Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-16-2019 5:24 PM
31 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, jar, JonF, PaulK, RAZD, subbie, Tangle, xongsmith (9 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arnold Wolf
Post Volume:
Total: 853,866 Year: 8,902/19,786 Month: 1,324/2,119 Week: 84/576 Day: 84/50 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
Author Topic:   Defeating "Dr" Kent Hovinds' claims.
Codegate
Member
Posts: 84
From: The Great White North
Joined: 03-15-2006


Message 46 of 60 (350381)
09-19-2006 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by AdminNosy
09-19-2006 3:45 PM


Re: NosyNed is suspended for 12 hours
That's hillarious. Thank you very much for a nice good laugh out loud moment at work :D
This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by AdminNosy, posted 09-19-2006 3:45 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

  
Muhd
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 60 (350422)
09-19-2006 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by NosyNed
09-18-2006 11:15 PM


Re: poor examples
There are good reasons...

Really? Do share

...for thinking these are not problems and using them simply because they are not totally resolved issues only means you are using the very, very weak god-of-the-gaps theology. An approach that has, in all resolved cases, been shown to be wrong.

Well duh, of course it has been shown to be wrong in all resolved cases. The question is whether this is one of those things that will be resolved. Allow me to be a skeptic and say that I don't have the faith to believe that this one will be resolved.

Atheists all have faith to believe that one day, somehow, scientists will be able to explain something coming from nothing, or life arising from non-life which to me seems to require more blind faith than believing that some higher power did it.

Comparing the problem of the Origin of Life with lightning bolts and the water cycle is simply not going to get you anywhere. I could just as easily give you the typical creationists response and say that looking for a naturalist answer to the Origin of life is like looking for a natural process that creates wristwatches. In fact, I do say that it is more like wristwatches than lightning bolts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by NosyNed, posted 09-18-2006 11:15 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by sidelined, posted 09-19-2006 5:45 PM Muhd has not yet responded
 Message 51 by Parasomnium, posted 09-19-2006 6:18 PM Muhd has not yet responded
 Message 52 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-20-2006 7:12 AM Muhd has not yet responded

  
sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 60 (350437)
09-19-2006 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Muhd
09-19-2006 5:00 PM


Re: poor examples
Atheists all have faith to believe that one day, somehow, scientists will be able to explain something coming from nothing, or life arising from non-life which to me seems to require more blind faith than believing that some higher power did it.

I will set you straight on the matter right now. I am an atheist because I personally require evidence to be presented where in a logical case is made to support the contention that there is a supernatural aspect to life that can be demonstrated to exist and be amenable to investigation.
Since no effort at such evidence has ever been succesful under sceptical examination I have ,after many years, taken the stance that the likelihood of such is so vanishingly unlikely as to not warrant futher concern on my part. Thus I saddle myself with the label of atheist which is given more than its fair share of reckless misinterpretaion by those who feel that their impressions of what constitute an atheist is somehow clearer than those who actually consider themselves as such.

Comparing the problem of the Origin of Life with lightning bolts and the water cycle is simply not going to get you anywhere

If you think this is anywhere remotely close to the understanding of science as pertains to origins of life then you are sadly lacking in information.The interwoven nature of the laws of quantum mechanics applied to chemistry and from there to biochemical processes to life itself is well researched even though there are vast gaps in the details of how it all fits the general outline is quite well established.
It seems quite clear that the means by which such extraordinary complexity can arise is quite simply a failure of our imagination to make the leap into considering why such complexity arises from such simple rules and interactions of those rules and the enviroment they occupy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Muhd, posted 09-19-2006 5:00 PM Muhd has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 49 of 60 (350442)
09-19-2006 5:58 PM


We are talking about Hovind's Claims
Unless you can tie this more clearly to his claims you will get a suspension like that other loud mouth up there did.
Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by sidelined, posted 09-19-2006 6:03 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

  
sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 60 (350443)
09-19-2006 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by AdminNosy
09-19-2006 5:58 PM


Re: We are talking about Hovind's Claims
Nosyned

I apologize for the intrusion into the topic and I will pursue this in a seperate thread


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by AdminNosy, posted 09-19-2006 5:58 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

  
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 859 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 51 of 60 (350447)
09-19-2006 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Muhd
09-19-2006 5:00 PM


The Game of Blind Faith: the score so far
Muhd writes:

Atheists all have faith to believe that one day, somehow, scientists will be able to explain something coming from nothing, or life arising from non-life which to me seems to require more blind faith than believing that some higher power did it.

I don't know. Maybe scientists will one day find out that life has always existed and that the earth was just seeded from outer space. But I doubt that it requires more blind faith to believe that life arose from non-life than it does to believe that some higher power did it, because the former means that you only have to believe that life arose from non-life, whereas the latter requires you to believe that some higher power did it, as well as that said higher power has either always existed or arose from some lower power, or, God forbid, from non-power. The tally is: one thing to believe for the atheists, and two for the creationists. In the game of Blind Faith, the creationists are firmly in the lead.

looking for a naturalist answer to the Origin of life is like looking for a natural process that creates wristwatches

I own no less than eight mechanical wristwatches and I can tell you that, without exception, they were all the result of a natural process. Although I do admire their extraordinary skills, I do not think that watchmakers are supernatural entities. Do you see the error in your rhetoric, or do you need someone to spell it out for you?


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Muhd, posted 09-19-2006 5:00 PM Muhd has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16095
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 52 of 60 (350590)
09-20-2006 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Muhd
09-19-2006 5:00 PM


Everything I have ever seen has obeyed the laws of nature. Nothing I have ever seen has been supernatural. Nor have I ever heard a verifiable report of a supernatural event. Hence, I have the strongest possible empirical grounds for the conclusion that the origin of life took place within the laws of nature rather than in violation of them. Faith is not required.

You yourself would take this attitude most of the time. If you saw a conjuror make an elephant disappear, and you didn't know how he did it, you wouldn't conclude that he really had magical powers, would you? But when you come across something in biology you don't understand, then its time to roll out the good ol' god-of-the-gaps fallacy: because when it comes to religion, you need to play by different epistemological rules.

As far as the origin of life goes, you might want to look up what happens when you mix amino acids with Q-β replicase. No deities are involved.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Muhd, posted 09-19-2006 5:00 PM Muhd has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Casey Powell, posted 01-04-2007 1:11 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Casey Powell 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 53 of 60 (374402)
01-04-2007 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Fork
08-12-2006 9:32 AM


I'm sorry....but, I feel bad for your friend. Hovind's not even got credible Scientific credentials.

I'm a YECS by the way...and I think Hovind's a complete fraud.

Tell him to rely on Dr. Jonathan Sarfati and Dr. Gary Bates's works instead.

Edited by Casey Powell, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Fork, posted 08-12-2006 9:32 AM Fork has not yet responded

  
Casey Powell 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 54 of 60 (374403)
01-04-2007 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Dr Adequate
09-20-2006 7:12 AM


I already see a problem with that.

You assume that Supernaturalism violates the Laws of Nature.

Not really, if God decides to implant a spermozoa into a virgin, the virgin goes through a 9 month process of birth just like any other pregnant women would, with the birth pains and the like being applicable.

Let me ask you this question.

If I pick up a chair, do I violate the Law of Gravity?

No.

So why is it a problem if God picks up a chair?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-20-2006 7:12 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Brian, posted 01-04-2007 2:04 PM Casey Powell has responded

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 3122 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 55 of 60 (374423)
01-04-2007 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Casey Powell
01-04-2007 1:11 PM


Does the law of gravity dictate that you shouldn't be able to pick up the chair?

Brian.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Casey Powell, posted 01-04-2007 1:11 PM Casey Powell has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Casey Powell, posted 01-04-2007 2:12 PM Brian has responded

    
Casey Powell 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 56 of 60 (374427)
01-04-2007 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Brian
01-04-2007 2:04 PM


Does the law of gravity dictate that God shouldn't be able to pick up the chair?

I'm already anticipating David Hume nonsense, so go ahead and bring it on.

Edited by Casey Powell, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Brian, posted 01-04-2007 2:04 PM Brian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Brian, posted 01-04-2007 3:14 PM Casey Powell has not yet responded

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 3122 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 57 of 60 (374446)
01-04-2007 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Casey Powell
01-04-2007 2:12 PM


Can you answer the question?

Brian.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Casey Powell, posted 01-04-2007 2:12 PM Casey Powell has not yet responded

    
Isaac
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 60 (374579)
01-04-2007 9:03 PM


Wo cares what kind of claim this dishonest criminal makes? You'd have to be a certified ignoramus to give any sort credibility to his farcical claims and argument.

Edited by Isana Kadeb, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by dwise1, posted 01-05-2007 12:59 AM Isaac has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3490
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 59 of 60 (374628)
01-05-2007 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Isaac
01-04-2007 9:03 PM


Wo cares what kind of claim this dishonest criminal makes? You'd have to be a certified ignoramus to give any sort credibility to his farcical claims and argument.

I agree. However, it does seem that the vast majority of YECs do believe Hovind to be one of the greatest living scientific authorities. Casey Powell's statements here are very rare, a YEC who denounces Hovind.

YECs' veneration of Hovind can be surprisingly extreme. In a Yahoo discussion group, a YEC repeated some Hovind claims so I pointed out that they were wrong and preceisely why they were wrong. In response, the YEC vehmently denounced me for having "made a vicious attack against Christianity". WTFO? This YEC had elevated Hovind to a level equal to the Christ and Christianity.

So we care about what that charlatan does and says because he has so many YECs completely hoodwinked. But the good news is that it's so easy to refute his ridiculous claims. The bad news is that the YECS have been hoodwinked into believing that if Hovind's claims are false, then the Bible itself is false and they must become hedonist atheists. Or worse. And I have so far found it virtually impossible to convince one of them that their faith does not depend on Hovind's claims being true.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Isaac, posted 01-04-2007 9:03 PM Isaac has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by anglagard, posted 01-05-2007 1:39 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2189
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 60 of 60 (374633)
01-05-2007 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by dwise1
01-05-2007 12:59 AM


Ain't it the Truth
dwise1 writes:

YECs' veneration of Hovind can be surprisingly extreme. In a Yahoo discussion group, a YEC repeated some Hovind claims so I pointed out that they were wrong and preceisely why they were wrong. In response, the YEC vehmently denounced me for having "made a vicious attack against Christianity". WTFO? This YEC had elevated Hovind to a level equal to the Christ and Christianity.

You beat me to the punch, I was going to post a similar response but yours is more eloquent.

To me, the YEC elevation of Hovind et. al. above any other scholar of religion and science, indeed often seemingly over any figure mentioned in the Bible, is a delusion as troubling as the similar elevation of Koresh, Jones, and Manson to similar status.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by dwise1, posted 01-05-2007 12:59 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
Prev123
4
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019