Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   Jared v. Hovind
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 46 of 60 (306061)
04-23-2006 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by crashfrog
04-22-2006 9:21 PM


sunflowers, bees, hypocrisy
I think Buzz basically covered this one. I was simplifying down since I didn't think it necessary to take it into detail (perhaps I should have known EvCs pedants would make that difficult). To expand slightly, Hovind was talking about the primary energy source for worker bees; which is not honey, but nectar. I put the source on there, and you can find a transcript of it online.
The quote goes like this:
Hovind writes:
Did you know honeybees not only make honey, they fly on honey. That’s their energy source. And a honeybee can fly a million miles on one gallon of honey.
His general point is valid, bees can fly a long way on a gallon of nectar. Now some bees do eat honey, even worker bees. They use it to try and survive the winter (or help regulate temperature of the hive), but they don't waste their energy flying on it (there's no food to fly to).
Just to carry on Hovind's craziness, a bit further down that page he says an absolute classic:
Hovind writes:
Well, now, hold it. If you want to just pick one item and that’s supposed to prove relationship, did you know that human Cytochrome c is closest to a sunflower?
I have difficulty accepting this is a sincere error, I believe that the seminar is dated about 1990, so the 'net wasn't so useful back then. Here are the sequences:
Human cytochrome writes:
mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne
Source
Chimp writes:
mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne
Source
Sunflower writes:
masfaeapag npttgekifk tkcaqchtve kgaghkqgpn lnglfgrqsg ttagysysag nknkaviwee ntlydyllnp kkyipgtkmv fpgpkkpqer adliaylkts ta
Souce
So either Hovind is lying, or he simply doesn't put one iota of effort into his research and just believes what some people tell him. Hearkening back to what I was saying to Buzz (and I'm guessing you'd agree anyway), it doesn't matter if he's right about Creation, he's still wrong about basic science (and sometimes massively so!). And it's still intellectually dangerous to lie/teach falsehoods (ironically in a seminar criticizing teaching falsehoods). Oh bugger it, I'll let Hovind express my opinion on the matter:
paraphrased Hovind writes:
So [Hovind]...is either ignorant of [science]and should not be [teaching] it, or he’s a liar trying to promote his theory. I guess we can give him the benefit of the doubt and call him dumb. I hope he’s not lying to the kids deliberately.
(original quote was crticizing a book author for saying whales have vestigial pelvises and can be found in context at the source used above)
So there you go - Hovind thinks that those who lie or are ignorant of a given subject shouldn't be teaching it. We have shown that he is either of the above and the same applies to him as it does to others.
I don't know if Hovind has changed his tune on the cytochrome front yet, I certainly hope he has since it has been pointed out a number of times - and I hope he wouldn't deliberately let falsehoods be taught to kids. He discussed it with Jared Hoag (yay, back on topic) last year, check out the discussions around June 8th, 2005 on the link provided in the OP. I'll listen to them as soon as I am able to see if Hovind is still using this old chestnut. For some reason I can't get to his website at the moment to see if its on there.
This message has been edited by Modulous, Sun, 23-April-2006 09:20 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 04-22-2006 9:21 PM crashfrog has not replied

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


Message 47 of 60 (306078)
04-23-2006 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Jazzns
04-21-2006 8:44 AM


Re: Curious
quote:
Combine that with my impression that most of his seminars have that "used care salesman/pyramid scheme/rapid fire handy-dandy-mixer-dicer" look and feel, I would hope that most YECs would at least disown him in favor of the more legitimate YEC resources like AIG and ICR that are at least capable of abandoning arguments that are so long refuted as to be rediculous.
Unfortunately, from personal experience and also general observation, many devout fundy-types tend to simply accept and believe anyone who shares their religious beliefs, no matter how preposterous their claims are.
I had a Mormon friend who used to send me all of these silly urban legend warning e-mails that had been circulated among her curch driends. I finally got concerned enough to start doing a few minutes research on them, found that they were drivel and sent replies to my friend and all of the people on the forward list.
She was FURIOUS with me for giving her better, more reputable information because it contradicted what her nice, implicitly-trusted religious friends told her. I thought she and all of her friends would want to know that, according to current research, using deoderant probably did not give women a higher risk of getting breast cancer, but I guess not.
No good deed goes unpunished.
Political true-believers are exactly the same way, BTW.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Jazzns, posted 04-21-2006 8:44 AM Jazzns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Buzsaw, posted 04-23-2006 9:52 AM nator has replied

