Check this out!
Mdwhiffen
definately check out these sites:
or
http://audiocentral.com/conferences/steeling/stmhovind98.html
enjoy
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
mdwh...@aol.com (Mdwhiffen) writes:
For a great place to become informed about the ignorance shown by
Hovind go to
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/matson-vs-hovind.html
For an explanation of Hovind's credentials, or lack thereof go to
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html
For an example of Hovind's slowness to stop repeating false statements
(hardly a Christian trait) see
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html
For more sloppy repeating of creationist stories see
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part3.html
Felipe
impresses me is how many of the modifiers Hovind uses, esp. w.r.t.
"willfully ignorant", could be applied to other ilks than scientists.
Mdwhiffen <mdwh...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991008161626...@ng-da1.aol.com...
maff91
>For a great place to find out more about Creation Vs. Evolution you should
>definately check out these sites:
>
>http://www.drdino.com/
>
>or
>
>http://audiocentral.com/conferences/steeling/stmhovind98.html
>
>enjoy
<http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pier/1766/hovindlies/index.html>
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/matson-vs-hovind.html
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/evolution/wild_hovind.html
http://x15.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=410319963
http://x11.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=410893493
http://x11.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=409118174
--
L.P.#0000000001
Boikat
>
> For a great place to find out more about Creation Vs. Evolution you should
> definately check out these sites:
>
> http://www.drdino.com/
>
> or
>
> http://audiocentral.com/conferences/steeling/stmhovind98.html
>
> enjoy
Someone else already enjoyed dissecting Dr. Dino.
Lets save ourselves a little time, and bandwidth:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/matson-vs-hovind.html
Looking forward to your point by point rebuttal of
Matson's critique.
Boikat
Mdwhiffen
you show Dr. Hoving one actual proof of evolution, and collect the $250,000?
And don't say that he would just ignore it, because for 10 years much more
eloquant orators than yourself have publicly tried in secular colleges, and
have never succeeded. Why, because there is not one single empirical proof for
evolution. It is a theory, nothing more. It is about as scientific as are the
smurfs.
It amazes me how I can very simply, and in a very non-threatening way send out
a post, and have it attacked because the truth of it didn't fit down someone's
craw.
Anyway, feel free to lamblast away as much as you like if it makes you feel
more secure in what you have put your faith in.
Boikat
His requirments do not even really address
biological evolution.
Boikat
Boikat
>
> Hey Morphis, If you can get past your antagonism for just a minute why don't
> you show Dr. Hoving one actual proof of evolution, and collect the $250,000?
> And don't say that he would just ignore it, because for 10 years much more
> eloquant orators than yourself have publicly tried in secular colleges, and
> have never succeeded. Why, because there is not one single empirical proof for
> evolution. It is a theory, nothing more. It is about as scientific as are the
> smurfs.
>
> It amazes me how I can very simply, and in a very non-threatening way send out
> a post, and have it attacked because the truth of it didn't fit down someone's
> craw.
>
> Anyway, feel free to lamblast away as much as you like if it makes you feel
> more secure in what you have put your faith in.
Translation: I looked at the Matson Hovind site,
and decided I was not capable of addressing the
points Matson used that refuted Hovind's claims."
Boikat
Stephen R Gould
> Hey Morphis, If you can get past your antagonism for just a minute why
don't
> you show Dr. Hoving one actual proof of evolution, and collect the
$250,000?
> And don't say that he would just ignore it, because for 10 years much more
> eloquant orators than yourself have publicly tried in secular colleges,
and
> have never succeeded. Why, because there is not one single empirical proof
for
> evolution. It is a theory, nothing more. It is about as scientific as
are the
> smurfs.
>
> It amazes me how I can very simply, and in a very non-threatening way send
out
> a post, and have it attacked because the truth of it didn't fit down
someone's
> craw.
>
> Anyway, feel free to lamblast away as much as you like if it makes you
feel
> more secure in what you have put your faith in.
>
>
Further, as any fule kno, Hovind's criteria required the evidence to be
placed before judges picked by Hovind and they could decide whether the
evidence was legit. Not exactly independent.
The creationist syllogism
1. We have no evidence for our view, but we have faith.
2. You have evidence for your view, but we reject the evidence on faith.
3. Since neither of us has evidence, therefore, both of us are dependent on
faith.
