Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Kent Hovind's debates, can someone help?
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 127 (97559)
04-03-2004 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by nator
04-03-2004 2:07 PM


Buz, do you think that fire-breathing dragons exist?
I don't think so. Did they ever exist? With dinosaurs I suppose it might be a possibility with some kind of a blow torch effect which would not contact tissue of the mouth with no contact, but that's as far as I go. There is figurative texts in some Biblical passages depicting consuming fires in connection with living beings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by nator, posted 04-03-2004 2:07 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by crashfrog, posted 04-04-2004 8:42 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 93 by nator, posted 04-05-2004 11:54 AM Buzsaw has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 92 of 127 (97651)
04-04-2004 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Buzsaw
04-03-2004 5:43 PM


With dinosaurs I suppose it might be a possibility with some kind of a blow torch effect which would not contact tissue of the mouth with no contact, but that's as far as I go.
Just to entertain the possibility, in your organic blowtorch effect, what's the ignition source?
While I don't for a minute believe that fire-breathing dragons have any basis in reality, if I had to suppose a real-world organism with some kind of fire breath attack, I'd suggest an effect akin to bombadier beetles - a hot chemical spray.
Then again it wouldn't surprise me if Hovind believed that it just worked by magic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Buzsaw, posted 04-03-2004 5:43 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Buzsaw, posted 04-13-2004 1:12 PM crashfrog has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 93 of 127 (97855)
04-05-2004 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Buzsaw
04-03-2004 5:43 PM


quote:
I don't think so. Did they ever exist? With dinosaurs I suppose it might be a possibility with some kind of a blow torch effect which would not contact tissue of the mouth with no contact, but that's as far as I go. There is figurative texts in some Biblical passages depicting consuming fires in connection with living beings.
Ahh, but it seems the case with Hovind that he thinks the bits in the Bible regarding those passages are not firgurative, but quite literal.
I mean, he believes that the emperor of China was breeding fire-breathing dragons a few centuries ago.
So, why do you think that Hovind is a source of accurate, reliable information when he says stuff like that? Could it be that he makes stuff up off the top of his head and then proclaims it fact? Perhaps the reason you doubt him about the dragons is because you know there really isn't any evidence at all for these make-believe creatures. Well, since you know even less about the "Origin of Species", having never read it, perhaps you might delay believing what Hovind is saying about it until you read the book.
If he says such obviously outrageous and unsupported things regarding the existence of dragons just to convince an unknowing audience, perhaps he would say similarly outrageous and false things about "Origin of Species" to an audience who has never read the book, right?
Do you really just go ahead and believe what anyone tells you just so long as they tell you what you want to hear?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Buzsaw, posted 04-03-2004 5:43 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by nator, posted 04-08-2004 10:28 AM nator has replied
 Message 96 by Buzsaw, posted 04-13-2004 12:39 PM nator has replied
 Message 99 by Trixie, posted 04-13-2004 6:49 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 94 of 127 (98661)
04-08-2004 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by nator
04-05-2004 11:54 AM


bump

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by nator, posted 04-05-2004 11:54 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by nator, posted 04-11-2004 8:20 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 95 of 127 (99327)
04-11-2004 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by nator
04-08-2004 10:28 AM


Re: YOU GO!!!
bump

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by nator, posted 04-08-2004 10:28 AM nator has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 127 (99678)
04-13-2004 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by nator
04-05-2004 11:54 AM


Schraf, I am saying I don't really know whether Hovind is correct about fire dragons or not. I've said that I don't agree with him about the young universe and some other, but by and large, I think he is quite credible in what he says in his lectures. You people pick out a few items and discredit him altogether on the basis of these few. That's not good science either, imo.
As for the reading of Darwin's "Origin of Species," for that matter likely most of my posting opponents of Biblical debates have not read the entire Bible either, so imo, this is a bogus implication on your part that I don't know enough about Darwinism to state emphatically what I've said concerning the subject. Have you read the Bible all the way, word for word, cover to cover, Schraf? If you have, you're likely a small minority of evos here in town who have.
Having said the above, there's a big difference in the reading of a book and the long time study of a book in depth, so whether one has read a book or has become apprised on the subject matter of a given subject are both considerations to consider.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by nator, posted 04-05-2004 11:54 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by nator, posted 04-13-2004 9:47 PM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 127 (99684)
04-13-2004 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by crashfrog
04-04-2004 8:42 AM


