A Molecular Geneticist proves hovind is an idiot

aiia's picture

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.

The painful defeat of Kent Hovind

Okay, so this entire movie is all about how a molecular biologist interrupts and tries to corner Hovind into answering a question, not about science, but about how he plans to commericalize his beliefs.  In other words how can he earn tax money?  If a person believes in God and wants to prove He exists I doubt he is going to concern himself with how his findings can bring in a little cash.  Maybe that's the problem with evolution, it focuses on how to bring in grant money instead of actual science, but then again it isn't science anyway so that's probably why.

Richard333 wrote: Okay, so

Richard333 wrote:
Okay, so this entire movie is all about how a molecular biologist interrupts and tries to corner Hovind into answering a question, not about science, but about how he plans to commericalize his beliefs.

His point was that science tends to have commercial applications... or applications in general.

Richard333 wrote:
In other words how can he earn tax money?  If a person believes in God and wants to prove He exists I doubt he is going to concern himself with how his findings can bring in a little cash.

The Intelligent Design/Creation Science lobbies distance themselves from theology, actually, since they want theirs to be considered a scientific field.

Richard333 wrote:
Maybe that's the problem with evolution, it focuses on how to bring in grant money instead of actual science, but then again it isn't science anyway so that's probably why.

So... can you answer the guy's question? In case you missed it: If Creationism/Intelligent Design is a science, what predictions does it make (future discoveries that can specifically validate it) and what applications does it have? Forget about commerce, since you seem hung up on that. How do we use it?

Richard333 wrote: Okay, so

Richard333 wrote:
Okay, so this entire movie is all about how a molecular biologist interrupts and tries to corner Hovind into answering a question, not about science, but about how he plans to commericalize his beliefs. In other words how can he earn tax money? If a person believes in God and wants to prove He exists I doubt he is going to concern himself with how his findings can bring in a little cash. Maybe that's the problem with evolution, it focuses on how to bring in grant money instead of actual science, but then again it isn't science anyway so that's probably why.

 

How exactly is evolution not science? It makes predictions such as there will be transitional forms(which we have found). It is falsifible (if you could find a truly irreducible thing that couldn't have come about by gradual step by step evolution you would falsify evolution).  So please do explain how it is not science. 

Sapient's picture

Richard333 wrote: Okay, so

Richard333 wrote:
Okay, so this entire movie is all about how a molecular biologist interrupts and tries to corner Hovind into answering a question, not about science, but about how he plans to commericalize his beliefs. In other words how can he earn tax money? If a person believes in God and wants to prove He exists I doubt he is going to concern himself with how his findings can bring in a little cash. Maybe that's the problem with evolution, it focuses on how to bring in grant money instead of actual science, but then again it isn't science anyway so that's probably why.

Richard333 is a dipshit. Here are his emails to us through our contact form (which has the disclaimer that they made be public). Look as Richard makes an utter fool of himself, and wasn't worthy of much more of a response than this link and an IP ban.

Quote:

----- Original Message -----

From: sir_richard_the_third333333333@yahoo.com

Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 7:39 PM
Subject: [Hate Mail] I've only been here for a few minutes... <-- favorite part

and I can already tell this place is nothing but a sad joke.
Thunderf00t's massive archive containing what, 8 movies? I guess that's probably about

the proportion of the mountains of evidence for evolution, there's hardly
any. If this Squad starts thinking rationally instead of having so much
religious fervor about evolution, the greatest non-science lie of
mankind,
then I might start paying attention. The only arguments used against
Hovind rarely deal with his science, but instead focus on him being a
fraud. And you openly accuse creationists for using straw man attacks
when you only use ad hominens? If you have an issue with their science
stop attacking them, stop claiming they use straw mans, stop whining if
he
is or isn't a doctor, and prove him wrong already! You've had enough
years
to do it, so take his lectures in their entirity and when he makes an
error
point it out! If you can't argue against his points and you don't have
evidence, don't complain about him being a bad person, deal with your bad
science. Most creationists don't even want to get creationism into the
schools or evolution out, they just want the lies and disproven arguments
removed from the text books. Why don't you stop attacking creationists,
and do what your title would suggest and push for more accuracy so
students don't get brainwashed? Or is that exactly what you want,
everyone to believe what you do, evolution?

 

1 minute later....

Quote:

----- Original Message -----
From: sir_richard_the_third333333333@yahoo.com

Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 7:40 PM
Subject: [Hate Mail] Oh also

Since you, the irrational response squad just recently got my e-mail
complaining about what you do and don't do with your time, please take an
extra minute out of your busy hateful work and delete my account if you
hadn't planned on it already. I would hate to be contaminated by anymore
of your lies or other illogical nonsense. Oh and if you wouldn't mind,
tell Thunderf00t, your deity, that Sickopath333 says, "Hi. You're still
wrong." With God's love, Richard; hater of ignorance, sin, and lies.

 

LOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSEEEEERRR

 

 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.

Well it looks like another

Well it looks like another total idiot who won't listen to any actual logic gone from the forums *invisible tear rolls don cheek*

 

Although i still wanna here how exactly evolution isn't science that would be a hoot. 

Iruka Naminori's picture

zntneo

zntneo wrote:

 

 

Although i still wanna here how exactly evolution isn't science that would be a hoot.

I want to hear that, too.  I'm sure the thousands of working biologists are interested in how their experiments and genetic findings are useless even though they've revolutionized everything.  

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.

That_Guy's picture

It's really not fair

I always cringe a bit when an Evolutionary Biologist (or anyone in a related scientific field) gets a hold of a creationist. It's like putting a PhD with an IQ in the 150's against a high school drop out with an IQ in the 80's. Oh wait, it's not like that, it IS that.

Atheistextremist's picture

That guy was right

 

The core predictability of evolution and the the veracity of evolutionary genetic science is born out by its applications.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck

Kent Hovind

Absolutely brilliant, If he could have taken his foot out of this mouth, he would own a shoe store.  We will see what his rebuttal is when he gets out of prison.  I watched on of his sermons on youtube and he made a logical, scientific or factual error about every 15 seconds not to mention a pompous egotistical, and flippant ignorance of  the beauty of true science.

The most illogical example was  measuring  the melting candle as a metaphor for creation, with an initial height of 7 inches?, he then said "do we know when it was lit?"  The next statement was it burns at rate of 1" \hour, he then says again "do we know when it was lit?"  He said he taught science and can't reconcile the logic that in order to calculate a rate in the case the of a burning candle that 2 distance measurments  plus the measured time to reach those 2 distances constitutes a rate.