Reed A. Cartwright posted Entry 3006 on March 22, 2007 12:48 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/2996

I’m not sure what they are, but there is apparently a site offering free hovinds: FreeHovind.Com. Can anybody tell me what a hovind is before I order a free one?

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Post a Comment

Use KwickXML formatting to markup your comments: <b>, <i>, <u> <s>, <quote author="...">, <url href="...">, etc. You may need to refresh before you will see your comment.




Remember personal info?

  


Comment #166399

Posted by entlord on March 22, 2007 1:00 PM (e)

I notice one section is dedicated to having a petition for the President to pardon DR Hovind. (after all, Clinton pardoned some really terrible people).
However, the pardons by this Administration may be used up by Scooter and possible future former administration aides and staff and officials.

Comment #166401

Posted by 386sx on March 22, 2007 1:04 PM (e)

This is a hovind:

http://www.evangelicalright.com/JesusDino.jpg

I think it’s supposed to be something like a centaur.

Comment #166406

Posted by Dr. J. M. on March 22, 2007 1:10 PM (e)

Free hovinds? Sounds interesting… Even though I ain’t got no purpose for one, it’s free nonetheless! And even though I also don’t know what a hovind is, I’ll still get one, since they are (you guessed it) for free.

Comment #166408

Posted by Mike Kinsella on March 22, 2007 1:13 PM (e)

I think it must be something like a “free radical”. As in the chant “Free (all) Radicals” in the 60s.

Comment #166410

Posted by Raging Bee on March 22, 2007 1:37 PM (e)

Is is like those free creationist textbooks put out by Harun Yahya? If so, it’s grossly overpriced.

Comment #166411

Posted by Pat Hayes on March 22, 2007 1:40 PM (e)

I’m curious, is the site offering these Free Hovinds in any way connected to a solicitor working for a bank in Nigeria?

Comment #166412

Posted by Vyoma on March 22, 2007 1:41 PM (e)

For some reason, the idea of receiving a “free hovind” reminds me of a line from a Woody Allen movie. To paraphrase, “The food is terrible, but the portions are huge!”

Comment #166416

Posted by Frank J on March 22, 2007 2:32 PM (e)

Reed A. Cartwright wrote:

Can anybody tell me what a hovind is before I order a free one?

There’s no such thing as a free hovind. But I hear that Dembski will throw one in with an order of Jello.

Comment #166417

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on March 22, 2007 2:35 PM (e)

Mmm…. What flavor of Jello?

Comment #166418

Posted by J-Dog on March 22, 2007 2:37 PM (e)

I went to the site, and though I didn’t want to register and login, I do have a great idea for their Forum:

They should immedediately start praying that Kent gets sacrificed in prison, so he can be a true martyer! Just like the saints and The Lord God too!

But seriously… If there really WERE a God, there would be a Keep Hovind In Jail Longer Site. And I would be able to click on my computer screen and send him a couple of hundred volts, just for the fun of it.

Comment #166421

Posted by bigjohn756 on March 22, 2007 2:51 PM (e)

At the least, you must get the free videos from this site. I downloaded them long ago after I saw them on local TV. I couldn’t tolerate an entire session on TV, so I thought if I had them on my computer, then, I would be able to manage small portions at a time. It is amazing how small those portions turn out to be. It takes but a few minutes before my brains hurt and I begin to feel nauseated. The Junior High School level ridicule, non sequiturs, completely ridiculous science, and enormous leaps of “logic” will soon leave your head spinning. Note the audience’s expressions and you will see evidence of a similar problem.

Comment #166426

Posted by Rev. Jacob Meoff on March 22, 2007 3:47 PM (e)

Hovey you be my woman now. Just pick up the soap.

Comment #166427

Posted by Shenda on March 22, 2007 3:51 PM (e)

“Free hovinds? Sounds interesting… Even though I ain’t got no purpose for one, it’s free nonetheless! And even though I also don’t know what a hovind is, I’ll still get one, since they are (you guessed it) for free.”

They may be free, but I hear that the upkeep is pretty expensive. Not to mention their annoying habits and potential side effects (such as causing your head to implode). Get an Irish Setter instead – they are far more intelligent and much better company. They also leave less of a mess.

Comment #166428

Posted by RM on March 22, 2007 3:51 PM (e)

Here is another site offering free hovinds - the Norwegian telephone book

http://www.gulesider.no/tk/search.c?q=hovind

There are 792 of them with various spelling variants: Hovind, Hovin, Hofvind
etc. and including those who have Hovind as a middle name. There are
also Hovinds in Denmark but I haven’t checked how common they are there.

Does Kent Hovind have his last name from Scandinavia and, if so, from which country?

Comment #166440

Posted by TheBlackCat on March 22, 2007 4:24 PM (e)

Reed A. Cartwright wrote:

Mmm…. What flavor of Jello?

It’s a really special flavor that can only be tasted by people who have faith that the flavor exists.

Comment #166442

Posted by Gene Goldring on March 22, 2007 4:37 PM (e)

I live in Canada so would I have to pay any kind of a tax on a free hovind?

Comment #166446

Posted by Frank J on March 22, 2007 4:49 PM (e)

Reed A. Cartwright wrote:

Mmm…. What flavor of Jello?

You won’t like it. It tastes like disappearing ink.

Comment #166448

Posted by DrDinoIsMyBitch on March 22, 2007 4:53 PM (e)

I live in Canada so would I have to pay any kind of a tax on a free hovind?

No, once you are the proud owner of a Hovind, you will ever have to pay tax ever again!

Comment #166452

Posted by bill on March 22, 2007 5:42 PM (e)

I don’t see why there is so much animosity towards Hovind? Maybe he’s right…throw a stone up a dark alley,and if you hear a squeal,you know you’ve hit something.If so,he seems to have hurt many people(with his stones) who’s names he’s never mentioned .Maybe the thing to do is ask why? If his stones(facts&figures)had no substance…they wouldn’t hurt! If they had no substance,he should have been debated into oblivion by now!!On the contrary,it seems other ways had to be proposed to stop him.I’ve heard a lot of ad hominid attacks on Hovind,but not many concerted efforts to address the points he makes(albeit..some of the points he makes,have been picked up from dubious interpretations)
As far as his humor…well he says his seminars are for all ages,so its to hold their attention.
I don’t think Hovind utters absolute truth…but then who does?? He condenses quite alot of important information from professional academics,and i think that instead of ridiculing the messenger,the focus should be on addressing the message.

Comment #166453

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on March 22, 2007 5:44 PM (e)

Hovind is a shameless liar and cheat. Why shouldn’t that make honest people angry?

Comment #166457

Posted by Brian McEnnis on March 22, 2007 6:44 PM (e)

bill wrote:

I’ve heard a lot of ad hominid [sic] attacks on Hovind,but not many concerted efforts to address the points he makes

Hovind makes some points?

Bill, pick out your favorite Hovind “point” and check it out on TalkOrigins’ Index of Creationist Claims. I’m sure you’ll find it there, along with a concerted effort to address it.

On the outside chance that you don’t find it, or if you just want to give the Panda’s Thumb regulars an opportunity to have some fun, then bring it over here. We’ll happily address any Hovind “point” that you think may have been ignored.

By the way, if a liar and a tax fraud is called a liar and a tax fraud, that’s not an ad hominem attack. (It may be an ad hominid attack, but that’s a completely different issue.)

We all look forward to your Hovind advocacy. Please bring his “points” over here one “point” at a time. Wait until one is debunked before you bring the next.

Comment #166480

Posted by stevaroni on March 22, 2007 10:07 PM (e)

Oh this site is priceless!

I especially like the “Latest Official Blogs” postings, like the one named “Update from Bunk Three”.

You could simply not make this kind of stuff up! Nobody would believe you!

Meanwhile, out from bunk three pour ever greater gems of Ken’s undaunted wisdom, like this one …

“… the day before my thirty-third anniversary, my wife and I were arrested without notice or warning that the IRS thought we were doing something unlawful. We were shocked to say the least.”

Yup, that one came right out of the clear, blue sky there, Ken.

But fear not, gentle readers, even in the absence of out fearless Ken, somehow his team soldiers on…

“Eric has done a great job managing things in my absence. He continues to do creation seminars as well. Dinosaur Adventure Land is still open for Winter Park hours, Thursday through Saturday, 10:00 - 5:00. The park hosted about 80 this past Saturday.”

Hosting? Does that mean paid admissions? If Saturday is the busy day there, that means that Erick has a thriving theme park there, “hosting” maybe 200 visitors a week.

I’ll put money down that “Eric” makes damned sure that he checks the numbers twice when he sends in a check for the payroll taxes every single week, probably by certified mail with a delivery confirmation requested .

Comment #166491

Posted by JohnS on March 23, 2007 12:48 AM (e)

I followed their link to the site they acknowledged as the source of their dinosaur images.

Strangely enough, the artist sorts his work by the Era, Period and Epoch they come from. He also gives dates like “270 million years ago (Early Permian)”.

You have to admire the flexibility of a mind that can rationalise away such facts in order to hold on to concepts that amount to nothing more than wishful thinking.

Comment #166501

Posted by Christophe Thill on March 23, 2007 3:37 AM (e)

Reminds me of exactly the same joke, some years ago, concerning the song Free Nelson Mandela by the Specials AKA.

Mind you, I’m certainly not doing any sort of comparison between Hovind and Mandela…

Comment #166502

Posted by Vyoma on March 23, 2007 3:41 AM (e)

bill wrote:

I don’t see why there is so much animosity towards Hovind? Maybe he’s right…throw a stone up a dark alley,and if you hear a squeal,you know you’ve hit something.

Well yeah. He throws stones at reason, so people who value reason don’t like him.

If so,he seems to have hurt many people(with his stones) who’s names he’s never mentioned .Maybe the thing to do is ask why?

Yes, he’s hurt a lot of people. He’s actively participated them in steering them away from the last two or three centuries of progress in understanding how the universe works in favor of his interpretation of a fairytale. That’s hurting people. He’s also lied and cheated in several different directions at once, not the least of which was his attempt at defrauding the government.

If his stones(facts&figures)had no substance…they wouldn’t hurt! If they had no substance,he should have been debated into oblivion by now!!

The “substance” of his stones is to mislead people. He has been “debated into oblivion”; nobody who understands anything about how science, or even simple logic, works takes his ideas seriously. Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean that nobody at all gives his blatherings any credence.

On the contrary,it seems other ways had to be proposed to stop him.I’ve heard a lot of ad hominid attacks on Hovind,but not many concerted efforts to address the points he makes(albeit..some of the points he makes,have been picked up from dubious interpretations)

Then you’re clearly not one of the people who has kept up with rpogress. It’s exactly the kind of appeal to ignorance that makes Hovind and his ilk capable of continuing to be taken seriously by some while intentionally either lying outright or lying by omission. The fact is, there’s not a single point that Hovind has ever made that hasn’t been addressed, usually on multiple occasions and frequently by very reputable people. The problem isn’t, therefore, that his points haven’t been addressed, it’s that you don’t know that they’ve been addressed.

