In *his* view? How about sticking to valid science instead of views which include something like polystrate trees being used as arguments for the Biblical Flood. And which are brought forth by a man who claims to have a doctor's degree even though he really doesn't have one.
To answer your question - no, I haven't watched the videos. Reading his website ought to be enough. Let me guess, one of those definitions is microevolution?
He could still be wrong, and actually is. Some Creationist think tank (might be the Center of Creation Research or something like that) has a list of arguments Creationists shouldn't use because the arguments in question are wrong. Unfortunately Hovind is very effective at recycling these arguments.
And I'd like to add that there are countless Christians who have no problems with the scientific fact of evolution.
And the reason that makes Hovind a better or truer Christian is..?
Self-proclaimed True Believers(tm) are quite funny when they start bickering about in a "I'm more punk than you" style. They cherry-pick the Bible apart and end up in a holier-than-thou delirium. How noble.
No prob. I'd still like to point out that in science, there is no gradual process of factual validity that starts with a hypothesis and ends with a law. Laws are not absolutes, and can be refuted if exceptions to them are found. Actually, when we go to the domain of quantum physics, some classic physical laws do not apply anymore. However, they are still true and applicable in practice since they work on our scale here on Earth. You can build a working car relying on the laws of classical mechanics, but you can't build it with the help of quantum physics.
Here's a Google search on "scientific law". It also provides more info on the differences between hypotheses, theories and laws.
"Whether your explanation is correct, or Hovind's, the key point is that the generally accepted line that these layers built up over a "millions of years" is not necessarily correct."
This isn't the key point. The key point is there's nothing in these polystrate trees that is contradictory with known geological processes, which is what Hovind is claiming. He's putting words into the mouths of geologists and paleontologists. You are also wrong with stating that it's a generally accepted line that sediment layers "build up over millions of years" (they actually build up in both millions of years and even in days). This isn't used as evidence of an old Earth. Hovind's simply slaying straw men here.
If a person fakes a doctoral degree, it isn't an ad hominem to point this out. It's simply stating a fact.
When everything else fails, talk.origins prevails - at least as far as creationist arguments are concerned: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/
Geology and paleontology being my specific field of study, it's not hard to see that the faults in Hovind's arguments are countless. One of these is the tired old "polystrate trees" argument. Hovind claims that "The evolutionist has only two choices to solve this dilemma: 1.The trees stood upright for millions of years while the sediment layers formed around them. 2.The trees grew through hundreds of feet of solid sedimentary rock looking for sunlight." After this he says the only plausible explanation is a huge flood.
What the heck? There are no fossil trees growing through sedimentary layers hundreds of feet thick. And I definitely haven't heard any "evolutionist" claiming something like that. A flood is a very bad explanation for this. A huge single-event flood wouldn't form several delicate, separate layers of sediments. Instead we'd get a mishmash of all kinds of stuff. Even right now there are millions of tree trunks getting buried in sediments in rivers, lakes and dry-land sedimentation basins etc. And it doesn't even take that long. At different times (seasonal fluctuation etc.) the rate of deposition is slower, at times faster, and this, among with other processes like changes in flow speed, causes the layered structure and the varying thickness of the strata. The tree gets buried in the process. Poof, the mystery is gone!
When somebody like Hovind the Fraud still uses old, refuted arguments to back up his case, what else can you think that either 1) the man is a loonie or 2) he's lying. That he isn't a real doctor even though he claims to be one doesn't make him much more trustworthy.
For some reason you're concentrating on the tax issue. Any comments on the fact that Hovind isn't actually a doctor?
I might adopt this as my sig: "In all of these efforts, the creationists make abundant use of a simple tactic: They lie. They lie continually, they lie prodigiously, and they lie because they must." -William J. Bennetta
The only problem is that "Dr." Hovind is a fraud. He isn't even a real doctor, just another dishonest, lying creationist flapping his mouth about. But hey, he makes a pretty penny selling his "informative" videos to gullible people like you. So since he's probably richer than me he can't be all that dumb. But dishonesty is something I can't tolerate. It's actually quite fascinating how lying is such a favored strategy among these so-called People of God.