--
The time that a man spends on the Web, the gods do not account for in his
lifespan (ancient Babylonian saying - modified)
wf...@ptd.net
>Hey Morphis, If you can get past your antagonism for just a minute why don't
>you show Dr. Hoving one actual proof of evolution, and collect the $250,000?
>And don't say that he would just ignore it, because for 10 years much more
>eloquant orators than yourself have publicly tried in secular colleges, and
>have never succeeded. Why, because there is not one single empirical proof for
>evolution. It is a theory, nothing more. It is about as scientific as are the
>smurfs.
in a sense you're right. there is not one single proof...there are
millions of fossils and lab experiments confirming evolution
>
Michael Painter
> For a great place to find out more about Creation Vs. Evolution you should
> definately check out these sites:
>
> http://www.drdino.com/
>
> or
>
> http://audiocentral.com/conferences/steeling/stmhovind98.html
>
> enjoy
99% of the time, even when we don't recognize the sites, we know in advance
that such posting are fundamentalist frauds.
The same goes for the pro-life "pregnancy counselor's", and many other
fundie christian sites.
They are not honest enough to state up front what their purpose is. Instead
they misdirect until they have you in their clutches.
Honesty takes third place to recruitment.
Martin Crisp
mdwh...@aol.com (Mdwhiffen) wrote:
> Hey Morphis, If you can get past your antagonism for just a minute why don't
> you show Dr. Hoving one actual proof of evolution, and collect the $250,000?
> And don't say that he would just ignore it, because for 10 years much more
> eloquant orators than yourself have publicly tried in secular colleges, and
> have never succeeded. Why, because there is not one single empirical proof for
> evolution. It is a theory, nothing more. It is about as scientific as
are the
> smurfs.
If you mean the little Blue & White plastic guys.... AFAIK plastics etc
are 'discovered' using science, their components extracted from oil (using
science) and made into polymers (using science). (BTW: the inks that are
used are probably subjected to scientific tests for toxicity,
colour-fastness,...)
If you meant the animated ones not the plastic ones... how much is science
involved in photography? Electronics of recording & broadcasting?
Maybe you meant the market testing, not strictly scientific in all
likelihood, but the measurement techniques and analysis of audience
acceptance of the smurfs is based on scientific measurement.
Perhaps you meant some other area of smurfdom is not scientific?
> It amazes me how I can very simply, and in a very non-threatening way send out
> a post, and have it attacked because the truth of it didn't fit down someone's
> craw.
It's not so much what you said, it's the fact that so many others have
tried to force the same meal down peoples' craws before you. If you'd been
the first doubtless the debate would have been more engaging. [go to
deja.com and do a search in talk.origins for "Hovind"....]
Have Fun
Martin
--
Credo quia absurdum est
maff91
>Hey Morphis, If you can get past your antagonism for just a minute why don't
>you show Dr. Hoving one actual proof of evolution, and collect the $250,000?
located at: http://www.teleport.com/~mrbswb/casemonth.html
"In Re Hovind, 197 B.R. 157 (Bankr. N.D. Fla. 1996)
"Debtor Kent E. Hovind was a tax protester who filed a Chapter 13
Bankruptcy Petition after the IRS had seized three vehicles, a
homemade trailer, and $54 in cash. Mr. Hovind had never filed a tax
return (the IRS had filed them on his behalf), did not acknowledge
that he was a citizen of the U.S. nor subject to its tax laws, and
claimed that he was "an evangelist employed by God". On
his bankruptcy schedules, he declared that he had no property,
received no income, had no expenses, and had no creditors (except for
the IRS, which filed a claim for $10,690 in unpaid taxes). In finding
that Mr. Hovind had filed false schedules, the Court noted that he had
a home with recently installed central air conditioning, and sent all
three children to a private Christian school at a cost of $4,800 per
year. Under these facts, the Court had no difficulty in holding that
the petition was filed in bad faith, and that he was ineligible for
Chapter 13 relief under 11 U.S.C. Section 109(e) because he had
no income. "The evidence presented at the hearing paints a clear
portrait of a tax protester whose sole purpose in seeking relief under
Chapter 13 was to obtain the release of property seized by the IRS."