Just to entertain the possibility, in your organic blowtorch effect, what's the ignition source?
While I don't for a minute believe that fire-breathing dragons have any basis in reality, if I had to suppose a real-world organism with some kind of fire breath attack, I'd suggest an effect akin to bombadier beetles - a hot chemical spray.
Well, I did say considering the possibility was as far as I wanted to go, but bioluminescense in sea and land animals which is as I understand is produced by a heat related chemical reaction involving luciferin and luciferace, causing the oxidation of the luciferin in the process might be a source of significant heat and light if soumehow applied to some kind of large dinosaur dragon type animal. I'm not saying that's what I believe, mind you, but luminenscense bugs and sealife are quite a remarkable thing too, imo.
Lucifer/luciferin/luciferace...........hmmm, interesting.........must be the scientists incorporated the evil Biblical angel of light into their scientific terminology here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by crashfrog, posted 04-04-2004 8:42 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Coragyps, posted 04-13-2004 1:24 PM Buzsaw has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 98 of 127 (99688)
04-13-2004 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Buzsaw
04-13-2004 1:12 PM


which is as I understand is produced by a heat related chemical reaction involving luciferin and luciferace,
You understand incorrectly. The bioluminescent reactions I know of (and I did my proposition oral exam on them in grad school) don't generate noticeable heat. They just make visible light.
And the names, as you likely know, do come from exactly the same place as "lucifer" - "light bearer."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Buzsaw, posted 04-13-2004 1:12 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Buzsaw, posted 04-14-2004 12:46 AM Coragyps has not replied

Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 99 of 127 (99739)
04-13-2004 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by nator
04-05-2004 11:54 AM


Now that's a thought!!
I've always worried about Noah taking woodworm onto his ark. However, if Hovind is right that the Emperor of China was breeding fire-breathing dragons a few centuries ago and this was after Noah and his ark, I think that woodworm would be the least of his problems! How did they manage to prevent the ark being incinerated by the dragons? I suppose that with all the water around they could put out the fires very easily, but it must have been a bit fraught on there with the dragons and the methane from the rest of the zoo! ROFLMAO

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by nator, posted 04-05-2004 11:54 AM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 100 of 127 (99788)
04-13-2004 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Buzsaw
04-13-2004 12:39 PM


quote:
Schraf, I am saying I don't really know whether Hovind is correct about fire dragons or not. I've said that I don't agree with him about the young universe and some other, but by and large, I think he is quite credible in what he says in his lectures.
You think he is quite credible, even though the two major Creationist storefront organizations discourage their readers from taking him seriously?
You think he is credible, even though he can be and has been demonstrated to be incorrect and/or inaccurate regarding nearly every part of any scientific claims he makes?
You think "Dr." Hovind is credible, even though he purchased his PhD from a diploma mill in an obvious effort to present the appearence of having studied long and hard to earn an advanced degree without actually doing the work?
I guess your criterion of how to judge someone's credibility has more to do with their telling you what you want to hear rather than if they are actually worthy of respect.
quote:
You people pick out a few items and discredit him altogether on the basis of these few. That's not good science either, imo.
Um, no. There are many websites correcting and showing Hovind's lies, misinformation, and errors.
Many threads on this site alone deal with his nonsense. Haven't you ever read anything that disagrees with him with the slightest bit of open-mindedness?
quote:
As for the reading of Darwin's "Origin of Species," for that matter likely most of my posting opponents of Biblical debates have not read the entire Bible either, so imo, this is a bogus implication on your part that I don't know enough about Darwinism to state emphatically what I've said concerning the subject.
But Buz, if you haven't read the Origin of Species, you have no idea if what Hovind is saying about it is true or not.
So, no, I DON'T think you know enough about what Darwin's attitude about race was as recorded in Origins unless you read the relevant parts yourself.
Remember, I suggested that you at least read the relevant parts of Origins if you don't read the whole thing. (Of course, I DO suggest you read the whole thing...)
quote:
Have you read the Bible all the way, word for word, cover to cover, Schraf? If you have, you're likely a small minority of evos here in town who have.
Nope, not quite all of it. I have probably read about 70%-80% of it. I couldn't quite make it through the geneologies and other really boring, laborious parts of the OT, but I have read the gospels several times.
Have you read that much of anything by Darwin, Gould, Mayr or Dawkins?
quote:
Having said the above, there's a big difference in the reading of a book and the long time study of a book in depth, so whether one has read a book or has become apprised on the subject matter of a given subject are both considerations to consider.
Very true. A lot of what Hovind says and writes shows that he is clueless about much science and history.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Buzsaw, posted 04-13-2004 12:39 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Buzsaw, posted 04-14-2004 12:31 AM nator has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 127 (99830)
04-14-2004 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by nator
04-13-2004 9:47 PM


