|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Every evolutionist has a chance to win $250,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"I must admit that Hovind certainly brings a unique perspective to everything he touches. "
--Sure does, after reading considerably through some text-books on astrophysics and cosmology, the guy's Hovind theory is a bit..out-of-wack, sure does put a unique touch to it. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"First, Hovind is not a "Dr." He is a fake who got his degree from a degree mill (input the three search terms: hovind AND creationism AND creadentials, and you can track the info for yourself). As to debating him, it is done to demonstrate the man for the liar that he is."
--I believe he is having one of his seminars down close by where I am. If I get the chance to go, I'd sure have to ask him this one! Along with his questions on the Pangean continent and the evidence he ignores and sure puts that 'unique perspective' on. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
quote: Great TC! We'll make a scientist of you yet! Seriously, though: don't go into one of his lectures unprepared. In spite of his faults, he is a very good speaker. He has totally perfected the "Gishian Gallop" - he'll present a bewildering barrage of assertions and rapidly changing overhead projections. Most people unfamiliar with either the science or the tactic will be overwhelmed. His primary tool is to speak so quickly and present so much (erroneous) information that while you're processing one bit he's already three assertions further along. Also, according to one of my colleagues who attended one of his lectures, he has shills in the audience. It rapidly gets to a point where his presentation is more "tent revival" than scientific lecture. The shills keep the cheers and laughter/applause going (basic group dynamics in action), until at the end you feel breathless and can't even remember the specifics of what he said - just that he made a dazzling presentation. We're talking about a guy who can beat out an auction barker in a stand-up fight. Be prepared - and don't take him lightly. He is VERY good at what he does. He's also a total crank. You wonder why scientists don't take creationism very seriously? He's a prime example of why not. One of the "leading creationists" indeed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr_Tazimus_maximus Member (Idle past 3217 days) Posts: 402 From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA Joined: |
quote: I will second this point (Gishian gallop Anyway, if you go to see Hovind good luck ------------------"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur Taz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5680 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: I agree. I sat through his 3-day seminar and did not say a thing, but took copiuous notes. At the end, when it was time for questions I accused him of 'lying for Jesus' and pointed out two very fallacious arguments he used (circular reasoning of dating and the story of Lucy's knee--I had Johanson's book with me). I read my statement and finished with "Thou shalt not bear false witness". He was PISSED and told me that I was with Satan since I was 'agin' him. He then tried to switch the subject by asking if I thought I came from a rock. I told him, yes, my parents were solid as rocks, but could he please address the question. He concluded by saying that he does not address ad hominem attacks. All in all, I would say that my questions did not do much (except for one elderly man who came up to me afterward and said he thought Hovind would make a good used car salesman!). Anyway, don't underestimate him. Go and just watch the seminar and see how the people are 'moved'. You'll see heads nodding in agreement and the whole schtick is laced with 'If your not with Hovind, you are not with God'. You would be a fool to try and argue too much with him unless you can get him to debate. I tried for a year and a half to debate him, but he eschewed strict time limits and a focused topic "Does Genesis paint an accurate scientific picture when taken literally?". Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5033 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Well, I am coming out with an economic hypothesis as to why D'Arcy Thompson Transforms have not been bettered but this idea is still in even denser "mcfall speak" than I generally post so it is still not time to suggest more than I think Thompson was mis thinking Buffon's mold to work on the metric that both inside and out side any organism is the same space. He got great pictures but that was the era of stamp collecting. The whole vision has been inverted to which Gould capitalizes along with Zimmer but the math has like the words not come through for no one is really working on NEO_mendelism as hard as they are neo-darwinisms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin's Terrier Inactive Member |
quote: this is also known as the Dopeler Effect: stupid ideas seem smarter if they come at you quickly. DT
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Be prepared - and don't take him lightly. He is VERY good at what he does. He's also a total crank. You wonder why scientists don't take creationism very seriously? He's a prime example of why not. One of the "leading creationists" indeed."