As far as his humor…well he says his seminars are for all ages,so its to hold their attention.
I don’t think Hovind utters absolute truth…but then who does??

Hovind thinks he does, absolutely.

He condenses quite alot of important information from professional academics,and i think that instead of ridiculing the messenger,the focus should be on addressing the message.

The message is a steaming pile of manure delivered by an individual whose ethics have landed him a decade-long prison sentence. He applies the same ethical standards to his arguments regarding evolutionary biology. Just as he withheld money owed to the government, he withholds facts from his audiences. He doesn’t condense any “important information from professional academics.” Not a shred of it. What he does is attempt to advance a long-disproven idea (I won’t even stoop to calling it a hypothesis, since it can’t be tested) through the most disreputable of methods.

Hovind is nothing more than a common criminal and liar. It speaks volumes about his remaining supporters that they’re willing to give him a pass on this when the man essentially made his living by making promises in the first place. One thing I will say for him; as con-men go, he has a tremendous talent for picking out his pigeons.

Comment #166517

Posted by Darth Robo on March 23, 2007 6:41 AM (e)

Funny site. They have only 6 signatures on the petition so far. You think we could name them? Were YOU one of them, bill?

Comment #166532

Posted by fnxtr on March 23, 2007 9:43 AM (e)

I got a grin out of an apparent creationist ignoramus using the word “hominid”. Thanks, bill.

Comment #166533

Posted by Bill on March 23, 2007 9:44 AM (e)

The substance of his stones is, like i said, his facts and figures…and he certainly was not debated into oblivion. He was still debating (if he could find someone who would debate him)up until his problems.
There are plenty of people who understand science&logic who refute Darwinism!!
And if you want to talk about logic…If you believe the Big Bang theory (in a Darwinian sense).Then you believe all the matter&energy (as well as space and time) came into existence out of nothing, from nowhere & for no reason! Breaking at least two very fundamental laws…Cause&Effect and the first law of Thermodynamics (energy can neither be created or destroyed).Then you have to believe that instead of exploding and expanding “forever”, it “arranged” itself into matter, then “arranged” the matter into a clockwise Universe (a neat trick!) just right for humans. Breaking the second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy: every thing breaks down into less complex forms).All without outside intelligence!….Does that seem logical to you??! These LAWS have never being observed to have been broken, so it takes assumption to believe otherwise. Of course you have to except it weather it seems logical to you or not, because you have a bias’s toward the idea of a Creator. Just like i, as a Christian, have a bias against a theory that excludes design by a Creator. The trick is(and no i haven’t succeeded in accomplishing it yet)is to set the bias aside, and look at the facts. Like those mentioned above, which without a prior bias would be inconceivable to believe they happened by pure random chance. Not just the insurmountable odds (probability weighs heavily against evolution)it has to overcome, but also with the breakdown of reason needed to believe it.
You can start with those two Brian (matter from nothing & and complexity from chaos)….but Please, before you start with multi-universes,bubble-universes,and all the rest of the contorted logic needed to escape the conclusion of a Creator…Be aware in your examples of what can be SHOWN to be true, and what is ASSUMED to be true

Comment #166534

Posted by Bill on March 23, 2007 9:51 AM (e)

The substance of his stones is, like i said, his facts and figures…and he certainly was not debated into oblivion. He was still debating (if he could find someone who would debate him)up until his problems.
There are plenty of people who understand science&logic who refute Darwinism!!
And if you want to talk about logic…If you believe the Big Bang theory (in a Darwinian sense).Then you believe all the matter&energy (as well as space and time) came into existence out of nothing, from nowhere & for no reason! Breaking at least two very fundamental laws…Cause&Effect and the first law of Thermodynamics (energy can neither be created or destroyed).Then you have to believe that instead of exploding and expanding “forever”, it “arranged” itself into matter, then “arranged” the matter into a clockwise Universe (a neat trick!) just right for humans. Breaking the second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy: every thing breaks down into less complex forms).All without outside intelligence!….Does that seem logical to you??! These LAWS have never being observed to have been broken, so it takes assumption to believe otherwise. Of course you have to except it weather it seems logical to you or not, because you have a bias’s toward the idea of a Creator. Just like i, as a Christian, have a bias against a theory that excludes design by a Creator. The trick is(and no i haven’t succeeded in accomplishing it yet)is to set the bias aside, and look at the facts. Like those mentioned above, which (without prior bias) would be inconceivable to believe they happened by pure random chance. Not just the insurmountable odds (probability weighs heavily against evolution)it has to overcome, but also with the breakdown of reason needed to believe it without that bias.
You can start with those two Brian (matter from nothing & and complexity from chaos)….but Please, before you start with multi-universes,bubble-universes,and all the rest of the contorted logic needed to escape the conclusion of a Creator…Be aware in your examples of what can be SHOWN to be true, and what is ASSUMED to be true

Comment #166535

Posted by Bill on March 23, 2007 9:52 AM (e)

opp’s….sorry about the double posting

Comment #166536

Posted by ben on March 23, 2007 9:59 AM (e)

Reminds me of exactly the same joke, some years ago, concerning the song Free Nelson Mandela by the Specials AKA.

I saw a car once with a Free Tibet bumper sticker; underneath the owner had written “with every purchase.”

Comment #166537

Posted by Bill on March 23, 2007 9:59 AM (e)

IGNORAMUS!!….I see the personal attacks have started already….very mature!!

Comment #166539

Posted by ben on March 23, 2007 10:04 AM (e)

IGNORAMUS!!….I see the personal attacks have started already….very mature!!

Not every derogatory remark is a personal attack. Based on your poor spelling and grammar, nonsensical and tired arguments, and obvious lack of understanding of the science involved, I would say ignoramus isn’t an attack, it’s an apt description.

Please note that exclamation points are intended to be exclusively used in groups of….one!

Comment #166543

Posted by Michael on March 23, 2007 10:35 AM (e)

I never got around to answering the original question “What is a hovind?” The answer is: Being a Young Earth Creationist in the time of the Intelligent Design Creationists, he is living proof that dinosaurs and modern creationists co-existed at the same time.

Comment #166545

Posted by Darth Robo on March 23, 2007 10:43 AM (e)

“There are plenty of people who understand science&logic who refute Darwinism!!”

Name them. :)

“Big Bang theory (in a Darwinian sense).”

Huh?

Comment #166546

Posted by Michael on March 23, 2007 10:51 AM (e)

Heh, anybody want to point out to Bill WHEN the Big Bang hypothesis was proposed and WHEN Charles Darwin died, and the relative order in which these events occurred?

Bill,

Calling a female dog a bitch isn’t an attack, it’s an appropriate descriptive term in. An ignoramus is defined as one who is ignorant. In light of some of your statements, is it an attack or a description?

Comment #166548

Posted by David on March 23, 2007 10:59 AM (e)

For anyone who’s read bill‘s posts, I offer:

FREE DUCT TAPE

to be used to securely wrap the skull, so that the head does not explode. Wow…just, wow.

Comment #166550

Posted by fnxtr on March 23, 2007 11:09 AM (e)

Okay, bill:

In what sense is the big bang theory “Darwinist”?

How, exactly, do you define “Darwinism”?

What does the birth of the universe have to do with biological evolution?
Current theory says we’re made of natural chemical elements formed from fusion in imploding stars.
Where the stars come from is cosmology, not biology.

“Does this seem logical to you?” is the classic argument from incredulity and explains nothing.
What explanation(s) do you have?

Comment #166554

Posted by secondclass on March 23, 2007 11:28 AM (e)

Bill wrote:

If you believe the Big Bang theory (in a Darwinian sense)

I personally prefer the neo-retro-Lamarckian Big Bang theory.

Bill wrote:

Then you have to believe that instead of exploding and expanding “forever”, it “arranged” itself into matter, then “arranged” the matter into a clockwise Universe (a neat trick!)

You betcha. I would totally have expected it to turn out counter-clockwise.

Bill wrote:

Breaking the second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy: every thing breaks down into less complex forms).All without outside intelligence!

It’s truly a puzzlement. As everyone knows, intelligence is required in order to break the 2nd Law. We’re talking an IQ of 150 minimum.

Bill wrote:

You can start with those two Brian (matter from nothing & and complexity from chaos)

Those are very deep issues. As Maria Von Trapp reminds us, nothing comes from nothing and nothing ever could. So it must be material, complex turtles all the way down.

Comment #166556

Posted by creeky belly on March 23, 2007 11:33 AM (e)

Don’t go giving the biologists all the credit for hundreds of years of physics research. If you wanna debate common ancestry and the like fine, but don’t go lumping the big bang in there with it.

It’s interesting to me now to hear the Big Bang theory attacked; when Einstein was first formulated the theory of relativity, he added a term to his field equations to account for a static universe, something he ended up regretting in the long run. He had always felt that universe was something that had always been, intuitively. Most of the Christian community embraced the big bang theory when it was first put forth because it meant that the universe had a definite beginning. This lasted up until they actually started assigning dates for this initial inflation, which tended to be much older than any date derived from the bible.

The field of inflationary cosmology has only really been a subject in the last 40 years or so. The cosmic microwave background had been predicted in the late 40s but not really studied until the 60s. When the microwave background was finally discovered by Penzias and Wilson, the field finally could start refining and creating new science. 40 years and numerous satellites later, we’re closer to understanding the dynamics of the expansion and composition of our universe.

Since it sounds like you’re looking at the thermodynamics of the big bang, it might be more useful to see what scientists think the big bang predicts:

1. The inflation was adiathermal and adiabatic, no net heat flow in a symmetric fluid, so entropy must also be conserved and hence the process is reversible(1st and 2nd law) The caveat being quantum fluctuations tend to be irreversible, but are overwhelmed by radiation

2. The densities of matter and radiation crossed-over during inflation, resulting in backgrounds of thermal radiation and neutrinos (the thermal radiation has been observed by numerous satellites: BOOMERANG, COBE, WMAP, and soon PLANCK)

3. Due to the isotropic and homogeneous nature of the radiation, we can conclude that on average the universe is homogeneous and isotropic (no net angular momentum despite what you claim)

You asked how matter can arrange itself, into galaxies and clusters if everything is expanding. In this instance I could guide you to the literature on the subject, suffice to say it depends very much on the nature of quantum fluctuations during the initial inflation and gravity. Gravity tends to “sort things out”.

Matter and energy are interchangeable, and are most likely a product of symmetry breaking. (See standard model of particle physics)

If you need a reason for all of this to happen, fine, go read some philosophy. Personally, I do. I won’t abide by this Chewbacca defense of Creation because you don’t fully understand and keep up with the science.

Comment #166560

Posted by Bill Gascoyne on March 23, 2007 11:52 AM (e)

“Bill” – when was the last time a debate settled a scientific question? The only real possibility is a written debate, and no creationist who seeks debate will ever accept a challenge to an on-line written debate. If they do, they’d get their head handed to them.