One, the evolutionary theory is a theory, not a fact.
Yawn. This "argument" is soooo tired...
A scientific theory is a model based on facts from observations and experiments. The studied phenomenon we know takes place in nature is evolution. Our model that tries to explain this is the theory of evolution. Please, please never use this argument again, it just shows your ignorance of the subject.
Me, on the other hand, love my Apacer USB drive for the same reason you don't like it. I don't carry it around at a keychain, so the cap being fixed to the safety cord or whatever they call it doesn't bother me at all. On the contrary, I find it the best feature of the drive. I never need to worry about losing the cap, and I know plenty of folks who have lost theirs.
This gets in the way of evolution as much as a small stone gets in the way of a car.
Besides, we now have observeed this in one plant, Arabidopsis. Now we have to find out, whether this applies to
a) Other plant species
b) Animals, say, insects and vertebrates.
And still, 90% of the occurred mutations went on unreversed. Not a big deal. Those, who actually are interested in science and its revelations about this world know that this is fantastic news. Creationists, on the other hand, hang onto this as a new "Evolution Killer". Despisable people.
I wouldn't wonder if Disney tried to poison the minds of our precious children with some EVILutionist propaganda. After all, they're the ones who try to tell our children it's OK to be a gay warthog (or a meerkat at that)!
The bible in it's basic form probably pre-dates religion, it was only later that people began to see it as something more and worship it, like present day people do with Star Wars, Star Trek, LOTRs.
Yeah. Obviously, to some fundie nuts accepting the fact of evolution is about as bad as Greedo shooting first, even though the latter is pure blasphemy! Crazy folks!
I have read about a scientific experiment on this. People, who were given something else but were said to get alcohol, got drunk and even passed out. Placebo effect at its finest.
Where I live, people often put "no advertisements, please" signs on their doors if they don't want a heap of colorful waste paper on their front door carpet on a daily basis.
This case is the equivalent of those paper advertisers suing you for not accepting their carbage in your mailbox. How bold can the spammers get before somebody decides to destroy them once and for all? Can somebody soon paint ads on your house without your concent?
I don't really see why distributions should mimic windows. Those who bother to install any os install like windows or some linuxes can probably adept to gnome or kde easily.
Emphasis on "those who bother". Linspire are aiming for Joe User. THE Joe User(TM), not even Joe Advanced User who might be able to do a format c: on his Windows PC every now and then or have the skills and curiosity to try out other apps than those which come with their OS.
Joe User(TM) can't do this. He's the kind of guy who can only write email by clicking 'reply' in Outlook Express and who gets lost immediately if the IE logo on his Windows desktop is replaced by, say, Firefox. Joe Users are extremely conservative when it comes to computers, apps and their GUIs. If anything is changed, they panic and think they have to start all over with learning even that little stuff they've managed to learn with their computerphobia.
This is the crowd Linspire are aiming for, and that's why they are making their Linux distro as redmondised as possible. They don't care about Joe Advanced Users or/.ers. Unfortunately, Joe Users(TM) are still the great majority among computer users.
In my opinion, Linspire are right in doing so. Many other Linux distros overwhelm the n00bie with their abudance of software. Only advanced users long for a wealth of apps to begin with.
There's enough evidence about violent media encouraging people who are prone to violent behavior. But a violent game/movie does not a violent person make(/yodaspeak).
And with porn readily available, the hypocritical attitude towards sex and parents & schools unwilling to give kids any kind of real sex ed, where do you think kids get their behavior model in all matters sexual?
Slashdot Mirror
In *his* view? How about sticking to valid science instead of views which include something like polystrate trees being used as arguments for the Biblical Flood. And which are brought forth by a man who claims to have a doctor's degree even though he really doesn't have one.
To answer your question - no, I haven't watched the videos. Reading his website ought to be enough. Let me guess, one of those definitions is microevolution?
