Kent's in jail so Eric takes over

Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Kent's in jail so Eric takes over

(Hope this is the correct forum.)

Apparently, Kent Hovind's son has picked up his daddy's torch and is spreading YouTube propaganda.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlUpx19JjWk

Where's that puking emoticon when you need it?

You gotta admit, he's pretty slick in this promo. No doubt he'll be raking in the tax-free dough just like his daddy. Maybe we should warn the IRS.

I think this illustrates why the Rational Response Squad is needed, and highlights the importance of rhetoric, and that we need to develop counter-rhetoric strategies. 

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
A few quick comments on his

A few quick comments on his video

 

1) The fact that a claim has been researched for 30 years is NOT impressive.... what matters is whether the claim is based on the best, most updated info, and this is clearly not the case for creationist claims...

2)  Why is an 'astronaut' voice being used to read Genesis?!

3)  Why does Hovind still use the taxpayer complaint when his father went to jail for not paying taxes.

4) I see the old 'evolution = racism' card is still being played, I always found that one hell of an ironic complaint from a fundy who accepts the "ham' story as literal.

 5) Why is a klansman shown, when klansmen are christians who tend to reject science too?

 6) He's still giving the 'evolution is random' lie, and conflating evolution with a worldview.

7) He cites the bible as stating that man is 'wonderful' but leaves out that the same book holds that man is worthless, worthy only of eternal torture and unable to save himself.

 8) The rest is just his continued inability to realize that evolution is a science and not a philosophy of life, it can't answer what it was never designed to answer.... meanwhile, his version of 'christianity' as an 'answer' is nothing more than an appeal to vanity...

and so on, and I didn't even watch the second half.... 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
So does being a son of a tax

So does being a son of a tax cheat somehow make him a science expert?  Here I was wasting my time in grad school while I could have just skipped on paying my taxes and I would have been just as qualified.


Randalllord
Rational VIP!
Randalllord's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2006-04-12
User is offlineOffline
According to the website:

According to the website: http://www.drdino.com/itinerary.php?id=346#entry346

which lists the itinerary for Eric Hovind, he has only 4 appearances listed over the next year. I checked the location of these churches on Google Earth and apparently only the church in Denison TX is the only large church on the list. The others are fairly small. Not much of an impact for an entire year.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
To answer your #2 question,

To answer your #2 question, Todangst:

 

I can't say for certain, but I suppose that it's because astronauts can serve as a sort of symbol for scientific advancement, and the moon landing was a landmark in our history. I chalk it up to a feeble attempt to make his creation introduction sound more like science and/or real history.

I would have prefered a Darth Vader voice myself. If there really was a God, I would hope that's what he sounded like.

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
D-cubed wrote: So does

D-cubed wrote:
So does being a son of a tax cheat somehow make him a science expert? Here I was wasting my time in grad school while I could have just skipped on paying my taxes and I would have been just as qualified.

He's not the son of an ordinary tax cheat.

This tax cheat taught high school science for 15 years.

<do I really have to tell you that I'm trying to be a smartass?> 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: 2) Why is

todangst wrote:
2) Why is an 'astronaut' voice being used to read Genesis?!

The astronauts of Apollo 8 (who where the first to travel to, but not land on, the moon) read Genesis 1 during a broadcast back to earth.


Randalllord
Rational VIP!
Randalllord's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2006-04-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

This tax cheat taught high school science for 15 years.

 

Actually, that imples way more credit than he deserves. He had no credentials to teach high school anything. He had a degree from a non-acredited college in religious eduacation.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

 

I suspect the reason NASA had the astronaut read from the Bible was to garner more support for the average American for the space program. NASA gets its funding from congress and needs the average citizen perstering their congressman to support it. During the cold war many Americans became alarmed when the USSR bagan a space race and many Americans understood the danger of "being left behind". Congress began financial support of many science projects to catch up, but religious people were not very happy about this.

 

 

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca


el.kundo
Posts: 31
Joined: 2007-08-02
User is offlineOffline
what a classic ^^ "evolution

what a classic ^^

"evolution says we came from a hot soup, creationism says we're designed by a devine creator. the latter makes me feel better, therefore it's true"

now that's creation science, little kent?