Comment #166567

Posted by Hannibal Lechter on March 23, 2007 12:34 PM (e)

I think a free hovind would be an excellent choice with a nice complimentary wine.

Comment #166569

Posted by fnxtr on March 23, 2007 12:41 PM (e)

Complimentary wine? When you pop the cork it says “Nice shoes”?

Comment #166581

Posted by Shenda on March 23, 2007 3:14 PM (e)

Hi fnxtr,

Bill doesn’t seem to be able to articulate clear answers to your questions. As an ex-fundie, I feel that I may be able to approximate how he would respond:

fnxtr: “In what sense is the big bang theory “Darwinist”?”

Answer: Its all about evolution – stars or people, there’s no difference!!!

fnxtr: “How, exactly, do you define “Darwinism”?”

Answer: Exactly the way I define it!

fnxtr: “What does the birth of the universe have to do with biological evolution?”

Answer: Its all about BIRTH – stars or people, there’s no difference!!!

fnxtr: “Current theory says we’re made of natural chemical elements formed from fusion in imploding stars.”

Answer: More ungrounded Darwinistic dogma!

fnxtr: “Where the stars come from is cosmology, not biology.”

Answer: The difference being????

fnxtr: ““Does this seem logical to you?” is the classic argument from incredulity and explains nothing.”

Answer: Exactly! It proves that I am right(ous)!

fnxtr: “What explanation(s) do you have?”

Answer: I don’t have explanations, I have the TRUTH!

Comment #166585

Posted by lawilson200 on March 23, 2007 3:28 PM (e)

“I think a free hovind would be an excellent choice with a nice complimentary wine.”

Yes, but what style of wine to have with a free hovind? Thunderbird? MD20-20? Do I need to spend more than $5.00?

Comment #166593

Posted by Vyoma on March 23, 2007 4:01 PM (e)

Bill wrote:

The substance of his stones is, like i said, his facts and figures…

What exactly passes for fact or figure in Hovind’s bizarro universe? I’m familiar with his arguments, so go ahead and show an acual fact or figure tat isn’t something he’s pulled out of thin air or misrepresented from someone else’s argument.

and he certainly was not debated into oblivion. He was still debating (if he could find someone who would debate him)up until his problems.

Making the same assertions over and over again without accommodating for new information isn’t debating, it’s lying.

There are plenty of people who understand science&logic who refute Darwinism!!

No, there aren’t, at least not honestly. If they are aware of the data and understand science, then they have no legitimate grounds upon which to debate it.

And if you want to talk about logic…If you believe the Big Bang theory (in a Darwinian sense).Then you believe all the matter&energy (as well as space and time) came into existence out of nothing, from nowhere & for no reason!

Do you understand that cosmogenic theory isn’t part of evolutionary biology AT ALL? Moreover, do you understand that NOBODY makes the contention that matter and energy came from nothing? Do you understand what another respondant has told you about what Big Bang theory actually maintains? And lastly, do you realize that you don’t even know what Darwin’s theories, let alone modern evolutionary biology, says, as shown by making this very assertion? You mention later on about “putting aside bias.” How can you do that when you clearly haven’t even looked into what’s actually being argued?

Breaking at least two very fundamental laws…Cause&Effect and the first law of Thermodynamics (energy can neither be created or destroyed).

In what discipline are “cause and effect” a fundamental law? And why do you only state part of a thermodynamic law here? The whole thing states that neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed, but both may be transformed into differenet forms. If you add to this physical theory accepted since the turn of the last century, then the entire law states that matter and energy atre just different forms of the same thing… so it’s possible for nothing but energy to turn partially into matter under the right circumstances. Again, I’m not a physicist, but someone else here is and has explained this to you in more specific terms.

Then you have to believe that instead of exploding and expanding “forever”, it “arranged” itself into matter, then “arranged” the matter into a clockwise Universe (a neat trick!) just right for humans.

A clockwise universe? I haven’t even got a clue what you’re talking about here, but the fact is that observations show that galaxies are still receding from one another, so it is indeed expanding, and whether it will continue to expend or ultimately collapse back into itself is, I think, a matter of debate amongst physicists. But you know, I’m not sure about that, because I’m not a physicist, and NONE of this has a thing to do with either Darwin’s work (all of which took place long before anyone came up with the idea of an Big Bang) or with evolutionary biology as it has developed over the intervening 150 years.

Breaking the second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy: every thing breaks down into less complex forms).All without outside intelligence!….Does that seem logical to you??!

That’s not what the second law of thermodynamics says; it only maintains that net universal entropy increases; local entropy can increase or decrease at any given time, depending on circumstances. This is a common mischaracterization used by those who wish to mislead others. Where exactly did you learn this nonsense?

These LAWS have never being observed to have been broken, so it takes assumption to believe otherwise.

Those aren’t LAWS, those are something that somebody made up. You’ve gotten a hold of some very dishonest assertions if you believe that they are.

Of course you have to except it weather it seems logical to you or not, because you have a bias’s toward the idea of a Creator. Just like i, as a Christian, have a bias against a theory that excludes design by a Creator. The trick is(and no i haven’t succeeded in accomplishing it yet)is to set the bias aside, and look at the facts.

You have this very, very wrong. The fact is, scientists look at the facts every day, and theer isn’t any evidence that a creator is necessary to explain the phenomena they’ve examined — not a single one of them. Those who object to this state of affairs then attempt to twist around knowledge, as you have done with your inaccurate characterization of thermodynamics, to make it appear to those who don’t know any better that a creator must be necessary. That’s where the “bias” comes in. Any empirical data demonstrating the involvement of an extra-terrestrial, supernatural intelligence has yet to be found, even by those who insist that it must exist. To assert that something must be so without presenting any evidence of its existence, while simultaneously misrepresenting what is known, is about as biased as one is ever likely to see.

Like those mentioned above, which without a prior bias would be inconceivable to believe they happened by pure random chance. Not just the insurmountable odds (probability weighs heavily against evolution)it has to overcome, but also with the breakdown of reason needed to believe it.

The probability of evolution occurring is exactly 1, because it has occurred and is observed to still be occurring. Moreover, there is nothing at the molecular level, or even at the atomic level, which precludes evolution occurring. This argument of yours is one from wishful thinking. In fact, simple organic chemistry easily disproves what you’re saying. There’s simply nothing we’ve found that demonstrates any probabilistic handicap; the only breakdown in reason here is the one in your own head.

You can start with those two Brian (matter from nothing & and complexity from chaos)….but Please, before you start with multi-universes,bubble-universes,and all the rest of the contorted logic needed to escape the conclusion of a Creator…Be aware in your examples of what can be SHOWN to be true, and what is ASSUMED to be true

Oddly enough, I don’t have to resort to anything more exotic than a knowledge of first year physics and chemistry. None of your arguments are true, from your twisting of thermodynamics to your misunderstanding of exactly what evolutionary biology and theory include to your complete lack of understanding of chemistry and probability. There’s nothing to any of your arguments that hasn’t been advanced and debunked a million times over; all of it is thus argument from personal ignorance. You’ve got that going in droves.

Comment #166595

Posted by fnxtr on March 23, 2007 4:08 PM (e)

Shenda:

Thanks for clearing that up. I feel so ashamed…

Comment #166596

Posted by Ben (but not the first one) on March 23, 2007 4:17 PM (e)

“Free Hovind”

A new family friendly adventure about a young boy who befriends Hovind, a mythical transitional form between land mammals and whales. Evil evolutionary scientists want to hold Hovind captive to conduct immoral experiments…

Comment #166603

Posted by Troff on March 23, 2007 6:06 PM (e)

1)
Bill, there’s no need to apologise for the double posting. You could, of course, apologise for the single postings.

2) I’m amazed nobody came up with the other old joke…
“Free Hovind”…… “while stocks last”.

Comment #166605

Posted by Reciprocating Bill on March 23, 2007 7:10 PM (e)

Seems pretty clear to me from the photo that Ken Hovind is none other than Ron Howard in a toupee.

Comment #166613

Posted by Brian McEnnis on March 23, 2007 7:53 PM (e)

bill wrote:

You can start with those two Brian (matter from nothing & and complexity from chaos)….but Please, before you start with multi-universes,bubble-universes,and all the rest of the contorted logic needed to escape the conclusion of a Creator…Be aware in your examples of what can be SHOWN to be true, and what is ASSUMED to be true

Bill, you didn’t do your homework at the Index to Creationist Claims.

Matter from nothing: CF101, CE440
Complexity from chaos: CF001.1, and the numerous posts dealing with evolution of complexity.

Also addressed in Bill’s post:
First and second laws of thermodynamics? CF000 and CF100
Cosmology? CE400

Go read them, Bill, and then come here prepared to discuss the points raised. Don’t bother arguing from ignorance, as if these questions had never before been addressed.

CF001.1 also addresses your point about dealing with what can be shown. It addresses the claim

Systems or processes left to themselves invariably tend to move from order to disorder.

Part of the response:

That the claim is false is not theory. Exceptions happens [sic] all the time. For example, plants around my house are left to themselves every spring, and every spring they produce order locally by turning carbon from the air into plant tissue. Drying mud, left to itself, produces orderly cracks. Ice crystals, left to themselves, produce arrangements far more orderly than they would if I interfered. Freeze-thaw cycles naturally sort stones into regular patterns (Kessler and Werner 2003). How can a trend to disorder be invariable when exceptions are ubiquitous? And why do creationists argue at such length for claims that they themselves can plainly see are false?

Bill argued that no concerted effort had gone into addressing Hovind’s “points.” He has been shown to be wrong. The creationist canards that Bill considers to be “points” have been addressed repeatedly. (The Index to Creationist Claims is just one source. Google to find more, Bill.) Bill may have originally been ignorant of this. Now he has no excuse.

Time to debate honestly, Bill. Acknowledge and address the refutations to your position.