--I must say I feel rather sorry for the guy and the rest of his ilk, (much of my youth group and my assistant pastor for one --I should hope that the fequent participants on this board see given stand-points in creationism, whether arguments may be correct or incorrect. The scientific mind-set should be the mind-set inside any such scientific argumental approach in the EvC debate. As long as this is stressed in any thinking, it can be very enjoyable to work with the scientists and be taken seriously in the sharing of ideas whatever the difference, just based on the science and a realization of what can and cannot be observed/tested. --Mabye that TC revolution in the realm of Creationism isn't such a bad idea after all ------------------ [This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 04-26-2002] [This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 04-26-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"There is a very good reason that they will not agree to submit their "quotes" and statements beforehand in any debate with a scientist, it is because many of them (the "quotes" ect) are false, and they do not want their statements looked up prior to the debate because then they would be easier to take to task for the misstatements, half-truths and outright lies."
--Looks like Hovind's screwed. [Pun intended, hopefully I'm not doing to much Hovind-bashing or degrading any Creationists thoughts on Creationism, there is a more realisic approach] ------------------ [This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 04-26-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Hi Dr. T: Just wanted to set the record straight. I wish I could take credit for the "Gishian Gallop" reference. I can't remember off-hand where I originally read it, but it might be attributable to Joyce Arthur (who's made something of a hobby of exposing Gish). Here's a great Skeptic magazine article by Arthur on our friend Duane Gish, Bad Science or Immoral Pseudoscience?", with links to Gish's rebuttal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Say Hey, TC:
I am very glad you were able to use your readings in science to see through the likes of Kent Hovind. Although he's probably the most obvious fraud on the circuit, you might find it instructive to look at some of the writings of other "creationist leading lights" with the same skeptical view. I would suggest John Woodmorappe, for starters - he writes a lot on geology and the Flood, which is apparently one of your favorite topics. Just compare his assertions with the evidence you've seen presented by geologists in some of the books you've said you've read. Make up your own mind. Be careful! The more you learn about the evidentiary basis of science, the less creationist writings make sense. Science is very sneaky like that - it insinuates itself into your mind before you know it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Arachnophile Inactive Member |
I have yet to see a YEC stating clearly stating what it would take to convince him/her of the reality of evolution. I tried to get some clear answers from Norwegian christian fundamentalists but the bottom line was that they could never be persuaded because that would mean abandoning their faith. Is this the belief of creationists on this forum or can you state some instances which may help change your minds?
Wish I could ask Hovind that question! The Arachnophile
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Arachnophile Inactive Member |
ehem* which isn't going to happen... I would equally give thousands if someone could 'prove' it as 'fact'.
But what would you accept as proof?? I a very curious about that. And how come christian YECs have no problem believing ancient scriptures telling about miracles and supernatural beings when not a shred of evidence supports their existence while they dismiss a scientific theory which has been supported again and again and has been generally accepted in the scientific world?? Something is wrong here, I think. I am convinced that the majority of "anti-evolutionists" take that position on the grounds of faith and not science! The Arachnophile
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"But what would you accept as proof?? I a very curious about that. "
--Someone build me a time machine, or atleast give me a multi-billion year recorded video-tape of the ToE. That would be 'proof'. "And how come christian YECs have no problem believing ancient scriptures telling about miracles and supernatural beings when not a shred of evidence supports their existence while they dismiss a scientific theory which has been supported again and again and has been generally accepted in the scientific world?? Something is wrong here, I think."--By my knowledge, the ToE is relatively well founded. Its just a scientific theory and explination for compiled evidences on Earth history (biologically, geologically, or astronomically). I also get rather annoyed when people explaim it to be more than that or say that people are 'stupid' if they do not believe it. Statements of that likeness readilly admit ignorance. Its like a creationist asking 'If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes today!'. Just thought I would give my 2 cents with that comment. "I am convinced that the majority of "anti-evolutionists" take that position on the grounds of faith and not science!"--I must be a new breed in the evolution of YEC's. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: No TC you have yet to support any of your beliefs with a well reasoned internaly consistent theory complete with evidence... Untill you do your still very much in the theological considerations are paramount club.....
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024