"And the only people I fear are those who never have doubts."
Billy Joel, 1993

And God spoke: You can stand under my umberella -ella -ella -eh -eh -eh ...


Randalllord
Rational VIP!
Randalllord's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2006-04-12
User is offlineOffline
el.kundo wrote: what a

el.kundo wrote:
what a classic ^^ "evolution says we came from a hot soup, creationism says we're designed by a devine creator. the latter makes me feel better, therefore it's true" now that's creation science, little kent?

I find it particuaraly humorous when Kent Hovind makes fun of evolutionists when he says that they teach that your ancestors arose from a rock, yet he believes that God breathed on some dust (finely ground rock) and man arose. 

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca


el.kundo
Posts: 31
Joined: 2007-08-02
User is offlineOffline
right. so we didn't come

Smiling right. so we didn't come from rocks, but from eroded rock. now that's better


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
    We don't even know if

    We don't even know if we actually came from eroded rocks or rocks or dust, however we do know we are one of the results after life began on this planet. However we came about.....evolution is a fact, you don't have to like, you don't even have to believe in it, but it is a fact, and nature doesn't care if you like it or believe in it.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Randalllord

Randalllord wrote:

According to the website: http://www.drdino.com/itinerary.php?id=346#entry346

which lists the itinerary for Eric Hovind, he has only 4 appearances listed over the next year. I checked the location of these churches on Google Earth and apparently only the church in Denison TX is the only large church on the list. The others are fairly small. Not much of an impact for an entire year.

I imagine he's just getting started. The promo is less than a week old. 

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Bloody preachers with their

Bloody preachers with their blinding teeth and bad tans. What's so galling isn't as much that they're spreading lies, but that they reinforce an attitude that critical thinking comes down to deciding who to believe. Step by step logic is hard work, but it's better than being that goofball that sends everybody e-mail forwards (you know one of them, I'm sure) about Bill Gates giving you $100.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Archeopteryx wrote:

Archeopteryx wrote:

To answer your #2 question, Todangst:

 

I can't say for certain, but I suppose that it's because astronauts can serve as a sort of symbol for scientific advancement, and the moon landing was a landmark in our history. I chalk it up to a feeble attempt to make his creation introduction sound more like science and/or real history.

I would have prefered a Darth Vader voice myself. If there really was a God, I would hope that's what he sounded like.

 

John the baptist never told you what happened to your father.

 

He told me enough! He told me you killed him!

No, Jesus... I AM your father.

 

NOOOOOoooooo!!!!!

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Todangst, that was

Todangst, that was seriously one of the funniest things I have ever read on these forums.....

That post wins the thread. 


DeliTheImpaler
DeliTheImpaler's picture
Posts: 3
Joined: 2007-09-11
User is offlineOffline
Notice at the beginning how

Notice at the beginning how he says that the debate between "Intelligent-Design" and Evolution are heating up? I think that if we stop debating them, then we may be able to gain more ground. All we are doing is giving them room to think that their "theory" is just as good as ours. We should start teaching the facts about Evolution and simply just check off creation "science" as a load of crap.


DeliTheImpaler
DeliTheImpaler's picture
Posts: 3
Joined: 2007-09-11
User is offlineOffline
Notice at the beginning how

mod edit - double post


DeliTheImpaler
DeliTheImpaler's picture
Posts: 3
Joined: 2007-09-11
User is offlineOffline
Notice at the beginning how

mod edit - triple post


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
DeliTheImpaler

DeliTheImpaler wrote:
Notice at the beginning how he says that the debate between "Intelligent-Design" and Evolution are heating up? I think that if we stop debating them, then we may be able to gain more ground. All we are doing is giving them room to think that their "theory" is just as good as ours. We should start teaching the facts about Evolution and simply just check off creation "science" as a load of crap.

Doesn't that just crank up their propaganda machine?