He could still be wrong, and actually is. Some Creationist think tank (might be the Center of Creation Research or something like that) has a list of arguments Creationists shouldn't use because the arguments in question are wrong. Unfortunately Hovind is very effective at recycling these arguments.
And I'd like to add that there are countless Christians who have no problems with the scientific fact of evolution.
And the reason that makes Hovind a better or truer Christian is..?
Self-proclaimed True Believers(tm) are quite funny when they start bickering about in a "I'm more punk than you" style. They cherry-pick the Bible apart and end up in a holier-than-thou delirium. How noble.
You mean like 640K of RAM?
The most interesting thing about the site (the first one I linked to, not talk.origins) is that the author seems to be a Christian.
No prob. I'd still like to point out that in science, there is no gradual process of factual validity that starts with a hypothesis and ends with a law. Laws are not absolutes, and can be refuted if exceptions to them are found. Actually, when we go to the domain of quantum physics, some classic physical laws do not apply anymore. However, they are still true and applicable in practice since they work on our scale here on Earth. You can build a working car relying on the laws of classical mechanics, but you can't build it with the help of quantum physics.
Here's a Google search on "scientific law". It also provides more info on the differences between hypotheses, theories and laws.
"Whether your explanation is correct, or Hovind's, the key point is that the generally accepted line that these layers built up over a "millions of years" is not necessarily correct."
This isn't the key point. The key point is there's nothing in these polystrate trees that is contradictory with known geological processes, which is what Hovind is claiming. He's putting words into the mouths of geologists and paleontologists. You are also wrong with stating that it's a generally accepted line that sediment layers "build up over millions of years" (they actually build up in both millions of years and even in days). This isn't used as evidence of an old Earth. Hovind's simply slaying straw men here.
If a person fakes a doctoral degree, it isn't an ad hominem to point this out. It's simply stating a fact.
When everything else fails, talk.origins prevails - at least as far as creationist arguments are concerned: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/
Geology and paleontology being my specific field of study, it's not hard to see that the faults in Hovind's arguments are countless. One of these is the tired old "polystrate trees" argument. Hovind claims that "The evolutionist has only two choices to solve this dilemma: 1.The trees stood upright for millions of years while the sediment layers formed around them. 2.The trees grew through hundreds of feet of solid sedimentary rock looking for sunlight." After this he says the only plausible explanation is a huge flood.
What the heck? There are no fossil trees growing through sedimentary layers hundreds of feet thick. And I definitely haven't heard any "evolutionist" claiming something like that. A flood is a very bad explanation for this. A huge single-event flood wouldn't form several delicate, separate layers of sediments. Instead we'd get a mishmash of all kinds of stuff. Even right now there are millions of tree trunks getting buried in sediments in rivers, lakes and dry-land sedimentation basins etc. And it doesn't even take that long. At different times (seasonal fluctuation etc.) the rate of deposition is slower, at times faster, and this, among with other processes like changes in flow speed, causes the layered structure and the varying thickness of the strata. The tree gets buried in the process. Poof, the mystery is gone!
When somebody like Hovind the Fraud still uses old, refuted arguments to back up his case, what else can you think that either 1) the man is a loonie or 2) he's lying. That he isn't a real doctor even though he claims to be one doesn't make him much more trustworthy.
For some reason you're concentrating on the tax issue. Any comments on the fact that Hovind isn't actually a doctor?
I might adopt this as my sig:
"In all of these efforts, the creationists make abundant use of a simple tactic: They lie. They lie continually, they lie prodigiously, and they lie because they must." -William J. Bennetta
The only problem is that "Dr." Hovind is a fraud. He isn't even a real doctor, just another dishonest, lying creationist flapping his mouth about. But hey, he makes a pretty penny selling his "informative" videos to gullible people like you. So since he's probably richer than me he can't be all that dumb. But dishonesty is something I can't tolerate. It's actually quite fascinating how lying is such a favored strategy among these so-called People of God.
One, the evolutionary theory is a theory, not a fact.
Yawn. This "argument" is soooo tired...