His petition was therefore dismissed. "
>And don't say that he would just ignore it, because for 10 years much more
>eloquant orators than yourself have publicly tried in secular colleges, and
>have never succeeded. Why, because there is not one single empirical proof for
>evolution. It is a theory, nothing more. It is about as scientific as are the
>smurfs.
Ken Hovind's dishonesty and lies
<http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pier/1766/hovindlies/index.html>
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/matson-vs-hovind.html
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/evolution/wild_hovind.html
http://x15.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=410319963
http://x11.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=410893493
http://x11.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=409118174
>
>It amazes me how I can very simply, and in a very non-threatening way send out
>a post, and have it attacked because the truth of it didn't fit down someone's
>craw.
>
>Anyway, feel free to lamblast away as much as you like if it makes you feel
>more secure in what you have put your faith in.
So why are you unable to convince the Supreme Court, scientific and
business world that creationist fundie cults are doing any science?
Edwards v. Aguillard: U.S. Supreme Court Decision
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html>
Read the U.S. Supreme Court decision dealing with creationism in
public school science classrooms. The majority opinions and the
dissenting opinion by Justice Scalia are provided along with the
amicus curiae brief filed by 72 Nobel Prize winning scientists.
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html>
Biotechnology, Pharmaceutical and other high tech companies who are
investing billions in developing new technologies, medicines and other
products and services based on the theory of evolution don't seem to
buy your argument.
A New Germ Theory
<http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99feb/germs.htm>
What is Darwinian Medicine?
<http://157.242.64.83/hbes/medicine.htm>
Evolution and Origins of disease
<http://www.sciam.com/1998/1198issue/1198nesse.html>
Gene Therapy
<http://www.natx.com/>
Hopeful Monsters
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/horizon/hopefulmonsters.shtml>
More Practical Applications of Evolutionary Biology
<http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/evobio/evc/argresp/evo_use.html>
Genetic Engineering in the Agriculture industry
<http://dir.yahoo.com/Science/Biology/Biotechnology/>
<http://dir.yahoo.com/Science/Biology/Biotechnology/Genetic_Engineering/>
<http://dir.yahoo.com/Science/Agriculture/Research/Research_Centers/>
Oil industry (Geology)
<http://webadv.chron.com/house/interactive/nonprof/interactive/hci/nonprof/p/perspectives/corporate/wildcatter.html>
<http://130.11.54.143/factsheets/organicgeochem/organic.html>
<http://www.sciam.com/explorations/082597cambrian/powell.html>
<http://www.geo.utexas.edu/report/programs/petrol.html>
I quote from _The Origins of Order_ by Stuart Kauffmam
(Page xv) "Thus it is possible to explore sequence spaces for the
first time. I believe this exploration will lead in the coming decades
to what might be called "Applied Molecular Evolution" with very great
medical and industrial implications, such as rapid evolution of new
drugs, vaccines, biosensors, and catalysts".
Computer Industry
CREATURES FROM PRIMORDIAL SILICON
<http://www.newscientist.com/ns/971115/features.html>
Evolving A Conscious Machine By Gary Taubes
<http://208.226.13.177/archive/output.cfm?ID=1455>
Further reading: A collection of Adrian Thompson's papers is posted on
his Web site at <http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/adrianth/ade.html>
Microsoft funds software that writes and fixes itself
<http://www.the-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/99/08/22/stiinnnws01003.html?1902395>
Creationism is only used by fundamentalist religion business.
Talk Origins Archive FAQ
<http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html>
Suspicious Creationist Credentials FAQ
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html>
Talk.Origins Archive's Creationism FAQs
<http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html>
Creationism and Pseudo Science
<http://members.home.net/fsteiger/creation.htm>
IS CREATIONISM FOR REAL?
<http://www.enconnect.net/rjtolle/>
Greene's Creationism Truth Filter
<http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/>
Many people of Christian and other faiths accept evolution as the
scientific explanation for biodiversity. See the God and
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html>
Evolution FAQ and the Interpretations of Genesis FAQ.
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html>
"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens,
and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of
the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge
he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus
offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk
nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based
in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an
embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in
the Christian and laugh to scorn."