"The evolutionists are afraid to debate us because they know we have the truth" or some such garbage? 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jj14044
Posts: 3
Joined: 2007-09-11
User is offlineOffline
Sounds like a good idea

Friends,

 I am normally a consumer of these dialogues, but could not let this idea pass without a response.  Deli has a very good idea, not about stopping the debates, but about presenting the facts.  I think if we concentrate on rock-solid facts and present them effectively it would tear down their position.  Be aware to stay away from the fossil record though, they can rip us a new one on that point.  How about enlisting some others in your board (I view myself as a normally silent outsider) to develop an outline of facts.  Stay away from the emotional - appeal to the intellect - present truthfully.  Any takers?

BTW, that video does look good.


jmm
Theist
jmm's picture
Posts: 837
Joined: 2007-03-03
User is offlineOffline
I know this may be hard to

I know this may be hard to believe, but I actually used to know Eric Hovind.  Weird-o-rama. 


stickhorse
stickhorse's picture
Posts: 2
Joined: 2006-04-30
User is offlineOffline
they have now posted this,

they have now posted this, apparently in ersponse to "operation spreadeagle"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPer-FjPJJE


Randalllord
Rational VIP!
Randalllord's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2006-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I noticed that this video

I noticed that the above video has this message: "Adding comments has been disabled for this video."

What a bunch of weannies.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:

DeliTheImpaler wrote:
Notice at the beginning how he says that the debate between "Intelligent-Design" and Evolution are heating up? I think that if we stop debating them, then we may be able to gain more ground. All we are doing is giving them room to think that their "theory" is just as good as ours. We should start teaching the facts about Evolution and simply just check off creation "science" as a load of crap.

Doesn't that just crank up their propaganda machine?

In the short term yes. If you ignore a child, he will throw a tantrum in order to restore the status quo.

But continue to ignore and the behavior will be extinguished.

I agree with Deli, their main goal is to get a debate, period. As with the line from the old Wargames movie, the only way to win (for atheists) is not to play.

Because you can refute them over and over, as long as they are ignorant they won't posses the ability to know they've been refuted....

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


jj14044
Posts: 3
Joined: 2007-09-11
User is offlineOffline
Refute them with what??

Refute them? With what? You're all acting like bunch of school girls!  I've seen the load of crap that you've dumped on youtube. Do you children think that vulgar name calling will replace scholarship? Well, maybe when you ninnies finally grow up and take the reigns. You claim that because they posted a 15 second text message that they are 'responding to operation spreadeagle'. Either they are grossly uninterested in what you are doing, or, they are the ones holding your strings. Not one thoughtful response to my first post - what a shame. It would have been their gain if you 'homo non sapiens' were arguing for evolution in Kansas. Get off your thumbs and engage them with facts. You make it look as though the facts are all you lack. Speaking of censorship watch how fast this message disappears.


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Randalllord wrote: I

Randalllord wrote:

I noticed that the above video has this message: "Adding comments has been disabled for this video."

What a bunch of weannies.

Hovind often whined how he couldn't find any evolutionists to debate him.  Therefore it's only consistent that a Hovind would censor videos and prohibit comments.  Alas, we already knew fundies were liars and hypocrites so I'd be teaching to the class if I just went further. 


evil religion
evil religion's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2006-10-20
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: 4) I see

todangst wrote:

4) I see the old 'evolution = racism' card is still being played, I always found that one hell of an ironic complaint from a fundy who accepts the "ham' story as literal.

Also of course its a well know fact that there was no racism in the world prior to Darwin. At that slavery stuff wot happened in America is just propoganda put around by an evil group of Godless atheists who re-wrote history. 



FreshmanRob
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-09-13
User is offlineOffline
Rip us a new one?

Stay away from the fossil record? Are you kidding me? No creationist has ANY point EVER. Especially the regarding the fossil record. Want to stump them? Ask why there aren't bones of dinosaurs next to humans. When they tell you that the flood did it... they'll have to show evidence that that actually happened. The flood is a wonderful place to back a creationist against the wall with.