A scientific theory is a model based on facts from observations and experiments. The studied phenomenon we know takes place in nature is evolution. Our model that tries to explain this is the theory of evolution. Please, please never use this argument again, it just shows your ignorance of the subject.
Whoa! Now waitaminnit? You're saying you're a huge one-of-these? W00t, my processor heat troubles are over! Batfan saves the day!
Still, I'm kinda curious - how did you type your message?
It's "viruses".
Sheesh.
That sounds like an album by Queens of the Stone Age...
Me, on the other hand, love my Apacer USB drive for the same reason you don't like it. I don't carry it around at a keychain, so the cap being fixed to the safety cord or whatever they call it doesn't bother me at all. On the contrary, I find it the best feature of the drive. I never need to worry about losing the cap, and I know plenty of folks who have lost theirs.
RTFA still.
This gets in the way of evolution as much as a small stone gets in the way of a car.
Besides, we now have observeed this in one plant, Arabidopsis. Now we have to find out, whether this applies to
a) Other plant species b) Animals, say, insects and vertebrates.
And still, 90% of the occurred mutations went on unreversed. Not a big deal. Those, who actually are interested in science and its revelations about this world know that this is fantastic news. Creationists, on the other hand, hang onto this as a new "Evolution Killer". Despisable people.
As if a thousand spam servers cried out and were suddenly overpowered!
I wouldn't wonder if Disney tried to poison the minds of our precious children with some EVILutionist propaganda. After all, they're the ones who try to tell our children it's OK to be a gay warthog (or a meerkat at that)!
The bible in it's basic form probably pre-dates religion, it was only later that people began to see it as something more and worship it, like present day people do with Star Wars, Star Trek, LOTRs.
Yeah. Obviously, to some fundie nuts accepting the fact of evolution is about as bad as Greedo shooting first, even though the latter is pure blasphemy! Crazy folks!
You mean Xenu®?
Good story, and probably true, too.
I have read about a scientific experiment on this. People, who were given something else but were said to get alcohol, got drunk and even passed out. Placebo effect at its finest.
Where I live, people often put "no advertisements, please" signs on their doors if they don't want a heap of colorful waste paper on their front door carpet on a daily basis.
This case is the equivalent of those paper advertisers suing you for not accepting their carbage in your mailbox. How bold can the spammers get before somebody decides to destroy them once and for all? Can somebody soon paint ads on your house without your concent?
I don't really see why distributions should mimic windows. Those who bother to install any os install like windows or some linuxes can probably adept to gnome or kde easily.
/.ers. Unfortunately, Joe Users(TM) are still the great majority among computer users.
Emphasis on "those who bother". Linspire are aiming for Joe User. THE Joe User(TM), not even Joe Advanced User who might be able to do a format c: on his Windows PC every now and then or have the skills and curiosity to try out other apps than those which come with their OS.
Joe User(TM) can't do this. He's the kind of guy who can only write email by clicking 'reply' in Outlook Express and who gets lost immediately if the IE logo on his Windows desktop is replaced by, say, Firefox. Joe Users are extremely conservative when it comes to computers, apps and their GUIs. If anything is changed, they panic and think they have to start all over with learning even that little stuff they've managed to learn with their computerphobia.
This is the crowd Linspire are aiming for, and that's why they are making their Linux distro as redmondised as possible. They don't care about Joe Advanced Users or
In my opinion, Linspire are right in doing so. Many other Linux distros overwhelm the n00bie with their abudance of software. Only advanced users long for a wealth of apps to begin with.
There's enough evidence about violent media encouraging people who are prone to violent behavior. But a violent game/movie does not a violent person make(/yodaspeak).
And with porn readily available, the hypocritical attitude towards sex and parents & schools unwilling to give kids any kind of real sex ed, where do you think kids get their behavior model in all matters sexual?
And I dunno how that has ANYTHING to do with games.
Me neither. Wasn't me who said something like that.
Yes, some of them very badly. Schools are more violent than ever before. Teenage pregnancies are on the rise etc etc.
If things like these didn't matter, you might as well send your kid to have a nice action holiday in Sierra Leone.