Ok, four replies to a single post...seriously? I mean, it's difficult enough to reply without that. And I'm going to just ask you to open up a
thread on this topic.
reply to post by NOTurTypical
No, it's not hidden. It's
ignored. I mean, you're a Christian that takes the Bible as inerrant (at least that's what I gather from your
posts)....which is blatantly false. I mean, the whole thing is exceedingly errant. The information that the Bible is full of errancy is out there, but
Christians either ignore it or explain it away.
On the other hand, scientists have access to all the information, and conform their beliefs
to the data rather than their worldview. That's
what you're not getting. I asked you for a simple enough thing, show me that the example you gave (the geologic column) is a matter of worldview
rather than evidence. Of course, I'd ask you to do this in another thread because
this is not the topic of this thread, even though it is a
far less distasteful topic than the thread itself.
reply to post by NOTurTypical
I'm sorry, that's an outright lie. I never claimed that Kent Hovind's claims were incorrect because he's a grade-A jerk and criminal. That is
independent of his claims. His claims would be incorrect if he was perfect in every way. I was just pointing out that some people might get distracted
by his jerkishness.
I'm not poisoning the well, I'm pointing out that there's a point to those statements. Those points are irrelevant to the fallacious statements
made by Hovind.
reply to post by NOTurTypical
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
NOT in logical debate. Logical debate is not a court of law where one's credibility is a basis for deciding truth. As stated earlier a person could
be wrong on everything they had said without exception to date and their next argument would have to be accepted or discredited on it's own merits
alone.
But you miss one thing:
this is the internet. I didn't say that his arguments hinge on his credibility, but he's a-
And I'd argue that Kent's history as a science teacher would more than qualify him to present lies contained in science books:
I'm not going to discuss it here because we're already
insanely off-topic and I'm not going to go through the trouble of responding to a 2-3
hour long seminar (probably around 2 and a half if I remember correctly) in a thread where
this is not the subject
Why? Because I've seen this video before. It's full o' lies. It'll take too long.
Lies in the textbooks
No, the lies are contained in this video. But again, I'll explain them all if you just bother to start a new thread. Hell, thanks for providing me
with the link, I think I'll start off my YouTube skepticism career with a critique of that video, even though doing such is old hat.
These lies are also included in Dr. Jonathan Wells book "Icons of Evolution" which I previously strongly recommended you read.
Also full of lies. I've perused it mildly now (found an ebook version), it's full of lots and lots and lots of lies. I mean, the guy takes the cover
picture as the 'ultimate icon of evolution'...that cover is the famous 'march of progress' which was designed by an artist for Time-Life in
1965 and has nothing to do with science.
It attacks Haeckal for his embryos...well, the evolutionary biologists attacked him for that one well before Wells got to it.
And lastly...why is he attacking high school textbooks? I mean, my high school textbook for chemistry had the common depiction of an atom, which is
also patently incorrect. But does that falsify atomic physics? The very premise of his book is that misrepresentations occur in low level studies,
though they often occur with explanation (the bio book that I had explained how Haeckal embellished his embryos and then provided photographs of the
embryos) and for the sake of teaching history. The man is basing his whole argument on discrediting the wrong stuff. Rather than attacking the
actual academic work he's attacking the low level education materials, the entirely wrong course of action.
(more to follow)
In a thread in O&C hopefully. Because I'm seriously done with this discussion here. As much as I enjoy it, as much as I think it is productive.