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
jj14044 wrote: Refute them?

jj14044 wrote:
Refute them? With what? You're all acting like bunch of school girls!  I've seen the load of crap that you've dumped on youtube. Do you children think that vulgar name calling will replace scholarship? Well, maybe when you ninnies finally grow up and take the reigns. You claim that because they posted a 15 second text message that they are 'responding to operation spreadeagle'. Either they are grossly uninterested in what you are doing, or, they are the ones holding your strings. Not one thoughtful response to my first post - what a shame. It would have been their gain if you 'homo non sapiens' were arguing for evolution in Kansas. Get off your thumbs and engage them with facts. You make it look as though the facts are all you lack. Speaking of censorship watch how fast this message disappears.

Oh, don't your panties in a knot and quit the ad homs.  See, your post is still here, so stop acting like the RRS censors everything.

What about creationism is scholarly? It's all biblically based!

If god takes life he's an indian giver


Nero
Rational VIP!
Nero's picture
Posts: 1142
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane wrote: jj14044

pariahjane wrote:

jj14044 wrote:
Refute them? With what? You're all acting like bunch of school girls!  I've seen the load of crap that you've dumped on youtube. Do you children think that vulgar name calling will replace scholarship? Well, maybe when you ninnies finally grow up and take the reigns. You claim that because they posted a 15 second text message that they are 'responding to operation spreadeagle'. Either they are grossly uninterested in what you are doing, or, they are the ones holding your strings. Not one thoughtful response to my first post - what a shame. It would have been their gain if you 'homo non sapiens' were arguing for evolution in Kansas. Get off your thumbs and engage them with facts. You make it look as though the facts are all you lack. Speaking of censorship watch how fast this message disappears.

Oh, don't your panties in a knot and quit the ad homs.  See, your post is still here, so stop acting like the RRS censors everything.

What about creationism is scholarly? It's all biblically based!

Can we get this soul a theist band please?  It appears to have taken that perspective.

"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer


jj14044
Posts: 3
Joined: 2007-09-11
User is offlineOffline
A rational response

What are you planning on using as evidence from the fossil record?

Piltdown man? Nebraska man? Archeoraptor? Neanderthal man? Maybe we could get Lucy to trot out few of the missing links. Do you guys know why they call them missing links? BECAUSE THE'RE MISSING!!!

 

Listen closely guys. You know squat about engaging your enemy. The first rule of engagement is to know your adversary. Begin by studying them. What do they know? What are their strong points? Are their claims truthful? What are their weak points? Without running to an encyclopedia, can any of you tell me what Boyles law states? How about the conservation of angular momentum? Be honest with yourselves. I doubt most of you could answer those two questions because you are unstudied. Hopefully your anger has not rendered you un-teachable.

 

Watch Hovind's seminar! Yes, don't be afraid, your beliefs will still be there when you're done. Examine what he says, how he says it. Sometimes what he says is not important -- it is in what he didn't say. Plan your next move. Don't just spout off. If you desire a shred of respect from academia, learn to talk like them, curb the vulgarities.  I tell you this from experience.  Do not tip your hand and tell them what your next six moves are like Sapient does.  He is either a very good actor with a plan I cannot understand, or a very stupid spoiled brat. In my life I've seen a dozen like him come and go. I would like to help you Brian, but first you must get off your high horse, and calm down.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
jj14044 wrote:   Do you

jj14044 wrote:
  Do you children think that vulgar name calling will replace scholarship?

 

Was this self refutation done in the name of comedy? 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
jj14044 wrote:

jj14044 wrote:
What are you planning on using as evidence from the fossil record?

Piltdown man? Nebraska man? Archeoraptor? Neanderthal man? Maybe we could get Lucy to trot out few of the missing links. Do you guys know why they call them missing links? BECAUSE THE'RE MISSING!!!

They are called 'missing links' because of an erroneous assumption made 100 years ago. The 'term' is not a legitimate term today. No one who has any idea of what they are talking about has used that term in decades.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

 

Claim CC200:

There are no transitional fossils. Evolution predicts a continuum between each fossil organism and its ancestors. Instead, we see systematic gaps in the fossil record.

Source:

Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 78-90.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pp. 57-59.

Response:

  1. There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.

  2. Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.

    The following are fossil transitions between species and genera:

For humans:

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC050.html

 

Response:

There is a fine transition between modern humans and australopithecines and other hominids. The transition is gradual enough that it is not clear where to draw the line between human and not.

Intermediate fossils include

  • Australopithecus afarensis, from 3.9 to 3.0 million years ago (Mya). Its skull is similar to a chimpanzee's, but with more humanlike teeth. Most (possibly all) creationists would call this an ape, but it was bipedal.
  • Australopithecus africanus (3 to 2 Mya); its brain size, 420-500 cc, was slightly larger than A. afarensis, and its teeth yet more humanlike.
  • Homo habilis (2.4 to 1.5 Mya), which is similar to australopithecines, but which used tools and had a larger brain (650-cc average) and less projecting face.
  • Homo erectus (1.8 to 0.3 Mya); brain size averaged about 900 cc in early H. erectus and 1,100 cc in later ones. (Modern human brains average 1,350 cc.)
  • A Pleistocene Homo sapiens which was "morphologically and chronologically intermediate between archaic African fossils and later anatomically modern Late Pleistocene humans" (White et al. 2003, 742).
  • A hominid combining features of, and possibly ancestral to, Neanderthals and modern humans (Bermudez de Castro et al. 1997).


And there are fossils intermediate between these (Foley 1996-2004).

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

http://www.theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html

 

Here's some advice you're sure to ignore: Your statements speak to your basic ignorance on this matter. Hit a library and start informing yourself before you speak again. The concepts you are using are based on ignorance of biology, they are woefully out of date. 

 

 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Gadren
Gadren's picture
Posts: 10
Joined: 2007-09-13
User is offlineOffline
I don't really know much

I don't really know much about the reasons behind the Genesis Reading, but even though I'm an atheist, I don't have any problem with it.  Even though the US isn't a Christian nation, Judeo-Christian phrases and concepts are so embedded in our cultural consciousness that referring to them is very effective.  I consider it somewhat similar to Oppenheimer at the Trinity Test, when he thought to himself, from the Hindu scripture: "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

"True glory consists in doing what deserves to be written; in writing what deserves to be read; and in so living as to make the world happier for our living in it." -Pliny the Elder


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Gadren wrote: I don't

Gadren wrote:
I don't really know much about the reasons behind the Genesis Reading, but even though I'm an atheist, I don't have any problem with it. Even though the US isn't a Christian nation, Judeo-Christian phrases and concepts are so embedded in our cultural consciousness that referring to them is very effective. I consider it somewhat similar to Oppenheimer at the Trinity Test, when he thought to himself, from the Hindu scripture: "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

 

Good point. "god" references aren't always even theistic... we can refer to a 'god' to express wonder and delight. Theists like to kid "what do atheists shout during sex" and I like to point out: "The exact same things you do: an expression of wonder or joy"

I'm sure theists realize that they arent actually petitioning the lord with an intercessory prayer when they shout out a 'god' during an orgasm....

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


FreshmanRob
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-09-13
User is offlineOffline
Why wouldn't I use the

Why wouldn't I use the fossil record? It shows a progression from less derived to more derived as geological time passes. This cannot be explained by creationist claims no matter how hard they weasel.

The very fact that you said the missing links are missing shows your ignorance. It's clear that you don't understand the role of the fossil record in regards to evolution. Maybe YOU don't want to use them in an argument against creationists. But it certainly won't stop me, and it should not stop anybody else. Learn about the fossil record and how it indeed is great evidence for evolution if you don't understand it.

I also explained other aspects of the fossil record that support evolution and destroy creationisms garbage. You didn't even explain why my flood geology explaination didn't work, but you clearly have some problem with it.

Do your homework and quit trying to act like you are smarter than anybody. Your ignorance is transparent.

 

 

Edit: Why do I have a thiest badge? I'm an atheist through and through.


tweaker_bms
Posts: 2
Joined: 2007-09-14
User is offlineOffline
astronauts

Yeah I feel like there's some subliminal attempts here that I don't get. Like with the developing tunnel vision after the "evolutionist answer" that life has no meaning.

 Anyway it's quite ironic they use the Neil Armstrong(?) Quote, for genesis. Who read it on the mark of a momentus accomplishment for ...uh, hello?....science!! Shouldn't it ring in their head that, "Hey the scientific method got us to the moon. I mean the fucking moon! Maybe there's something to it!"

 Also the KKK members make just as much sense as including the Nazi's (who claimed to be good christians) and the Communists who also rejected evolution but because of it's supposed inherent claims of natural inequality -running counter to their egualitarian doctrine.
In all the only theme here is that people who want you to follow them unquestioningly tend not to like evolution and science. Probably cause the one thing science says to do is question yourself and test your theories.

Which reminds me of the counter point to hovind's "they're both 'world views'". I think we should conceede that, 'yes that's true' but add on to that 'and evolution is the world view THAT HAS BEEN TESTED!'

In the words of Carlos Mencia: "Dee dee dee!" 


tweaker_bms
Posts: 2
Joined: 2007-09-14
User is offlineOffline
Lies and Fossils

LOL I had to crack up at the  "Lies" text superimposed also with the images of fossils.  No they're not, they're Fossils! What are you gonna say, they don't exist?

"This rock is a lie! Don't believe it!" 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
jj14044 wrote:  Without

jj14044 wrote:

 Without running to an encyclopedia, can any of you tell me what Boyles law states?

Yes. P*V=constant 

Quote:
 

How about the conservation of angular momentum?

 

Yes. 

 



Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
tweaker_bms wrote: Also

tweaker_bms wrote:

Also the KKK members make just as much sense as including the Nazi's (who claimed to be good christians) and the Communists who also rejected evolution but because of it's supposed inherent claims of natural inequality -running counter to their egualitarian doctrine.
In all the only theme here is that people who want you to follow them unquestioningly tend not to like evolution and science. Probably cause the one thing science says to do is question yourself and test your theories.

What does Naziism, Communism, and KKK have to do with rejecting evolution?

 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
tweaker_bms wrote:

Also the KKK members make just as much sense as including the Nazi's (who claimed to be good christians) and the Communists who also rejected evolution but because of it's supposed inherent claims of natural inequality -running counter to their egualitarian doctrine.
In all the only theme here is that people who want you to follow them unquestioningly tend not to like evolution and science. Probably cause the one thing science says to do is question yourself and test your theories.

What does Naziism, Communism, and KKK have to do with rejecting evolution?

 


They're trotted about as the consequences of the evolutionist world view that wants to replace the bible with a monkey.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:

Boyles law states

Pressure and volume of an ideal gas are inversely proportional. Don't insult me, that's high school physics.

EDIT: When temperature (K) is constant.

This formula is usually expressed in physics as:

P1V1=P2V2

where P1V1 is the original temperature and pressure and P2V2 is the temperature and pressure after the observed change.

In Chemistry, the formula used expresses the exact same thing, just in a different way, where:

PV=nRT

where

P=Pressure in Pascals or N/m2

V=volume in dm3

n= number of moles

R= Boltzmann's constant

T= Temperature in Kelvin

since n=m/Mr, this formula is also written as PV=mRT/Mr 

In this way, in analytical chemistry, Boyle's law is usually used to determine the identity of an unknown gas (by calculating Mr, one can determine the gas in question).

Is that detailed enough for you? 

Quote:

How about the conservation of angular momentum

Wow, what a hard question! Could it be...angular momentum around a fixed point is conserved unless a rotating body is acted upon by another force?

Now let me ask you a few questions, Mr. Academic, without running to an encyclopedia, could you tell me:

1. The cycle of Guanine nucleotide exchange factors and GTPase in a motor protein?

2. The two types of allosteric protein control?

3. The Michaelis-Menten equation?

Since you are so hell bent that the fossil record should not be employed, you will be glad to know that I do not. I use molecular biology, as I have shown here and here:

 

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
jj14044 wrote: Refute them?

jj14044 wrote:
Refute them? With what? You're all acting like bunch of school girls! I've seen the load of crap that you've dumped on youtube. Do you children think that vulgar name calling will replace scholarship? Well, maybe when you ninnies finally grow up and take the reigns. You claim that because they posted a 15 second text message that they are 'responding to operation spreadeagle'. Either they are grossly uninterested in what you are doing, or, they are the ones holding your strings. Not one thoughtful response to my first post - what a shame. It would have been their gain if you 'homo non sapiens' were arguing for evolution in Kansas. Get off your thumbs and engage them with facts. You make it look as though the facts are all you lack. Speaking of censorship watch how fast this message disappears.

You haven't spent very much time here, have you? 

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


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

Boyles law states

Pressure and volume of an ideal gas are inversely proportional. Don't insult me, that's high school physics.

Quote:

How about the conservation of angular momentum

Wow, what a hard question! Could it be...angular momentum around a fixed point is conserved unless a rotating body is acted upon by another force?

Now let me ask you a few questions, Mr. Academic, without running to an encyclopedia, could you tell me:

1. The cycle of Guanine nucleotide exchange factors and GTPase in a motor protein?

2. The two types of allosteric protein control?

3. The Michaelis-Menten equation?

Since you are so hell bent that the fossil record should not be employed, you will be glad to know that I do not. I use molecular biology, as I have shown here and here:

 

 

I was hoping you'd show up. Smiling

Note to self: read Deludedgod's articles. I do wish, however, I had more knowledge on which to pin the new knowledge I gain from reading your articles. I didn't major in biology...haven't had a biology class in 20 years although it fascinates me. So much has been learned in the past twenty years, too...

So much knowledge; so little time. Sad Really, it vexes me.

On edit:

jj14044: The fossil record isn't anywhere close to complete. I doubt we know even 1% of the animals that have lived on the planet. (Has a scientific estimate been made?) Still, what fossil evidence there is provides compelling evidence for evolution.

By the way, Australopithecus is not a hoax like Piltdown man, so I'm not sure why you mentioned them together. Bizarre. (Recently a nearly complete Australopithecus toddler was found.) Your rather odd I'm-smarter-than-you posturing coupled with your lack of understanding of the evolutionary process makes me wonder if you attended a bible college. I'm only speaking for myself here, but I'm suspicious as hell.

If you're a creationist, why not just debate us openly? We rarely delete posts here. It's only done in extreme circumstances. When you started bitching about censorship and calling us "stupid," I knew you didn't bother to find out anything about the site. Scientists post here. You just met one: deludedgod is a molecular biologist.

You demonstrated a lack of knowledge about this site as well as a lack of knowledge of evolution. Coupled with your naked hostility, these facts fairly scream that you are not being honest with us. Of course, this is just a hunch based on a little bit of observation. I could be entirely wrong. If so...dude, just chill! Learn a little bit before trying to start a flame war. If I am right, why not simply defend your position? If it has merit, we will listen. If not...well, don't expect us to "respect" irrational beliefs.

Japanese proverb: A wise hawk hides its talons.  In other words, someone with the goods (intelligence, talent, etc.) doesn't have to scream it at the top of his lungs.  In Japan, it is considered boorish behavior, even if done quietly.  You weren't very "quiet." Smiling 

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


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
jj14044 wrote: Refute them?

jj14044 wrote:
Refute them? With what? You're all acting like bunch of school girls! I've seen the load of crap that you've dumped on youtube. Do you children think that vulgar name calling will replace scholarship? Well, maybe when you ninnies finally grow up and take the reigns. You claim that because they posted a 15 second text message that they are 'responding to operation spreadeagle'. Either they are grossly uninterested in what you are doing, or, they are the ones holding your strings. Not one thoughtful response to my first post - what a shame. It would have been their gain if you 'homo non sapiens' were arguing for evolution in Kansas. Get off your thumbs and engage them with facts. You make it look as though the facts are all you lack. Speaking of censorship watch how fast this message disappears.

 

Or I requote it paying for the bandwidth twice, just to make a statement.

 Welcome to the site.

- Brian Sapient


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