Many threads on this site alone deal with his nonsense. Haven't you ever read anything that disagrees with him with the slightest bit of open-mindedness?
I judge Hovind on what he gives credible evidence for which is a lot more than what you're giving him credit for. Have you actually heard him lecture for two hours at a sitting? I've heard him on two hour segments on TV several times and much of what he says is very credible and interesting stuff which I believe anyone would be hard pressed to refute. I'm not including the fire dragons in this, btw, but I'm not discounting it altogether either. Nor am I including in this his claim that there are a few dinosaurs around. I don't think so, but believe he in sincere in his belief that there are some. I believe he is very sincere in what he believes, whether right or wrong.
As to your question about my reading of Darwin, I've read very little except exerpts from time to time for research purposes, etc. Having said that, what have I said about him that you are ready to refute?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by nator, posted 04-13-2004 9:47 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by nator, posted 04-15-2004 1:20 AM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 127 (99834)
04-14-2004 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Coragyps
04-13-2004 1:24 PM


You understand incorrectly. The bioluminescent reactions I know of (and I did my proposition oral exam on them in grad school) don't generate noticeable heat. They just make visible light.
I didn't specify as to how much heat I simply stated that heat was involved in the bioluminescent chemical reaction. Certainly a bug is not going to produce a noticeable amount of heat compared to, say a large animal if the process were measured in proportion. Can you document that I am mistaken?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Coragyps, posted 04-13-2004 1:24 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by crashfrog, posted 04-14-2004 12:50 AM Buzsaw has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 103 of 127 (99836)
04-14-2004 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Buzsaw
04-14-2004 12:46 AM


Certainly a bug is not going to produce a noticeable amount of heat compared to, say a large animal if the process were measured in proportion.
You know those plastic light sticks that kids have around Halloween? They use the same chemicals, right?
I've never noticed them generate any heat whatsoever, and there's a considerable amount of chemical reaction occuring there.
So, yeah. I'd say that you're pretty much mistaken - it's a very, very low heat reaction. There's no amount of the chemicals involved that would generate the heat you're talking about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Buzsaw, posted 04-14-2004 12:46 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by RAZD, posted 04-14-2004 1:04 AM crashfrog has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 104 of 127 (99838)
04-14-2004 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by crashfrog
04-14-2004 12:50 AM


hot spray
a better model would be the bombadier beetle that actually ejects material rather than create a light inside.
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Bull's-eye beetle
(next up ... IC ... except that it is refuted by Dawkins already)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by crashfrog, posted 04-14-2004 12:50 AM crashfrog has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 105 of 127 (100136)
04-15-2004 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Buzsaw
04-14-2004 12:31 AM


quote:
I judge Hovind on what he gives credible evidence for which is a lot more than what you're giving him credit for.
OK, it's possible that all of us, including everybody at ICR and AiG, have misjudged him.
Perhapstoy would like to present Hovidn's alleged well-documented claims to see if they hold up to scrutiny?
I'd be happy to do all of the research if you present some of the claims you consider credible.
quote:
Have you actually heard him lecture for two hours at a sitting?
No. I have, however, read some transcripts of his speeches and also some radio broadcasts, and that's where I got the stuff about the fire-breathing dragons being bred by the Emporer of China.
quote:
I've heard him on two hour segments on TV several times and much of what he says is very credible and interesting stuff which I believe anyone would be hard pressed to refute.
OK, bring it on.
Just list his claims and I'll attempt to refute them.
quote:
I'm not including the fire dragons in this, btw, but I'm not discounting it altogether either. Nor am I including in this his claim that there are a few dinosaurs around. I don't think so, but believe he in sincere in his belief that there are some.
So, sincerety in belief makes it OK for him to repeat things that aren't supported by evidence?
quote:
I believe he is very sincere in what he believes, whether right or wrong.
There "sincere believers" in all sorts of things, including UFO's, Astrology, the existence of fairies, and of all the religions of the world.
The only reason you give Hovind the time of day is because he is telling you what you want to hear. The problem is, you don't know or care enough about the truth to find out for yourself if he is full of crap (as most people believe) or not.
quote:
As to your question about my reading of Darwin, I've read very little except exerpts from time to time for research purposes, etc. Having said that, what have I said about him that you are ready to refute?
That he was calling for the extermination of non-whites, or that he was any more racist than any other English Victorian Christian intellectual male.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Buzsaw, posted 04-14-2004 12:31 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Buzsaw, posted 04-16-2004 12:03 AM nator has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024