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


Message 48 of 60 (306079)
04-23-2006 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Faith
04-21-2006 11:14 AM


quote:
No, I don't follow Hovind. But I know from experience that creationists may be accused of being deceitful when they are not.
Which is worse; being so willfully ignorant and stupid that you promote extremely wrong facts and ideas even though you have been demonstrated to be wrong many times, or being such a good con-man that you are able to take advantage of many people's ignorance and gullibility in order to make a living?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 04-21-2006 11:14 AM Faith has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 60 (306084)
04-23-2006 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by nator
04-23-2006 7:49 AM


Re: Curious
Schraf writes:
Unfortunately, from personal experience and also general observation, many devout fundy-types tend to simply accept and believe anyone who shares their religious beliefs, no matter how preposterous their claims are.
From personal experience and also general observation, many highly educated secular science fundy-types tend to simply accept and believe what they've been taught, no matter how preposterously illogical (abe: some of) their claims are.
This message has been edited by buzsaw, 04-23-2006 10:30 PM

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by nator, posted 04-23-2006 7:49 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-23-2006 9:59 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 51 by cavediver, posted 04-23-2006 10:36 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 04-23-2006 10:39 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 53 by nator, posted 04-23-2006 6:05 PM Buzsaw has replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 50 of 60 (306085)
04-23-2006 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Buzsaw
04-23-2006 9:52 AM


Re: Curious
says you.
i suppose that we should stop believing that cells divide and are, in fact, spoken into existence each time there needs to be another one. in spite of the fact that we can watch them divide and can check the dna of the daughter cells and see that they are, in fact, divided from an original cell.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Buzsaw, posted 04-23-2006 9:52 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Buzsaw, posted 04-23-2006 10:45 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 51 of 60 (306088)
04-23-2006 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Buzsaw
04-23-2006 9:52 AM


Re: Curious
many highly educated secular science fundy-types tend to simply accept and believe what they've been taught, no matter how preposterously illogical their claims are.
So where did these preposterously illogical claims come from Buzz? Was Einstein such an immense retard yet supremely clever at passing on his bullshit so that everyone else just believed him?
We have got universities around the world packed with doctors and professors saying that this stuff is exceptionally logical, just hard to grasp, and we have YOU saying it's illogical... do you really set yourself up so high Buzz?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Buzsaw, posted 04-23-2006 9:52 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Buzsaw, posted 04-23-2006 11:18 PM cavediver has not replied

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


Message 52 of 60 (306092)
04-23-2006 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Buzsaw
04-23-2006 9:52 AM


Re: Curious
From personal experience and also general observation, many highly educated secular science fundy-types tend to simply accept and believe what they've been taught, no matter how preposterously illogical their claims are.
Uh-huh. Actually, you've just proved something that I've long suspected from "personal experience and general observation" - fundamentalist Christians are so brainwashed into simply accepting what they've been told by their religious community that they simply assume their opponents operate in the exact same way.
Not everyone is like you, Buz.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Buzsaw, posted 04-23-2006 9:52 AM Buzsaw has not replied

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


Message 53 of 60 (306171)
04-23-2006 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Buzsaw
04-23-2006 9:52 AM


Re: Curious
quote:
From personal experience and also general observation, many highly educated secular science fundy-types tend to simply accept and believe what they've been taught, no matter how preposterously illogical their claims are.
Lemme guess.
You've never been in the presence of any two (or more) scientists in the same field of expertise, have you Buz?
You've also completely ignored all of the corrections, debates, and outright fights that we science-minded folks get into with each other over evidence and interpretation and whatnot.
Contrary to what you think, people with high levels of education tend to blindly accept much less of what they are told simply because they have the intellect, training, and practice to think for themselves.
Why do you hate intellectuals so much?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Buzsaw, posted 04-23-2006 9:52 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Buzsaw, posted 04-23-2006 10:55 PM nator has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 60 (306209)
04-23-2006 10:27 PM


Re: Correction In Order
To be fair I should have added two words to my statement. Those two words are some of, making the phrase .....some of their claims..... Obviously I was copying some of Schraf's terms which she used to apply to many devout fundie types in her quite caustic complaint about religious folks and this was one of them.
I'll go ahead and edit in the two words.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 60 (306214)
04-23-2006 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by macaroniandcheese
04-23-2006 9:59 AM


