if you approach this with an open mind, rather than a mind that says "evolution is a fact, then the things that Hovind says are credible, although not necessarily infallible.
today there are turtles that apparantly do not stop growing, nor do they age. they die because of disease or injury. so lizards growing forever doesnt seem silly. it's pretty scientific to me.
and about the national geographic claiming no man seeing a dinosaur, he seemed to be making a point that national geogrphic was making an assumption that men and dinosaurs never coexisted. so, for him to make this claim doesn't seem silly either. Hovind questioning that statement that was based on assumption seems to me like an argument where science is used, at least to some degree.
all im saying, of course, is that Hovind seems like a nut-case if evolution (specifically specialized, ie. macro-evolution) is your religion.
however, if macro-evolution is not something you're willing to just believe in simply because the media and leading scientific community says it is fact, then Hovind doesnt seem nutty at all (instead it's the folks who thinks he's nutty that seems, well, narrow-mindedly nutty).
then there's people like me, who can admire Hovind' efforts simply because he makes an honest effort by TRYING to be scientific on a topic where the majority holds as factual even though it itself even based on solid, fundamental science in the first place.
allow me to close with this:
i saw a show on PBS once with Carl Sagan hosting a show about the cosmos and evolution. He stated, right in front of the camera, that "evolution is not a theory, it is a fact." And that statement i believe pretty such says it all. it's how the majority thinks. review the scientific method, then review the "theory of evolution" (the theory being we have a common ancestor from millions of years ago) and you'll see that this theory is only a theory, not a fact. And this theory is different from laws, like the law of gravity.
anyway, enough for now. cheers!
Dinosaurs and Evangelism
I think I'm going to start rewriting the Bible, taking this into consideration.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...and frickin' dinosaurs!"[wink]
This is quite possibly the greatest thing I have ever seen.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...and frickin' dinosaurs!"[wink]
This is quite possibly the greatest thing I have ever seen.
I find it difficult to come to terms with such ignorance. He just can't be a thinking being at the level of most humans.
What about the part where he says that there used to be a layer of water outside the atmosphere..? He will obviously stop at nothing to show that every quote from the Bible is a literal truth, and will not consider anything to the contrary.
What about the part where he says that there used to be a layer of water outside the atmosphere..? He will obviously stop at nothing to show that every quote from the Bible is a literal truth, and will not consider anything to the contrary.
Quote:Original post by GekkoCube
if you approach this with an open mind, rather than a mind that says "evolution is a fact, then the things that Hovind says are credible, although not necessarily infallible.
Do you think Hovind has an open mind? I don't.
Quote:Original post by GekkoCube
today there are turtles that apparantly do not stop growing, nor do they age. they die because of disease or injury. so lizards growing forever doesnt seem silly. it's pretty scientific to me.
Do you have a reference link about the particular species of turtle that never stops growing so that I can learn more about it?
Quote:Original post by GekkoCube
and about the national geographic claiming no man seeing a dinosaur, he seemed to be making a point that national geogrphic was making an assumption that men and dinosaurs never coexisted. so, for him to make this claim doesn't seem silly either. Hovind questioning that statement that was based on assumption seems to me like an argument where science is used, at least to some degree.
Seems to me that assumption is backed up with carbon dating evidence.
Quote:Original post by GekkoCube
all im saying, of course, is that Hovind seems like a nut-case if evolution (specifically specialized, ie. macro-evolution) is your religion.
Evolution isn't a religion.
Quote:Original post by GekkoCube
however, if macro-evolution is not something you're willing to just believe in simply because the media and leading scientific community says it is fact, then Hovind doesnt seem nutty at all (instead it's the folks who thinks he's nutty that seems, well, narrow-mindedly nutty).
How then do you account for the claim that other young earth theorists find Hovind to be an embarassment?
Quote:Original post by GekkoCube
then there's people like me, who can admire Hovind' efforts simply because he makes an honest effort by TRYING to be scientific on a topic where the majority holds as factual even though it itself even based on solid, fundamental science in the first place.
How honest can Hovind be when he got his doctorate from a diploma mill? Do people like you also admire confidence men simply because they make an honest effort trying to pull off their fraduluent schemes?
Quote:Original post by GekkoCube
allow me to close with this:
i saw a show on PBS once with Carl Sagan hosting a show about the cosmos and evolution. He stated, right in front of the camera, that "evolution is not a theory, it is a fact." And that statement i believe pretty such says it all. it's how the majority thinks. review the scientific method, then review the "theory of evolution" (the theory being we have a common ancestor from millions of years ago) and you'll see that this theory is only a theory, not a fact. And this theory is different from laws, like the law of gravity.
You're confusing theory with hypothesis. And in attempting to distinguish between theory and law in the case of gravity, you're overlooking the last 100 years of physics.
If you open your mind too wide, bad things get in.
Sometimes you need a grain of salt. Sometimes you need the entire shaker.
Sometimes you need a grain of salt. Sometimes you need the entire shaker.
I've seen that whole thing before. I also listened to David Icke talk for 6 hours. I don't know what that says about me, but I'm sure it's probably not good.
Quote:Original post by matt_j
I did some research a while ago. Hovind is a nutjob who makes Jack Thompson look sane.
Me too, you dont really have to go too far to find out that the good doctor's credentials are shaky at best, just ask Wikipedia.
Edit: I do agree that Social Security is a sort of Ponzi Scheme though.
"There use to be a layer of water above the atmosophere. Some people think it was ice, I don't know whether it was solid, liquid or gas, water comes in three flavours, I don't know. But somehow there was water up there, how it was up there, I don't know. The bible says it was and I believe that".
... Wow.
[EDIT] He was interviewed on Da Ali G Show: " target="_blank">Ali G Interviews Kent Hovind.
[Edited by - Rob Loach on June 4, 2006 12:44:59 AM]
... Wow.
[EDIT] He was interviewed on Da Ali G Show: " target="_blank">Ali G Interviews Kent Hovind.
[Edited by - Rob Loach on June 4, 2006 12:44:59 AM]
Quote:Original post by Rob Loach
"There use to be a layer of water above the atmosophere. Some people think it was ice, I don't know whether it was solid, liquid or gas, water comes in three flavours, I don't know. But somehow there was water up there, how it was up there, I don't know. The bible says it was and I believe that".
... Wow.
"Maybe it was suspended by the Earth's magnetic field ..." (paraphrase)
I wasn't aware that ice was particularly magnetic.
Anyway, I got through 13 minutes of him making a single point and then reiterating it for 5 minutes before I realised there were many more important things I could be doing.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