Comment #166634

Posted by bILL on March 24, 2007 7:14 AM (e)

Ben…ignoramus is a derogatory term when used against someone, in the same way bastard is a legitimate (excuse the pun) word, but is derogatory when used against someone. And i ran my spelling through Microsoft word…So it must be you who can’t spell. And its pretty obvious why people use extra question & exclamatation marks! Its to show that the person is either more confused or annoyed about something…like your comments!!
Its an informal discussion site not an English languish class.
First of all let me clear this up…when i said “if you believe in the Big Bang in a Darwinian sense”, I meant in the sense of it being a freak accident(not planned),followed by a random process. I believe in a Big Bang, God created the universe(which incidentally means single spoken sentence.. God said let their be…) in an instant. Intelligent designers believe in a Big Bang, Theistic Evolutionists believe in a Big Bang, etc. The one thing we have in common is that there was an intelligent first cause to the universe(hence it was planned).I wasn’t saying the Big Bang was part of Darwinism. You can be a Darwinian and believe in an intelligent first cause to the universe. I thought you would have known what i meant by “Darwinian sense”…I’ll try to explain myself better next time.
The reason i started with the Big Bang is because Brian asked me to produce some examples from Kent Hovint…So i started from the beginning. Those arguments about the Big Bang where more for those “true” Darwinists, who believe there was no intelligent first cause to the universe(Atheists).
There’s an awful lot of talk about BIOLOGY…but i haven’t even got that far yet! Im still at the beginning waiting for an answer! You can’t just believe in Biological Evolution and ignore the rest!!
I have no problem with evolution at the species level(although i think there is a bit of a problem with the definition)because it is observed. Of coarse God would put in the ability to adapt to the environment, or their would be few animals left, because of changing climates…Including humans. A black man in Africa has that color pigmentation to protect his skin, wide nostrils to help breath in such a dry climate. Eskimos have the shortest limbs in the world, to help them cope with the cold(as that’s where we lose most heat).Its scientists extrapolating that to ASSUME that we evolved from bacteria…or worse nothing! That i have a problem with.
And there’s no problem with us being made of the same substance as the stars…As the Bible says God made Adam from the dust of the earth.
Bill Creationist are begging for a public debate, and have been for 20 years. It seems like its the secular scientific community who don’t want to bring it all out in the open…Using the same old tired argument that its “Religion verses Science”. But its not, i’v read a lot of books by Creation scientists and most of them don’t even mention God. Just science.
Vyoma…
You have to believe matter & energy came from nothing, if you allow for no intelligent first cause…that’s a matter of common sense.
Asking in what discipline cause & effect is a law…is like asking in what discipline is cavity is a law. Its a law because its never been observed to be broken.
I have no problem with energy turning into matter, we witness it every day in plants. My argument is…how does gas compress itself enough to form matter. It takes a powerful amount of energy to compress gas until it bonds into matter, and it is the net universal entropy i was talking about, hats all there was!
I meant a clockwork universe…sorry. I have no problem with it expanding(the Bible says God stretches out the heavens).
Entropy only decreases in Biological systems! And only because we feed of plants that use chlorophyll to convert the Suns energy. Its not a reversal…that’s just a play on words…we still die ,no matter how many plants we eat!
You obviously haven’t looked into any probability to do with Evolution. Heres an example for you…Thomas Huxley worked out(himself)the probability of just a horse evolving at..10/2000,000,a one with 2 million nougats after it, yet he went to his death believing it. That’s what i call illogical!!
Brian…Arguing that simple repetitive laws that form ice crystals, stone sorting, and using random cracks in mud…is a pretty dam weak argument for the creation of the universe…I did ask you to be aware of what is are assumed (out of necessity),and what can be shown.

Comment #166637

Posted by Bill on March 24, 2007 7:37 AM (e)

Here is a list of scientists for Darth: All these believe in special Creation…from the Answers in Genesis website.

Note: Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field. If you would like to be included on this list, please see our inclusion procedure.

* Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
* Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
* Dr. James Allan, Geneticist
* Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
* Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
* Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
* Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
* Dr. Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
* Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
* Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
* Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
* Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
* Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
* Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
* Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
* Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
* Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
* Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
* Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
* Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
* Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
* Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
* Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist (interview)
* Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
* Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
* Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
* Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
* Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
* Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
* Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
* Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
* Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
* Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
* Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
* Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
* Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
* Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
* Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
* Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
* Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
* Dr. David Down, Field Archaeologist
* Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
* Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
* Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
* Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
* Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
* Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
* Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
* Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
* Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
* Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
* Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
* Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
* Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
* Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
* Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
* Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
* Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
* Dr. Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
* Dr. Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
* Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
* Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
* Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
* Dr. John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
* Dr. Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
* Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
* Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
* Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
* Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
* Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
* Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
* Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
* Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
* Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
* Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
* Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
* Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
* Dr. Russell Humphreys, Physicist
* Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
* Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
* George T. Javor, Biochemistry
* Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
* Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
* Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
* Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
* Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
* Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
* Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
* Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
* Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
* Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
* Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
* Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
* Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
* Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
* Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
* Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
* Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
* Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
* Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
* Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
* Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
* Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
* Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
* Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
* Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
* Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
* Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
* Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
* Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
* Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
* Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
* Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
* Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
* Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
* Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
* Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
* Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
* Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
* Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
* Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
* Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
* Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
* Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
* Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
* Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
* Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
* Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
* Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
* Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
* Prof. Richard Porter
* Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
* Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
* Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
* Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
* Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
* Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
* Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
* Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
* Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
* Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
* Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
* Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
* Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
* Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
* Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
* Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
* Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
* Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
* Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
* Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
* Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
* Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
* Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
* Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
* Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
* Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
* Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
* Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
* Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
* Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
* Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
* Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
* Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
* Dr. Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
* Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
* Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
* Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
* Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
* Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
* Dr. Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
* Dr. Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
* Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
* Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
* Dr. Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
* Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
* Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
* Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
* Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
* Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
* Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
* Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology

Comment #166648

Posted by Vyoma on March 24, 2007 9:23 AM (e)

You have to believe matter & energy came from nothing, if you allow for no intelligent first cause…that’s a matter of common sense.

Are you at all familiar with the concept of vaccum energy? You’re just flat out wrong here; it’s not a matter of common sense, but a matter of reasoning based on faulty assumptions.

Asking in what discipline cause & effect is a law…is like asking in what discipline is cavity is a law. Its a law because its never been observed to be broken.

You’re assuming that the current laws of physics applied at the time of the event horizon. You’re assuming wrong. Again, I’m not a physicist, but I do know that valid mathematical, physical models demonstrate that this doesn’t hold true… as someone else has explained to you in much detail, and you have chosen to ignore.

I have no problem with energy turning into matter, we witness it every day in plants. My argument is…how does gas compress itself enough to form matter.

Gas is matter.

It takes a powerful amount of energy to compress gas until it bonds into matter, and it is the net universal entropy i was talking about, hats all there was!

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Again, gas is matter, and it can become a solid by losing energy very easily. Does it all the time.

I meant a clockwork universe…sorry. I have no problem with it expanding(the Bible says God stretches out the heavens).

We don’t have a “clockwork universe.” It’s actually very messy and difficult to understand, which is why there are people who devote their lives to doing so. It’s only the limits of you’re own knowledge about it that make it seem otherwise.

Entropy only decreases in Biological systems! And only because we feed of plants that use chlorophyll to convert the Suns energy. Its not a reversal…that’s just a play on words…we still die ,no matter how many plants we eat!

Again, wrong. Entropy also decreases in any number of non-living systems all the time. Take some seawater and evaporate it, and you’ll soon find that higher-entropy ions of sodium and chlorine forms salt crystals, which have significantly lower entropy and certainly aren’t alive. One could do the same thing with quartz, alum, or any number of other minerals. You don’t understand what entropy is, nor how net universal entropy can increase while that of a local system decreases, and therein lies your confusion. See, when the salt crystallizes, its entropy is lowered, but the evaporating water’s entropy is increased by slightly more, and thus net universal entropy increases while the system of Na+ and Cl- ions’ decreases. You’re missing the point that entropy is relative.

You obviously haven’t looked into any probability to do with Evolution. Heres an example for you…Thomas Huxley worked out(himself)the probability of just a horse evolving at..10/2000,000,a one with 2 million nougats after it, yet he went to his death believing it. That’s what i call illogical!!

Huxley’s assumptions were wrong, just as yours are here, and any good statistician will tell you so. This isn’t a new argument, and it’s been debunked elsewhere, but I can give you an example of the flaw in the reasoning.

Let’s pretend you’re on the golf course and you hit the ball so that it lands on a dandelion leaf. In that dandelion leaf is a protein molecule, and in your ball is a hydrocarbon chain, and the two come into close proximity. You had no way of intentionally making that happen, and the odds of those two molecules coming into proximity, when weighed against the vast number of molecules in all of the universe, is infinitesimally small (far, far smaller than the “10/200,000” odds you credit to Huxley’s example, in fact; more on the order of 1 in 10^30, as I recall)… yet it happened. The flaw in this reasoning is that it assumes that all probabilities are calculated on a universal basis, when in fact they are not. It simply fails to take into account the concept of locality, much as in your current understanding of entropy. The fact is that, locally speaking, the odds of your golf ball and dandelion life aligning in the way they have is 1 in 1, and the odds of a horse evolving are also 1 in 1. Huxley’s calculation, and your own, rely on the idea of a horse basically poofing out of nothing but a random assortment of atoms in mid-air, essentially… but nothing in evolutionary biology says that we should ever expect that to happen.

Comment #166651

Posted by Gene Goldring on March 24, 2007 10:06 AM (e)

If something can’t come from nothing, where did this god thing come from?

Are you there Bill?

Comment #166654

Posted by ben on March 24, 2007 10:39 AM (e)

Ben…ignoramus is a derogatory term when used against someone

The definition of ignoramus is pretty straightforward: an ignorant person. Display a preponderance of ignorance and you’re there. I didn’t say it wasn’t derogatory, I said it wasn’t a personal attack. And it wasn’t–it was merely an accurate desciption of you, whether you like it or not. You’re ignorant, willfully so, because you attack something that your arguments show you do not understand, despite others’ efforts to educate you.

If I told you wood pencils should be banned because they contain poisonous lead, you might not think me ignorant but merely misinformed, and would explain to me that pencil “lead” is a misnomer and it’s really harmless graphite. I could continue to argue that pencils should be banned, but I’d have to come up with a different argument. If I continued to argue that wood pencils should be banned because they contain poisonous lead, I would be arguing not against wood pencils but against a straw man of what wood pencils are, and you would conclude I was willfully ignorant on that subject. That’s you. You’re here to argue strenuously against evolutionary theory, but you obviously don’t know what evolution claims. Having that pointed out doesn’t stop you or change your arguments. Ignoramus.

Its an informal discussion site not an English languish class.

Your English is indeed languishing. Perhaps it had too much word salad for dinner.

Comment #166656

Posted by Arden Chatfield on March 24, 2007 10:57 AM (e)

I’ve heard a lot of ad hominid attacks on Hovind

I think the idea of an ‘ad hominid’ attack is quite amusing. What would it be? Would creationism be an ‘ad hominid attack, or ‘Darwinism’?

The English languish is so complex! Irreducibly so!

Comment #166657

Posted by Arden Chatfield on March 24, 2007 10:58 AM (e)

How about: “Free Hovind! With two boxtops or proof-of-purchase seals!”

Comment #166658

Posted by ben on March 24, 2007 11:00 AM (e)

You have to believe matter & energy came from nothing, if you allow for no intelligent first cause…that’s a matter of common sense.

You have to believe an intelligent first cause came from nothing, if you allow for an intelligent first cause. To doubt the big bang because you think it claims something came from nothing is one thing. But then you use a false dichotomy (if the big bang is wrong, that proves there was an intelligent first cause–a blatant fallacy) to declare victory for an idea that clearly has exactly the same flaw you’re claiming (wrongly) the big bang does. That’s a matter of nonsense.

But you’re not interested in making sense, you’re interested in promoting the replacement of science with an irrational set of beliefs which isn’t useful for anything.

Comment #166659

Posted by Arden Chatfield on March 24, 2007 11:08 AM (e)

It should surprise no one that ‘Bill’ copied his list of Big Sciency Creationists from here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

I like all the dentists and engineers in there, as well as the names that repeat several times.

Comment #166660

Posted by J. Biggs on March 24, 2007 11:19 AM (e)

I like all the dentists and engineers in there, as well as the names that repeat several times.