Re: Curious
Bren, like Schraf, I did not specify which claims which were preposterously illogical and like Schraf's post about religious fundy-types, I didn't say all secularist scientists were preposterously illogical.
Furthermore, to get into specifics would be leading this thread off topic, so like Schraf, I don't intend to stray into off topic specifics applicable to other topics.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-23-2006 9:59 AM macaroniandcheese has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 60 (306218)
04-23-2006 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by nator
04-23-2006 6:05 PM


Re: Curious
Schraf writes:
You've also completely ignored all of the corrections, debates, and outright fights that we science-minded folks get into with each other over evidence and interpretation and whatnot.
Well Schraf, madear, it appears that you've also completely ignored all of the corrections, debates, and outright fights that we religious fundy-type folks get into with each other over evidence and interpretation and whatnot.
Edit for typo
This message has been edited by buzsaw, 04-23-2006 10:56 PM

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by nator, posted 04-23-2006 6:05 PM nator has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 60 (306224)
04-23-2006 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by cavediver
04-23-2006 10:36 AM


Re: Curious
cavediver writes:
and we have YOU saying it's illogical...
I did not specify the preposterously illogical. I've been told by some of you folks that much about science is illogical, so why are you so upset about my comment?
cavediver writes:
do you really set yourself up so high Buzz?
Well, er, I was engaging in a joust with Schrafinator's charge on her high horse.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by cavediver, posted 04-23-2006 10:36 AM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Modulous, posted 04-24-2006 8:36 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 58 of 60 (306260)
04-24-2006 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Buzsaw
04-23-2006 11:18 PM


Re: Curious
I've been told by some of you folks that much about science is illogical, so why are you so upset about my comment?
Some of the things we have learned about the universe seem illogical because they don't make 'sense'. As far as I am aware, high level physics is rigidly logical since it is based on maths, it just produces results that are so alien to our experience that they feel 'wrong' in some way.
Hence, when dealing with such concepts as cosmology, it pays to go with the actual logic and ignore our logic-sense. Unfortunately the actual logic (maths) can be difficult to follow without a lot of training.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Buzsaw, posted 04-23-2006 11:18 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 60 (306283)
04-24-2006 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Buzsaw
04-21-2006 10:07 PM


Re: Hovind Right On Much
What our friends are not admitting is that even if Hovind is wrong on some things, he's is either right on much of what he says, or at least has a viable/sensible argument for many of his alternative interpretations of what is observed scientifically.
From the site I linked to earlier:
"The electromagnetic spectrum contains all the different wavelengths. Radio waves, microwaves, X-rays, radar, sonar, including a small piece in the middle called light."
"I say, you guys have to get two cells to evolve from the [primordial] soup - of the opposite sex, in the same place, at the same time. It's a big world, you know, cells are kind of small - they've got to find each other."
"Hey, did you know the word 'universe' comes from two Latin words? Uni means single and verse means a spoken sentence."
"In 1271 A.D. Marco Polo came back from China and reported that the Emperor of China was raising dragons to pull his chariots in parades. Now why on earth would Marco Polo say something like that just 700 years ago? Well, I think he probably said that because the Emperor of China was raising dragons to pull his chariots in parades."
"If you are traveling down the highway at sixty miles an hour, and turn your headlights on, how fast is the light going from your headlights? Compared to you, it is going at the speed of light. Compared to someone on the sidewalk it is going at the speed of light plus sixty miles an hour."
"See, the Sun puts off a lot of stuff besides light. It puts off X rays, gamma rays, beta rays - and all them ray boys come down here and they're pretty hard on your carcass... Long-term exposure to X rays is dangerous but here we are getting X rayed every day of our life."
"Man has done almost nothing to the ozone. In fact, my understanding is that the last time scientists measured the ozone layer, it was thicker than it was the first time they measured it."
My personal favorite... "I did not even know what being a humanist meant. I was only sixteen, and the brain doesn't even start developing until about twenty."
"Therefore, there may not be any other stars in the solar system that have planets around them."
"A lot of things - like allergies - are directly related to problems in the back and neck. A chiropractor can fix a lot of them."

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Buzsaw, posted 04-21-2006 10:07 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 60 of 60 (306287)
04-24-2006 10:44 AM


Thread copied to the Jared v. Hovind thread in the Is It Science? forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024