-- St. Augustine, "De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim"
(The Literal Meaning of Genesis)
--
L.P.#0000000001
Morat
Mdwhiffen wrote:
> Hey Morphis, If you can get past your antagonism for just a minute why don't
> you show Dr. Hoving one actual proof of evolution, and collect the $250,000?
> And don't say that he would just ignore it, because for 10 years much more
> eloquant orators than yourself have publicly tried in secular colleges, and
> have never succeeded. Why, because there is not one single empirical proof for
> evolution. It is a theory, nothing more. It is about as scientific as are the
> smurfs.
>
> It amazes me how I can very simply, and in a very non-threatening way send out
> a post, and have it attacked because the truth of it didn't fit down someone's
> craw.
>
> Anyway, feel free to lamblast away as much as you like if it makes you feel
> more secure in what you have put your faith in.
Oh damn! My troll-o-meter just broke....oh well, for some reason I don't think
you'll be around long enough to break the new one.
--
spam blocking in effect. To reply remove "not"
------------------------------------------------------------------
When someone is saved from certain death by a strange
concatenation of circumstances, they say its a miracle.
But of course if someone is killed by a freak chain of
events - that must also be a miracle.
Just because it isn't nice doesn't mean its not miraculous.
--Terry Pratchett "Interesting Times"
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by mdwh...@aol.com (Mdwhiffen):
>Hey Morphis, If you can get past your antagonism for just a minute why don't
>you show Dr. Hoving one actual proof of evolution, and collect the $250,000?
>And don't say that he would just ignore it, because for 10 years much more
>eloquant orators than yourself have publicly tried in secular colleges, and
>have never succeeded. Why, because there is not one single empirical proof for
>evolution. It is a theory, nothing more. It is about as scientific as are the
>smurfs.
So you're claiming Hovind rejects the many demonstrated (and
documented) instances of evolution in bacteria and plants?
Does he require that a cat give birth to a cow or something
equally ignorant?
>
>It amazes me how I can very simply, and in a very non-threatening way send out
>a post, and have it attacked because the truth of it didn't fit down someone's
>craw.
You apparently have a strange concept of "truth". Somewhat
like Humpty Dumpty's idea of the meaning of words.
>
>Anyway, feel free to lamblast away as much as you like if it makes you feel
>more secure in what you have put your faith in.
I put mine in evidence and repeatable tests. What is yours
in; the Gospel According to Hovind? Or is it in anything at
all which will allow you to cling with your fingernails to
your desire for separation from the rest of the animal
kingdom and (by inference) your inherent "superiority"?
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness
to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt."
--H. L. Mencken
Mark Isaak
Mdwhiffen <mdwh...@aol.com> wrote:
>Hey Morphis, If you can get past your antagonism for just a minute why don't
>you show Dr. Hoving one actual proof of evolution, and collect the $250,000?
Hovind himself has admitted that the evidence he asks for would cost
millions of dollars at least. (All he's asking for is the re-creation of
the universe...) Someone is trying to pin him down on a more reasonable
challenge (proving that humans and bananas have a common ancestor), but
he's only willing to risk $2000 on that, and not even that if the judging
committee is fair.
--
Mark Isaak atta @ best.com http://www.best.com/~atta
"My determination is not to remain stubbornly with my ideas but
I'll leave them and go over to others as soon as I am shown
plausible reason which I can grasp." - Antony Leeuwenhoek
Mark Isaak
Stephen R Gould <srg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Given that Hovind is in bankruptcy proceedings, there is no $250,000.
Not necessarily true. Hovind has said he's using other people's money.
Besides, the money is not at risk, since the requirements to get it would
be impossible to meet whether evolution is true or not.
Hal Hawkins
teach science. For crying out loud! Listen to what he's saying;
"Evolutionists want your children to believe that they decended from a
rock." FROM A ROCK??!! I don't think so. Rocks are what this guy has in his
head. None of his arguments seem to make any sense. What does the number of
chromosomes have to do with one creature being related to another? Thats
right nothing. And nobody ever claimed that it did.
If you want to teach children the Bible's version of creation as fact, do it
in the church or in the home. You might as well teach them that the universe
flew out of the ass of a giant supernatural Hippo at the moment of creation.
How would you like them teaching that to your children? That is how I would
feel about them teaching creationism in my child's school.
R.D. Heilman
Hal Hawkins <halha...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:7tq9p6$73p$1...@Usenet.Logical.NET...
empirical evidence why doesn't someone take Hovid's $250.000
challenge: it should be a piece of cake. The question in my mind
is who are these scientist and in what peer- reviewed publication
is he in reference?
RD Heilman
>
>
maff91
<rd...@news.mia.bellsouth.net> wrote:
Ken Hovind's dishonesty and lies
<http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pier/1766/hovindlies/index.html>
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/matson-vs-hovind.html
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/evolution/wild_hovind.html
http://x15.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=410319963
http://x11.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=410893493
http://x11.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=409118174
>
>-Vreejack
located at: http://www.teleport.com/~mrbswb/casemonth.html
"In Re Hovind, 197 B.R. 157 (Bankr. N.D. Fla. 1996)
"Debtor Kent E. Hovind was a tax protester who filed a Chapter 13
Bankruptcy Petition after the IRS had seized three vehicles, a
homemade trailer, and $54 in cash. Mr. Hovind had never filed a tax
return (the IRS had filed them on his behalf), did not acknowledge
that he was a citizen of the U.S. nor subject to its tax laws, and
claimed that he was "an evangelist employed by God". On
his bankruptcy schedules, he declared that he had no property,
received no income, had no expenses, and had no creditors (except for
the IRS, which filed a claim for $10,690 in unpaid taxes). In finding
that Mr. Hovind had filed false schedules, the Court noted that he had
a home with recently installed central air conditioning, and sent all
three children to a private Christian school at a cost of $4,800 per
year. Under these facts, the Court had no difficulty in holding that
the petition was filed in bad faith, and that he was ineligible for
Chapter 13 relief under 11 U.S.C. Section 109(e) because he had
no income. "The evidence presented at the hearing paints a clear
portrait of a tax protester whose sole purpose in seeking relief under
Chapter 13 was to obtain the release of property seized by the IRS."
His petition was therefore dismissed. "
Ken Hovind's credentials
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html
>
>
>RD Heilman
>>
>>
>
--
L.P.#0000000001
Hal Hawkins
> empirical evidence why doesn't someone take Hovid's $250.000
> challenge: it should be a piece of cake. The question in my mind
> is who are these scientist and in what peer- reviewed publication
> is he in reference?
>
>
Boikat
> empirical evidence why doesn't someone take Hovid's $250.000
> challenge: it should be a piece of cake.
Because Hovind wants "undeniable proof", which
does not exist in science, his "impartial" judges
are drawn from the "biggies" list of creationists,
and what he wants "proven" is that the Universe
arouse out of nothing, that the gases formed stars
and eventually planets, that on at least one
planet, life arose, invented sex, and reproduced,
giving rise to a diverse biota, without a creator.
> The question in my mind
> is who are these scientist and in what peer- reviewed publication
> is he in reference?
If you are referring to the scientists that he is
referring to as his "impartial judges", he's
talking about the likes of Morris.
Boikat
>
> RD Heilman
> >
> >
Gyudon Z
>definately check out these sites:
>
>http://www.drdino.com/
In just one of his pages, I found twenty-one things that I knew specifically
were wrong, and about a dozen more that I had a suspicion were wrong, but
couldn't remember anything specific as to why. Considering the amount of pages
on that site, it's a worrying though, really. I sent him an e-mail compiling
his errors, and I got some evangelism in return.
Matt Silberstein
<rd...@news.mia.bellsouth.net>:
[snip]
>> >
>If one believes evolution is a fact, supported by mountains of
>empirical evidence why doesn't someone take Hovid's $250.000
>challenge: it should be a piece of cake. The question in my mind
>is who are these scientist and in what peer- reviewed publication
>is he in reference?
>
Have you gotten around to reading Hovid's challenge yet? Do you still
think there is any value in responding to it? It presents a distorted
version of evolution, sets up a nonsensical standard, and packs the
jury. Do you disagree at all?
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------------------
A science is said to by useful if its development tends
to accentuate the existing inequalities in the
distribution of wealth, or more directly promotes the
distruction of human life.
GHH