Hey, I am a dentist and have an engineering degree. Is there a “Darwinist” list I can sign twice;-)

Comment #166663

Posted by creeky belly on March 24, 2007 11:24 AM (e)

bill wrote:

My argument is…how does gas compress itself enough to form matter.

Technically speaking gas is a phase of matter. You can technically create any phase of matter out of an element (gas, solid, liquid, vapor, plasma).

If you’re asking how to form larger elements from smaller elements, you can start from the ground up with these reactions which dominated the early universe:

p+p => H+(e+)+v

Then later in inflation: H, d, 3He, 4He combined to form other elements such as 7Li, 8Be, and 12C

If you’re asking how gas compresses itself into large objects like the sun, it’s very dependent on the energy, temperature, and density of the gas. In addition, the entropy of condensed matter tends to increase due to collisions and thermal emission. Again, there is a wealth of information on galactic evolution and synthesis that I don’t need to reproduce here.

I meant a clockwork universe…sorry. I have no problem with it expanding(the Bible says God stretches out the heavens).

Repeating it doesn’t make it so. There is a wealth of observational data that contradicts this statement (homogeneity and isotropy).

Comment #166664

Posted by Brian McEnnis on March 24, 2007 11:28 AM (e)

bill wrote:

Brian…Arguing that simple repetitive laws that form ice crystals, stone sorting, and using random cracks in mud…is a pretty dam weak argument for the creation of the universe…I did ask you to be aware of what is are assumed (out of necessity),and what can be shown.

Got it, Bill. You’re not prepared to debate honestly. The example of ice crystals, etc. was from CF001.1, addressing your (or Hovind’s) “complexity from chaos” “point”, not an “argument for the creation of the universe.”

For those keeping score, Bill has been caught moving the goalposts.

So Bill, the ball’s still in your court. Any chance that you’ll actually address “complexity from chaos” in the light of what you’ve learned?

Comment #166671

Posted by fnxtr on March 24, 2007 11:58 AM (e)

Free Hovind inside specially marked boxes… that is, the box in Cell Block C (or whatever), marked “Fraud”.

Comment #166676

Posted by Bill on March 24, 2007 12:32 PM (e)

Fnxtr…Although the argument from credulity would like to be laughed of the playing field by evolutionists,(because of the impossible odds and REASON BREAKING involved in believing in them).It can’t be so easily dismissed. We use the credulity factor all though are lives, it a big part of logic…if you go for a walk in the woods and find a stick carved into the shape of a fish lying on the ground, you automatically know that its been done by an intelligence. Partly because you have experience of such things as carvings, but mostly because your brain has already worked out that there’s no way that could have happened by chance. And that ability is so finely tuned that it can even pick up something as simple as the end of the stick being carved into a point. And that type of reasoning is just as relative to science as any other part of life, especially when those probabilities can be put down on paper.
That’s part of what Bill Debmski calls specified complexity (see: The Design Revolution for an explanation…and an answers to his critics.

Comment #166678

Posted by Vyoma on March 24, 2007 12:43 PM (e)

Bill wrote:

Although the argument from credulity would like to be laughed of the playing field by evolutionists,(because of the impossible odds and REASON BREAKING involved in believing in them).It can’t be so easily dismissed.

Bill, I’d like to make a suggestion to you to help you save face, because you’re seriously embarassing yourself. You should stop posting here. In all seriousness, you really need to stop. I disagree with you, and I’m embarassed for you that you would say somethig like this.

Argument from credulity is a classical logical fallacy. It has nothing to do with evolution or even science per se; it’s been a logical fallacy since logic was formalized by the ancient Greeks. It not only isn’t relevant to scientific inquiry, it isn’t relative to any legitimate thought.

You’re going to need to admit at this point that you just plain don’t know what you’re talking about, whether it comes to physics, biology, or even fundamental logic and mathematical reasoning. That’s not to say you can’t learn it; whether you do or not is up to you. But having said what you just said above, you need to stay away from interactions where people place a great value on reason and legitimate discussion… because you’ve just absolutely and unequivocally stated that your positions, and those of Dembski for that matter, are based on something that has been recognized by everyone for at least the last 2,000 years as fallacious reasoning.

I would agree with that, mind you, but by your own advocating for doing so… well… there’s not much left to say. Please, for your own sake, go away and actually learn something about the things you’re talking about. It’s all too clear that you have absolutely no basis at all from which to advocate for anything at this point. You’ve lost any possible credibility by trying to maintain that argument from credulity is valid.

Comment #166679

Posted by J. Biggs on March 24, 2007 12:45 PM (e)

Bill blathers:

Although the argument from credulity would like to be laughed of the playing field by evolutionists

Hey Bill, it is called the argument from incredulity and it basically boils down to, “I can’t imagine how it could have happened that way, so it didn’t happen that way.” And it has no place in science because science has no need for unimaginative reality deniers like you.

Comment #166680

Posted by J. Biggs on March 24, 2007 12:51 PM (e)

Oh, and Bill, extra points if you can tell me the originator of the example you just used. (Hint: it isn’t Dembski and he used a watch in his example.)

Comment #166687

Posted by Brian McEnnis on March 24, 2007 1:51 PM (e)

Concerning the list that Bill copied from AiG and pasted over here.

Bill, nobody here finds an argument from authority convincing. Has anyone from that list published anything that relates to any of Hovind’s “points”? Have their ideas been submitted to peer review, or undergone any sort of critical analysis? If not, what they think matters not one whit.

We deal in evidence, not belief.

But Bill, even as an argument from authority, the list is pathetic. It is claimed that those on the list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field. And yet it has a Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology). Perhaps he also stayed at a Holiday Inn Express? And what relevance do most of these “science-related fields” have to evolution?

Bill’s pathetic list has fewer than two hundred names. Using the standards for that list (and even excluding Ancient Historians) there are millions in the world with doctorates in science-related fields.

Since creationists love probability arguments, here’s one for you Bill. If we selected at random a person with a doctorate in a science-related field (as defined by AiG), the probability that he/she would be on your list is about the same as the probability of being dealt a straight flush in a single poker hand. (That’s assuming a population of about 12 million. Actual answers may vary!)

And you expect us to be impressed?

Comment #166705

Posted by stevaroni on March 24, 2007 3:49 PM (e)

Bill writes….

Here is a list of scientists for Darth: All these believe in special Creation…from the Answers in Genesis website.

Excellent! Of all these illustrious scientists one of them must have actually been able to write down the theory of ID.

Where do I look for that, Bill?

Comment #166717

Posted by Darth Robo on March 24, 2007 5:16 PM (e)

“Here is a list of scientists for Darth: “

Sorry, everybody. Guess I should have kept my big mouth shut (feeding the troll).

Comment #166728

Posted by Father Wolf on March 24, 2007 7:04 PM (e)

Another bit of advice for bILL who wrote

And i ran my spelling through Microsoft word…So it must be you who can’t spell.

My son learned in grade school that reliance on a spellchecker can cause problems, like yours:

Of coarse God would put in the ability to adapt to the environment, or their would be few animals left, because of changing climates…Including humans. A black man in Africa has that color pigmentation to protect his skin, wide nostrils to help breath in such a dry climate.

and my favorite:

hats all there was!

On a more serious note, beware of your experience:

…if you go for a walk in the woods and find a stick carved into the shape of a fish lying on the ground, you automatically know that its been done by an intelligence. Partly because you have experience of such things as carvings, but mostly because your brain has already worked out that there’s no way that could have happened by chance.

I suggest you search for “Indian Head Google Earth” and see where it leads, or use Google Earth or plain old Google map to look at:

50° 0’38.20”N 110° 6’48.32”W

Zoom in to three or four clicks from max magnification.

Comment #166864

Posted by Aubrey on March 25, 2007 5:12 PM (e)

To keep the record straight, FreeHovind is not offering “Free Hovinds”, but rather “Free Hovind materials”.

As it says on the site,
“FreeHovind.com is dedicated to Kent Hovind - A well known Creation Science speaker, debater, and evangelist. On January 19, 2007, Hovind was sentenced to 10 years in prison for tax related charges. This site was created by a fan of Kent Hovind to distribute his creation seminars and other materials to as many people as possible.
By spreading the Creation message, we can help Free Hovind!”

Once the petition is opened, the “free” might take up another meaning as well….

Comment #167011

Posted by Mongrel on March 26, 2007 8:42 AM (e)

They’ve altered it since I first saw it, check the bottom of this screenshot

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b24/Mongrel01/…

Comment #167244

Posted by Bill on March 27, 2007 11:20 AM (e)

Wolf:
Your right mate…I’ve realized that. (Clicking and typing to fast I think) Apologies to BEN as well there, that’s what he was probably talking about to! I’ve only been using a computer for a year, and very rarely type. .I only bought it to look through estate agents web sites. I’ll pay attention to that in future. And im surprised I didn’t hear a “law of Cavity” joke in there from someone. 
Stervaroni:
Bill Dempski has a mathematical model for distinguishing between intelligent causes & random effect.
Brian:
I haven’t moved the goal posts Brian…You just haven’t keep your eye on the ball! My two questions were: matter from nothing (how the universe came into being from ABSOLUTE nothing) & complexity from chaos (how a clockwork universe can be built up from the chaos of a super explosion like the Big Bang).Those two questions are still out there…I don’t think Creeky, your hypothetical theory “no net heat flow”(then assuming that would automatically lead to a reversal… I take it that’s to allow complexity to be built up) and gravity “tends to sort things” doesn’t quite do it for me! Creeky, from a chaotic explosion then a homogeneous expansion, a system of some sort would have had to emerge to start condensing the “gas” into complex structures, and then arrange those structures into an orderly arrangement of planets & stars. Then out of that complexity building, another system would have had to emerge that reverses the first system (what reverses a universal “law”?) to give us entropy! And where did it get the information to build up this complexity in the first place?…Information isn’t a property of matter, matters just a transmitter for it. I don’t expect you to go into a long explanation on what happened between the Big Bang and an ordered universe, but if you can suggest any books giving a run down of the different, popular theory’s on the subject? I haven’t read an in depth evolutionary explanation of this yet. (Semi-technical…..And there’s probably going to be loads of math’s….so more semi than technical!)

