up. This is not true at all.

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

No, i don't think he makes anyone wonder about thier positions, he doesn't even argue on a level where they would do this, all of his arguments are distortions or outright misinformationif anything the academics wonder about his sanity..

I'm sorry Buz but this is not the case. Have you spent some time reading science? Say Scientific American, or Science magazine? Science is a competitive endeavor by scientist who have a range of abilities.Take the recent claims of Cloning in South Korea. Did you follow that? You might try reading this book: Scientist debate and challenge one another on issues. Academia is not a monolithic group of scientist who have agreed on a religious dogma and then have set out to compete with your church. That is totally fantasy.Scientist have differing theories and opinions and they want to be right but they can't argue from sacred texts and interpretations of ancient languages. They have to demonstrate solid evidence and experimental design. Slowly consensus emerges and scientific knowledge moves ahead.The Kent Hovinds are exploiting the ignorance about science of pious people who want to be told that what they find disquieting about science is false. So he markets his stuff and makes some money but he isn't doing science and nothing he says factors into the science that is being done.He is a fraud and a con man an ancient profession back when his kind made a living peddling peices of the true cross and other relics.lfen

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

This is exactly why a theory based only on the math is only very interesting. It wasn't until 1919 and the first tests of general relativity that Einstein's fame blossemed. Once the math has proved it's predictive powers over and over then scientists start to put a great deal of "faith" in it.You have objected to things which have been shown to be true about the universe. They have been described in terms of math to you but you seem to have missed the point that what the math says turns out to be the case in the real world around us. The universe is NOT as you think it is. This isn't something conjectured from math; it is what is. You are probably refering to various probability calculations put forward in support of ID. Those arguments are put forward in terms of math themselves. They are, as math, shown to be wrong. The ID'ists formulation of their arguments are, AS THEY STATE THEM, mathematically wrong. I haven't noticed that anyone has applied any math to this (other than the speculative, untested math of string theory and the like). The questions you voice here are, as yet, unanswered. As noted, the Universe is observed to simply NOT conform to what you think is reasonable and sensible. Once that is observed it has nothing to do with the math or logic. It is as it is.

quote:

---

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.

---

This is grossly wrong. Mathematics is MORE logical than our ideas of what is "reasonable". Even most rational thinking is less logical than mathematics.The scientists have a huge record of success.The Biblicists on the other hand have a habit of misrepresenting the state of the evidence as you do. Much of the Bible is unconfirmed or even contradicted by the archaeological evidence. There is no good record of fulfilled prophecies as we have seen on this group.In fact Biblicists place too much faith in themselves - placing their uninformed opinions above those of people who have put huge amounts of work into understanding the fields of knowledge under discussion. This particular argument is just another example of that.

Strangely, if you study formal logic, you'd think you were studying maths. It actually turns out you basically are. The two are are intertwined. I get the impression that you are using logic to mean informal logic.Its not what we think is logical that matters, it is what can be formally shown to be logical that matters.Of course, if you can show me a piece of mathematics that does not logically follow from the premises/variables thrown at it (ie, is not logical), I might be willing to concede some points to you.This has the hallmarks of becoming a thread not about Hovind but about logic and maths. I advise that now we have had our say on the matter, we steer clear or start a new thread.

quote:

---

Strangely, if you study formal logic, you'd think you were studying maths.

---

When I studied formal logic I WAS studying maths. It was a School of Mathematics course, offered in the School of Mathematics building with a School of Mathematics lecturer taken as part of my degree in Mathematics and Computer Science.

I'll bite. Which academics examined their own positions as a result of Hovind? What did he say or do to cause them to do this?

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird