Hovind: Lies in the Textbook

As I've said before, I don't agree with everything he teaches, but to say it's all false is a gross meanspirited and biased exaggeration on your part. The fair thing to do is to critique what you don't agree with and allow due credit for the rest.

From what I've read, there are three common and widely taught states of matter. Whether plazma, occuring at extremely high temperatures like on the sun, is a fourth, is debated among some scientists due to the question as to whether it's a gas or not. To label Hovind a liar for using what many secular teachers teach is biased meanspiritedness on your part, imo.

You said: Look, Maybe they talk about there being only 3 states of matter in elemetary school, or in Jr. High. But I challenge you to find a physisist who claims that there are only 3 states of matter.Here is a website devoted to KIDS where they talk about plasma as a forth state of matter:Chem4Kids.com: Matter: States of MatterHow about this from WikepediaState of matter - WikipediaNotice they talk about even more states of matter than I listed.Why don't you find some bold claims Hovind makes that you actualy want to defend and we will see if they are true or not.Otherwise we are just waisting time, becase any claim we refute you can say you don't agree with. What DO you agree with?

Buzzsaw says: Why don't you tell us what we should give due credit for?

As noted by others, why don't you tell us what you do agree with?

Can you pull up the context of Hovind's usage of the term, "3 states of matter"? Hovind's audiences are laity and not physists. Just as there's a number of pages of references in google to "three states of energy", including one from perdue, so should Hovind be allowed the priviledge of that usage for his constituents without him being labeled a liar for it.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 12-12-2004 11:57 PM

How about we give him mistaken on this one and liar on some of the others? Would that do? I'm not aware of the context of his use of the 3 states of matter so I don't know if it is a significant mistake or not. Perhaps a tempest in a teapot?Perhaps you can give us two or three that you think he has right. On more substantive issues perhaps. It is beginning to look like you're avoiding doing that Buz.ABE
uh, where did the "3 states of energy" come from??? I thought we were talkinga bout states of matter?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-12-2004 11:20 PM

From what I just read on the Wiki article, the ambiguity isn't that they don't know if plasma is a gas or not - it's that, at high temperatures and pressures, gases and liquids are indistiguishable.And of course, when you have only a few atoms - less than several thousand - they exist in absolutely no state at all. This is because the states of matter are not some kind of fundamental organizing principle, but rather ambiguous epiphenomena that emerge from a system containing a sufficient number of atoms.So, no matter how many "states" there are, the number is functionally meaningless, be it 3 or any other number; and so should certainly not be taken as an instance of some kind of "magic number", as I sense Hovind was trying to do.

I agree with quite a lot of his stuff, like ID, no big bang, and such, but, I must admit, there's not much of his stuff you people could agree with.What bothers me is that people are ever so anxious to catagorize so much of his stuff as deliberate lies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think he tries to keep it simple and relative to things commonly observed on earth for his audiences, much like many school teachers do. I don't blame him for that. For some audiences it may be good for him to mention plasma being regarded by many as a 4th. Maybe he does on occasion. I don't know as it's not often I get him on tv.

Thanks Ned. I edited the mistake. I wasn't avoiding response about some things I agree with per Hovind. I was having a hard time bringing up Evc pages for a spell, but that corrected after a while.

Could someone point me at the discussion Hovind gives using the states of matter? I don't remember seeing a direct quote.

I don't know if there are any transcripts of his videos or debates where he mentions the 3 states of matter but I have seen it in the videos a couple of times.It is always a quick smatter with no depth used to make you feel all warm and fuzzy about a correlation between trinity in nature and the Christian Trinity. Not like Hovind goes into any depth on anything else anyway but I have only seen him talk about it with an superficial treatment.I wouldn't waste your time watching the videos to find it.

Well if that is what he is doing then Buz's comments about it not mattering so much and that Hovind is simply making it simpler for the laity are wrong.Hovind's whole point falls to peices unless the number of states of matter is exactly and precisely three. Since they are not, and he has had lots of opportunity to know that he is a liar.

Right, but he's "keeping it simple" so that his audience will believe things about the universe that simply aren't true. Remember that Hovind's point is that a lot of scientists are just plain wrong. Being wrong about science himself undercuts that point.The universe is not a simple place, Buz. There's nothing to be gained, and much to be lost, by glossing over that complexity to make your point more compelling to an audience of laity. Hovind needs to raise his standards. His audience will follow.