VYOMA:
I think your vacuum energy theory is laughable! Is this a proposed mechanism for bringing into being a universe full of matter & energy…from something, I take it, that has no substance, or structure, uses no energy of any kind,(or where did they come from) exists in no time or space…quite frankly, doesn’t exist at all! And im supposed to except this or some other wild theory over commonsense!! Science works as the best NATUREAL theory wins. Well its possible to come up with any theory to fill a gap if it can’t be verified. That’s why there’s so much assumption in origin science. Assumption seems to be sciences secrete word. In fact, origin science is built on one great assumption…Uniformitarianism! And like it is said…Assumption is the mother of all mistakes!
You already have a materialistic mind, so any event that’s happened or likely to happen in the history of the Universe, you have to apply a materialist/naturalistic assumption to it. You already live in a paragin of : nature is all there is, or there ever was, or ever will be…but im not stuck in that box! If there’s observable evidence for design in the Universe (mathematical as well as visual).Then I am open to investigating that evidence wherever it leads. Not to bind myself in the materialist box, shut out any conclusions that lead to a design inference…And just except the most popular naturalistic theory up to date! I accept natural causes and natural explanations when they are called for. I don’t think God individually freezes every snowflake…But I do believe the laws that control natural events, need a better explanation than the events they control. So don’t be so surprised when I reject your hypothetical theories. I did ask that the explanations you use be distinguished between what can be shown and what is accepted on assumption (ie: because it’s the best naturalistic theory to date)
Vyoma:
I think my grasp of entropy is good enough to get me by…But I don’t quite think you’ve got a grasp of the problem that its proposing. After the Big Bang, the gas was homogeneous, there where no localized systems! We only have localized systems now that they’ve been built up! We’re still left with the problem of how those systems where built up in the first place. And please don’t keep using the “your ignorant” excuse, I think better than I type,(or spell…fortunately).
Now onto your golf analogy …Which was very misleading!! Your analogy of the ball(hydrocarbon chain) landing on the dandelion(protein molecule) being of evens probability is wrong . It’s true that random mutation & environmental pressures have little care in the resulting phenotype. But to get to that phenotype in the first place, their needs to be RAMDOM point mutations, and for those random mutations to lead to a complex organ they have to follow the same direction. Out of all the countless points that mutation can happen, for it to keep mutating at the same point to build up a complex organ, goes against measurable, statistical odds… specified complexity! Your leaf wasn’t a specified target, that’s why the probability was 1…every where on the ground was 1! Then by your own understanding of probability… An “event” can only be improbable if it’s been specified before hand or, retrospectively, shows signs of specification,(like a flint, or a roman vase…specified for a job).Well in recognizing that, you’ve just highlighted one of Dempski’s criteria for empirically testing SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY(intelligent cause).The complexity part refers to the probabilities involved. If you don’t mind me carrying on using your analogy. To build up complex organs through random mutations, once you’ve hit that leaf the first time, that would then be the mutation specified in a certain direction(say the eye. its always a good one).Well to build up complexity on that mutation(the leaf),you would have to hit it every time with the ball (possibly hundreds) by pure random chance(spinning around blindfolded, and throwing the ball up into the air).Like I said, although you think the incredulity argument(“wow that’s to incredible to be true”) is laughable. I think the real joke is on someone who is prepared to put their FAITH in such incredible improbability’s & wildly theoretical explanations, like I said, ….Just to escape the conclusion of a Creator!
And speaking of the incredulity argument…Do you even know what that is??! It simply means that a person finds something to be to incredible to be true. And that type of reasoning like I said belongs in all walks of life. It is used everyday, even in science, the only reason DNA evidence is so conclusive is because there is such a low probability that its a coincidence (to incredible to be true/incredible not to be true) Archeologists & anthropologists use it everyday to decide whether an artifact is intelligently caused, or of random causes, especially flints ie: the structures to “incredible” to be random natural forces. The legal system uses it every day to decide objectively on circumstantial evidence (ie: the circumstantial evidence against a defendant is to “incredible” not to be true. And in fact it’s the mark of a good defense lawyer to bring those odds down so far that the defendants alibi doesn’t seem to “incredible” in the light of the circumstantial evidence. I don’t know where you got your 2000 year old definition from…but there’s it defined for you. And when I related my example to Dempski’s specified complexity, it was the probability factor I was talking about. The incredulity factor is a visual way of recognizing specified complexity(intelligent causes).But Dempski’s mathematical model is used to detect design at an empirical level…You should maybe read some of his work, instead of just arguing from ignorance! As well as Lee Spetner’s - Not by chance: Shattering the modern theory of Evolution.

While im at it, here’s another couple of titles that you should read the argument from, instead of just clicking onto Talk origins and getting answers for arguments you’ve never even heard:
Micheal .J. Behe-Darwins black box: A Bio-chemical change to evolution(And Behe isn’t a Creationist, but a dismayed evolutionist, he believes in a long age for the universe, and that animals have a common descent…just not by any theories proposed at the moment)

Philp Johnston- Darwin on trial
Philp Johnston- Reason in the balance

William.A.Dempski- The Design Inference
William.a.Dempski- the Design Revolution

Comment #167251

Posted by ben on March 27, 2007 11:49 AM (e)

Bill Dempski has a mathematical model for distinguishing between intelligent causes & random effect

And I have a machine that turns toenail clippings into gold. Dembski and I don’t use our devices, for precisely the same reason: they don’t work.

Comment #167267

Posted by Steviepinhead on March 27, 2007 1:09 PM (e)

Bill, dude.

Check out that little key labelled “Enter” over on the right side of your computer keyboard.

Hit it twice.

See the nice space it leaves between paragraphs?

Cool, huh? Also, it forces you to organize your “thoughts” into paragraphs.

Which, incidentally, forces you to organize your thoughts in the first place. Cool, huh?

This simple “Enter” key thus has the side benefit of allowing you to look over the organization of your thoughts before you send them out for the world to read.

Which, maybe, will help you avoid content-free, evidence-free statements like “X just doesn’t do it for me…”.

Not exactly a compelling argument, entraining evidence in logic chains, huh?

“Enter.” A truly amazing invention, all under one little plastic push key.

Comment #167269

Posted by Bill on March 27, 2007 1:22 PM (e)

J.Biggs:
It was my own example!…So I’m not sure where your going with that?? And Dempski uses multiple examples. He used the watch to reinstate Paley’s argument, because it is a good analogy of specified complexity.

Brian:
That list was because Darth asked for one (sorry Darth) & because Vyoma ridiculed the idea of there being anybody who is familiar with science, who would disagree with Evolution (actually I believe you called them dishonest, without even knowing them…THAT’S bias). I wasn’t trying to claim anything from showing the list! Im sure there are plenty of practicing scientists who believe in special creation who have never even heard of AIG. As far as arguing from authority…Did you not point me to answers from the Talk origins list of authorities?…Is that not arguing from authority??…Do we not know most of what we know from authority? Or do you mean arguing from numbers?…
A poll of scientists(I think it was 10,000) was carried out in America to see how many believed in God or another entity .Over 45% believed in a personal God, over 75% (if I remember right) believed in some type of higher intelligence. I think Atheists got about 8%.But polls show that polls show nothing.
Your calculations are insignificant.
You say you only deal in evidence! There is no evidence when dealing with origins!! There’s only INTERPATATION of results in the light of a metaphysical structure (materialist naturalism).

Comment #167362

Posted by kai on March 28, 2007 5:20 AM (e)

Bill wrote:

As far as arguing from authority…Did you not point me to answers from the Talk origins list of authorities?…Is that not arguing from authority??

There is a difference between showing a long list of names, saying “These eminent persons agree with me, therefore I am right.” and listing a series of arguments, saying “This is the reasoning behind my standpoint, and the claims can be looked up and verified.”

So, what people would like to see instead of just names is a list of the arguments these people have made in the scientific literature. This last bit means that not only have they just made a claim, but that other qualified people have checked the claims and the reasoning behind them and determined them to be sound.

Comment #167373

Posted by fnxtr on March 28, 2007 8:21 AM (e)

Bill?

His name is Dembski. Not Dempski. Dembski.
And I think he’d be very annoyed that you put him and God in the same argument here. Other places, okay, but not here, ‘cause you see, when he’s arguing with us, ID isn’t about religion. Honest.

Comment #167407

Posted by Bill on March 28, 2007 11:44 AM (e)

Kia:
I clearly stated that I was not claiming anything about the list! I WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE ONE!
And creationists can’t get their papers published, if there is an “other than natural” conclusion to their results (although there are plenty of scientists who are Creationists, and publish standard papers within their own field). Evolutionists run the journals, Any papers Creationists submit are excluded, because by evolutionists own definition, no “supernatural” conclusions are part of science. And even when the conclusions are left out of the paper, if the review body even suspect that the content of the paper leads to a “supernatural” conclusion it gets rejected. So evolutionists have it all wrapped up nicely with their circular reasoning, namely: “creationists can’t publish any papers, because religion isn’t part of science”….Then “Creationists don’t publish any papers, so there’s nothing to their science”
This can be shown. One good example is Robert.V.Gentry.Although Gentry had some papers published in some major journals, Science, Nature, Journal of Geophysical Research, etc, showing his work to be accurate, he only accomplished this by hiding his conclusions. But once his conclusions where realized, he never got to publish again)….He is recognized (by his staunchest critics) to be the worlds leading authority on radio halo’s (the elements escaping from decaying radio active material, surround the material like a halo).
He studied & examined these halo’s for years, in particular polonium 18.The halo’s of the polonium 18 only last for about 3 mins. But yet there are polonium 18 halos trapped in the granite foundation rocks of the earth. Concluding that the rocks either hardened within 3 mins….or else there has been an extremely significant difference in the decay rate of radio active material. (Meaning the methods used for testing rocks to find the age of the Earth would be highly inaccurate.)
What did he get for his troubles…He got his grant stopped, told to stop researching it, and his collages who he had worked with for years froze him out!…All in the name of science! And all this , even though they can’t fault his work…or refute it.(He was very meticulous because he knew what he would be up against)They called it a “tiny mystery” yet to be solved…Very scientific!
Science doesn’t deal with future conclusions or results or with unknown laws yet to be discovered. It deals with what’s in front of us, and what we know. Gentry spent years trying to get the scientific establishment to recognize and publish his work…But to no avail. Instead he had to finance the rest of his own work (with help from friends) and publish his work in a book! The book is fully referenced with the rejection letters, and corresponding mail. And there are Creation science journals: Creation Research Society Quarterly and the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal.

Robert.V.Gentry: Creations Tiny Mystery

Fnxtr:
Well actually Dembski makes no secret of the fact that he’s a Christian. All he is saying is that his model for testing intelligent causes in the universe has nothing to do with his Christianity…And as he clearly states, you could believe the designer of the universe to be an unseen, un-testable “force” if you wanted to. It wouldn’t matter. His model detects design in the universe…it doesn’t give any insight into the designer. His model only discriminates blind random chance….But deciphers necessity (natural law)

Comment #167408

Posted by J. Biggs on March 28, 2007 11:45 AM (e)

Bill says:
It was my own example!…So I’m not sure where your going with that?? And Dempski uses multiple examples. He used the watch to reinstate Paley’s argument, because it is a good analogy of specified complexity.

No, it was a poor paraphrase of Paley’s watchmaker analogy. The original idea is still Paley’s and has been refuted for some time now.

What you don’t seem to understand is that science is not philosophically materialistic or naturalistic; it is methodologically materialistic and naturalistic. There is no observable designer here to take credit for the universe and all that is in it, so science just sticks to trying to understand the universe and all that is in it. You really do not understand science in the least bit. Your conflation of biological evolution and cosmology is evidence enough of that. Not to mention you repeatedly conflate biological evolution and abiogenesis. Please go educate yourself before you try to argue against concepts of which you are ignorant.

Comment #167413

Posted by J. Biggs on March 28, 2007 12:12 PM (e)

Of course, Bill, the truth is what a person believes is not really relevant to science. Therefore, your list is irrelevant, even if someone asked you for it. The TOA is relevant because it provides science based refutations to creationist arguments. Considering your dismal understanding of science and your religious bias, I can see why you don’t accept the TOA refutations. However, as previously stated, what you believe is irrelevant to science.

As David Brooks says:

“To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy.”

Darwin, himself, was wrong about many things. He was, however, mostly correct about descent with modification. Origin of Species had very little to do with what Darwin believed or opined and everything to do with what he had observed. His original theory has been added to and modified many times and has moved way beyond Darwin himself, yet, his original premise has yet to be disproved.

Comment #167418

Posted by Raging Bee on March 28, 2007 12:27 PM (e)

If his stones(facts&figures)had no substance…they wouldn’t hurt!

Lies have no substance, but that doesn’t stop them from hurting a lot of people, in a lot of ways, throughout the entire course of human history.

Comment #167422

Posted by J. Biggs on March 28, 2007 1:13 PM (e)

Bill, your polonium halos argument is also addressed here. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.…

Not that I expect you to really believe what the actual evidence says. By the way, you still haven’t come up with a single argument that hasn’t been refuted at TO. That is, unless you include your invalid straw-man arguments that don’t really represent a scientific viewpoint. (Matter and energy from nothing, complexity from chaos, “Darwinism”, etc…)

Comment #167424

Posted by Richard Simons on March 28, 2007 1:29 PM (e)

Bill, writing of Dembski, says “His model detects design in the universe”.

First, how can a ‘model’ detect anything?

Presumably you are talking about his ‘explanatory filter’. Please could you do something Dembski has always avoided and walk us through (baby steps, please!) two applications of the filter, once with something that is designed and once with something that is not designed. I am sure I am not alone in failing to understand how it could possibly be put into practice.

Comment #167453

Posted by creeky belly on March 28, 2007 5:01 PM (e)

Bill wrote:

Creeky, your hypothetical theory “no net heat flow”(then assuming that would automatically lead to a reversal… I take it that’s to allow complexity to be built up) and gravity “tends to sort things” doesn’t quite do it for me! Creeky, from a chaotic explosion then a homogeneous expansion, a system of some sort would have had to emerge to start condensing the “gas” into complex structures, and then arrange those structures into an orderly arrangement of planets & stars. Then out of that complexity building, another system would have had to emerge that reverses the first system (what reverses a universal “law”?) to give us entropy! And where did it get the information to build up this complexity in the first place?…Information isn’t a property of matter, matters just a transmitter for it. I don’t expect you to go into a long explanation on what happened between the Big Bang and an ordered universe, but if you can suggest any books giving a run down of the different, popular theory’s on the subject? I haven’t read an in depth evolutionary explanation of this yet. (Semi-technical…..And there’s probably going to be loads of math’s….so more semi than technical!)

Speaking very briefly on the subject, structure formation is strongly dependent on the nature of the inflaton. There are three essential components that cause anisotropy from inflation: scalar, vector, and tensor perturbations. Scalar perturbations are density perturbations which tend to create inhomogeneity (structure). Vector perturbations can be thought of as the analog of the curl of a vector field, these tend to be dissipated by the expansion. Tensor perturbations end up as gravitational waves which propagate through the majority of matter in the universe. The scalar (and other) perturbations are the result of quantum interactions and the general breakdown of physical laws at that scale (gravity and quantum mechanics). It seems in general you’re conflating the terms complexity and density; the formation of a dense object by gravitational interaction is an increase in entropy since the collisions emit thermal radiation. In addition, during inflation, different nuclear interactions and processes turn on and off, which adds to the structure.

I’m not sure what you mean by information, are you referring to Shannon entropy regarding information? If you’re asking about the system that allowed structure formation, you probably should start with nucleosynthesis and the interactions that go with it, which I discussed last time.

I’m not sure how you’d really attack this from an evolutionary standpoint, it seems like that’s a conflation of different disciplines.

For a comprehensive reference on Thermodynamics I recommend Landau and Lifshitz, an oldie but goodie. You seem to be misunderstanding some physics terminology (reversible refers to entropy conserving processes, not that it will reverse, but you can reverse it with no heat flow). Entropy itself is a statistical quantity (like temperature, pressure), so to say “we got entropy” makes no sense. You can’t get more temperature, temperature increases or decreases.

If you’re looking for popular books on the early universe, a Brief History of Time is a good start. If you’re interested in the technical data, Peacock has a excellent book on Cosmological Physics. Peacock’s is probably the most comprehensive, although Peebles also has a very nice reference.

Comment #167538

Posted by Bill on March 29, 2007 11:16 AM (e)

Thanks Creeky.

Comment #167563

Posted by Bill on March 29, 2007 2:52 PM (e)

J.Biggs:

It wasn’t intentionally a paraphrase of anybody’s analogy…just a silly little example to give people an idea of what I was talking about!
Science as a concept might be methodologically materialistic …But the minds behind it are philosophically materialistic. And it is those minds that interpret the data.
You say there is no observable intelligent designer here to take the credit for the design…But then, there are no roman artists left either, but we observe their design in the sculptures they left behind. And we also have no problem equating those sculptures to a designing intelligence.(if a simple stone sculpture, or better, a simple flint!…why not all the more ,a DNA strand?…or a solar system?
Besides, I beg to differ. He is about. I have quite a good personal relationship with him.

I didn’t conflate cosmology & biology; I started with cosmology, everybody (exceptions) else jumped straight to biology. I explained what I meant by “Darwinian sense” and admitted I should have explained myself better. You said I conflated biological Evolution with abiogenes.I don’t remember talking about abiogenesis, maybe I did? But even if I didn’t,I would say abiogenesis means a lot to biological evolution. Maybe not to a Biologist…But then I did say you can’t just hide in biology, show me variations of a species and say “there you go, there’s evolution all wrapped up for you.” You can’t believe that the universe had no intelligent agent involved (which most Evolutionary Biologists do, I believe), hide in Biology, and dodge the rest of the issues involved in it.

You say talkorigins “provides science based refutations to creationist arguments”. But that’s what Creation science organizations do as well, refute Evolutionary arguments. But I wouldn’t expect you just to believe what they say.
When you’re talking about anything to do with testing theories of origins, it comes down to interpretation of the evidence. That’s why there are so many conflicting theories in origin science. Any theory (sometimes, no matter how wild) will be held, even if it’s only until another one comes along. As long as it’s a natural (theoretically, at least) explanation. That’s philosophical, materialist naturalism.

I am planning to look through the talkorigins site, but remember there is usually a reason opponents get two rebuttals in a debate…so make sure you read the rebuttals of both sides.

Thanks for your time everyone…Bye for now!

Comment #167568

Posted by fnxtr on March 29, 2007 3:30 PM (e)

We know who the Romans were, bill… oh, never mind. It’s hopeless.

Comment #167615

Posted by Henry J on March 29, 2007 9:30 PM (e)

Re “We know who the Romans were, […]”

Trying to resist the obvious punchline. Resist… Resist…

Henry

Comment #167623

Posted by Vyoma on March 30, 2007 12:04 AM (e)

Bill wrote:

I think your vacuum energy theory is laughable! Is this a proposed mechanism for bringing into being a universe full of matter & energy…from something, I take it, that has no substance, or structure, uses no energy of any kind,(or where did they come from) exists in no time or space…quite frankly, doesn’t exist at all! And im supposed to except this or some other wild theory over commonsense!! Science works as the best NATUREAL theory wins. Well its possible to come up with any theory to fill a gap if it can’t be verified. That’s why there’s so much assumption in origin science. Assumption seems to be sciences secrete word. In fact, origin science is built on one great assumption…Uniformitarianism! And like it is said…Assumption is the mother of all mistakes!

No, Bill, it’s something that still exists. Again, you really need to start doing some homework before making all sorts of ridiculous statements like this. Science works on observations, not assumptions. We can assume that things exist or don’t exist all we like; it doesn’t mean a thing until evidence is observed. A theory isn’t an assumption, it’s a model that accounts for and explains all observed phenomena to which it is relevant. As far as Uniformitarianism, yes, there is an assumption that the laws that drive the universe now are the same ones that have since very early in its history, within picoseconds of its beginning. That’s not an assumption, however; it’s a model that explains all of the observations from every single discipline of study in the physical sciences. All the evidence points to it. If you have evidence of something else, I encourage you to publish it. You will definitely be hailed as the greatest scientist since Newton, to say the least.

I’m also willing to wager that you don’t have any such evidence.

You already have a materialistic mind, so any event that’s happened or likely to happen in the history of the Universe, you have to apply a materialist/naturalistic assumption to it. You already live in a paragin of : nature is all there is, or there ever was, or ever will be…but im not stuck in that box! If there’s observable evidence for design in the Universe (mathematical as well as visual).Then I am open to investigating that evidence wherever it leads.

There isn’t any evidence for design outside of your own “credulity.” We haven’t found a single thing that requires intelligent intervention, beyond human and animal construction, that can’t be explained by physical laws — the same ones govern all matter, animate and inanimate. What you’re doing is the classic “god of the gaps” argument; you’re ignorant of something and assign that thing to a “designer.” Then when presented with evidence to the contrary, you attempt to hand-wave it all away. And Bill, you’re not “investigating” anything. You never have, aside from reading things that support what you already think. You’ve never run a controlled experiment in your life.

Not to bind myself in the materialist box, shut out any conclusions that lead to a design inference…

Again, I’m astounded by your incompetence with simple logic. That’s a very telling statement, though. Conclusions don’t lead anywhere; that’s what comes at the end, unless you’re taking your assumption as a conclusion… which, in fact, you are. In either case, this is both a logical and methodological dead end, and yet another embarrassingly dimwitted statement.

I accept natural causes and natural explanations when they are called for. I don’t think God individually freezes every snowflake…But I do believe the laws that control natural events, need a better explanation than the events they control. So don’t be so surprised when I reject your hypothetical theories. I did ask that the explanations you use be distinguished between what can be shown and what is accepted on assumption (ie: because it’s the best naturalistic theory to date)

As opposed to… what? There was a time when people DID believe that “God froze every individual snowflake,” that diseases were caused by evil spirits, and that epilepsy was a sign of possession. Should those people have stuck to their guns in order to avoid every “natural explanation” that came along? And these theories aren’t mine, they’re theories (there’s no such thing as a hypothetical theory) that explain not just a single event, but ALL events that are related to one another. The same physical laws that explain the formation of snowflakes also explain the way that blood carries oxygen.

I think my grasp of entropy is good enough to get me by…

You think wrong. You don’t understand what entropy is. You’re making up something that you give the same name, but it isn’t the same thing that the model you’re attacking calls it. his is what is known as a logical strawman, yet another logical fallacy in your apparently complete portfolio of the fallacious.

But I don’t quite think you’ve got a grasp of the problem that its proposing. After the Big Bang, the gas was homogeneous, there where no localized systems!

You’re proposing something that’s not part of the model you’re attacking. Another strawman. The problem here is with your theory, not with big bang cosmogeny.

I think better than I type,(or spell…fortunately).

I’ve read what you’ve said and addressed that, not your typing. You don’t know what you’re talking about, and that’s ignorance.

Now onto your golf analogy …Which was very misleading!! Your analogy of the ball(hydrocarbon chain) landing on the dandelion(protein molecule) being of evens probability is wrong . It’s true that random mutation & environmental pressures have little care in the resulting phenotype. But to get to that phenotype in the first place, their needs to be RAMDOM point mutations, and for those random mutations to lead to a complex organ they have to follow the same direction.

That’s exactly what the analogy addresses. But you’re making even MORE mistakes here than you did in your original statement about probabilities. The mutations in question don’t have to be point mutations; there are numerous other sorts of mutations. More importantly, some of these mutations affect mechanisms that govern developmental pathways, so even one mutation can lead to large changes, or several small ones at the same time. “Complex organs” are generally nothing but repetition of simpler units, which I point out because of your next bit of malarkey:

Out of all the countless points that mutation can happen, for it to keep mutating at the same point to build up a complex organ, goes against measurable, statistical odds… specified complexity!

So what if a mutation occurs in a gene that governs when development of a simpler structure isn’t turned off at the usual time and instead runs twice as long? The result is two of those structures. Keep it running… and eventually what you get is a number of clustered simpler structures, and we see this happening in many places. Kidneys are a good example of this; we can trace the origin of that complex organ all the way back down the phylogenetic tree to very primitive invertebrates. The same subunits that make up a human kidney are found singularly in earthworms. It’s a change in the developmental pathway, and that’s certainly not against any astronomical odds you’re imagining, and which don’t exist except in your own head.

Your leaf wasn’t a specified target, that’s why the probability was 1…every where on the ground was 1! Then by your own understanding of probability… An “event” can only be improbable if it’s been specified before hand or, retrospectively, shows signs of specification,(like a flint, or a roman vase…specified for a job).Well in recognizing that, you’ve just highlighted one of Dempski’s criteria for empirically testing SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY(intelligent cause).

And we’re back to your “conclusions that lead to…” statement. “It looks like it’s perfectly suited for this job, and so starting from nothing, it would have to have been designed for it.” That’s Dembski’s claim in a nutshell, and it’s based on the same Huxley-like reasoning that you tried to use initially, and you’ve got it entirely backwards. The problem is that Dembski, like you, begins reasoning with a conclusion, and that’s where the probability is 1. The problem for both of you is that the assumption itself is wrong, and so you begin with an invalid conclusion (which is itself enough of a pointless exercise). The functions which things perform can, and often do, change over time. The point at which the specification of function is drawn is ARBITRARY in such theories. We can say a vase is designed to carry something… but what? You can put water in a vase, or milk, or dirt, or gravel, and each of these is a different situation. Plus, the vase can be used for one thing on one day and then something else the next day, and nowhere can what you and Dembski propose (and I think more Dembski, since you’re not coming up with this on your own) account for that change in function… because “carry water” and “carry gravel” are two different functions, particularly when we’re using them as an analogy for biological systems. We frequently find the same materials and similar structures in one living thing being used for a different function in another. This isn’t a case of de novo origin, but the accumulation of small changes over time.

To build up complex organs through random mutations, once you’ve hit that leaf the first time, that would then be the mutation specified in a certain direction(say the eye. its always a good one).Well to build up complexity on that mutation(the leaf),you would have to hit it every time with the ball (possibly hundreds) by pure random chance(spinning around blindfolded, and throwing the ball up into the air).

This is such a profound mischaracterization of genetics and development… you don’t have to change the SAME gene over and over again to create more structurally complex organs from simpler ones. In fact, if all you did was mutate the same gene over and over again, you wouldn’t achieve anything at all. It’s necessary for some number of changes to occur, and again, changing “controllers” can cause profound changes. Another example: the hox gene’s duplication; somewhere along the line, this gene (I’ll be forgiven for simplifying this instead of pointing to hox-a, hox-b, etc.) got replicated more than once due to an error in reading, and the results were quite profound and have been thoroughly investigated. It wasn’t necessary to mutate the same gene over and over in this case; just once will do.

Like I said, although you think the incredulity argument(“wow that’s to incredible to be true”) is laughable. I think the real joke is on someone who is prepared to put their FAITH in such incredible improbability’s & wildly theoretical explanations, like I said, ….Just to escape the conclusion of a Creator!

I don’t have to escape the conclusion of a creator, I have to see evidence that one exists. I don’t have to have faith when I have evidence; faith is belief based upon ignorance in the way that you use that word.

And by the way, I thought we were talking about intelligent design. You’ve suddenly switched to a “creator,” providing just a little more evidence (as if anymore were needed) that ID is nothing but a cover for Creationism. But the real joke is that even when your error is pointed out to you, a fundamental logical fallacy, you won’t see the evidence. News flash for you, Bill: the idea that argument from incredulity was a fallacy was originated by people who thought there was a creator. It’s a logical fallacy because it can be demonstrated to be invalid, not because its somebody’s assertion that it is.

Read this explanation of argumentum ad ignorantium for more on this. I don’t have time to give you a lesson on logic on top of all your misconceptions about biology.

And speaking of the incredulity argument…Do you even know what that is??! It simply means that a person finds something to be to incredible to be true. And that type of reasoning like I said belongs in all walks of life. It is used everyday, even in science, the only reason DNA evidence is so conclusive is because there is such a low probability that its a coincidence (to incredible to be true/incredible not to be true)

Yes, I do understand it. From what you’ve just written here, you clearly don’t. Go read that link.

Archeologists & anthropologists use it everyday to decide whether an artifact is intelligently caused, or of random causes, especially flints ie: the structures to “incredible” to be random natural forces.

What anthropologists and anthropologists do is make a testable hypothesis and then test it. Please don’t give me a lecture on what anthropologists do; I’ve lived with one for over a decade now and have a number of archaeologists and anthropologists who are friends, and not a single one would agree with your characterization of their work. Like any scientist, they look at the evidence, form a hypothesis, and then test the hypothesis. They also change their ideas when confronted with new evidence that has bearing upon them.

And when I related my example to Dempski’s specified complexity, it was the probability factor I was talking about. The incredulity factor is a visual way of recognizing specified complexity(intelligent causes).But Dempski’s mathematical model is used to detect design at an empirical level…You should maybe read some of his work, instead of just arguing from ignorance! As well as Lee Spetner’s - Not by chance: Shattering the modern theory of Evolution.

I’ve seen Dembski’s work and even know how to spell his name correctly. I’ve also seen what mathematicians and statisticians have to say about his assertions. All you’ve provided here is yet another voice confirming that Dembski’s ideas are fallacious from the inception. I don’t know Spetner, but it sounds like the same junk science we see coming out of what amounts to a political movement with its main intent being to delude those who aren’t able to see for themselves why argument from incredulity is fallacious.

Which you obviously don’t.

You’ve been conned, Bill.

Comment #167624

Posted by Sir_Toejam on March 30, 2007 12:26 AM (e)

You’ve been conned, Bill.

oh…

billy got conned, an he don’ care.

billy got conned, an he don’ care.

billy got conned, an he don’ care.

his master’s gone away.

I can’t believe the time you invested in poor old bill, Vy. I’m sure he won’t appreciate it.

Comment #167636

Posted by Vyoma on March 30, 2007 5:30 AM (e)

Sir_Toejam wrote:

I can’t believe the time you invested in poor old bill, Vy. I’m sure he won’t appreciate it.

Neither can I, and neither do I. But I had insomnia and needed a break from writing a paper. A guy can only parse through so much data before he wants to do something verbal, and I guess I got pretty verbal there. :)

Comment #178835

Posted by LUVINJESUS on May 25, 2007 2:12 PM (e)

i is liek caek :D
is u want caek wit me bill?
I LUV JEESUS!!!!!1

Comment #180024

Posted by Todd Harper on May 29, 2007 10:32 PM (e)

Dear Dr. J.M.:

Eternal life is free in Christ Jesus. Otherwise, you’ll have to pay your own way.

Comment #180028

Posted by Kathy Minot on May 29, 2007 10:43 PM (e)

Dear BlackCat:

Yes, exactly! It’s just like trying to explain light to a blind man, or explaining algebra to a dead man, or trying to explain common sense to an over-educated stooge.

Comment #187758

Posted by man who believes in a rock on July 13, 2007 11:16 PM (e)

i think that you should free Hovind because he is doing far to much good in jail.

Comment #188883

Posted by Matthew Ward on July 19, 2007 8:52 PM (e)

I once considered the possibility of evolution, even bothered reading the book “The Rise of Life”. I’m very well familiar with the Theory of evolution. After seeing Kent’s seminars and views of contemporary scientists who increasingly doubt the evolution notion with more new discoveries, I now realize what an elaborate fairy tale evolution really is.
It’s not science, just pure science fiction. All evolution teaches is shape shifting in real super slow motion from one life form to another more complex life form. Sounds like a scenario from Harry Potter. The Creation Account immensely makes better sense. Not just scientifically, but in terms of common sense. I’ve alwayS believed in God, though evolution shook my faith a little, but always knew man’s flawed reasoning doesn’t compare to God’s infinite wisdom. Kent Hovind cleared up a lot of nagging questions I had of the creation vs. evolution account.

Comment #188898

Posted by GuyeFaux on July 20, 2007 1:20 AM (e)

I’m very well familiar with the Theory of evolution.

Methinks you’re a lying scumbag:

All evolution teaches is shape shifting in real super slow motion from one life form to another more complex life form.

because that’s not what “evolution teaches”, insofar as any natural process is capable of teaching anything.

Comment #188968

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson, OM on July 20, 2007 10:43 AM (e)

Moreover, all scientists in biology support evolution, a 150 year old theory that has proven its worth time and again. (All, with the usual exceptions of nutcases that you see in all walks of life.)

And saying that it isn’t science doesn’t make it so. All scientists support that biology is a science. (Again, with the usual exceptions. :-P)

Comment #188984

Posted by J. Biggs on July 20, 2007 12:13 PM (e)

Matthew wrote:

The Creation Account immensely makes better sense. Not just scientifically, but in terms of common sense.

Common sense also told us that the earth was flat and that everything in the universe revolved around it. Both of those assertions also supported by a literal interpretation of the Bible were also proved incorrect.

I’ve alwayS believed in God, though evolution shook my faith a little, but always knew man’s flawed reasoning doesn’t compare to God’s infinite wisdom.

I don’t believe you really ever considered the scientific explanation for anything that contradicted your presupposed belief in the inerrancy of the Bible.

Kent Hovind cleared up a lot of nagging questions I had of the creation vs. evolution account.

Correction, Kent Hovind lied about, distorted, and misrepresented evolution and you bought it all hook, line, and sinker.