Kent Hovinds doctoral dissertation
dali_70
ranting dissertation. LMFAO!
http://88.80.13.160.nyud.net/leak/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf
John Harshman
here in full:
Comparing this dissertation with others I've read (and one I've
written), I find that the standards are considerably different between
accredited and non-accredited universities. And not in a good way.
Ye Old One
I loved the way he kept talking about the creation/evolution
controversy but then talking about geology, time and a lot of other
things that have nothing to do with life.
Now I know, beyond ALL doubt, that his degree is totally bogus.
--
Bob.
The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably the
day they start making vacuum cleaners.
Jim
Hmm... tried three times and each time got a damaged file that Adobe
could not open...
Desertphile
DNS lookup error. Damn.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Burkhard
Having supervised 15 or so, this would not have made it through our
first year progression assessment.
Free Lunch
Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in
<d12c5815-f092-497e...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>:
Sure, but you have academic standards. Can you really expect that of
folks who are dogmatically opposed to all knowledge that doesn't fit
with their religious doctrines?
Jim
Tried again, and got it. This is one of the most piss-poor excuses
for scholarship I think I have ever seen.
snex
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 13:19:36 -0800 (PST), in talk.origins
> <d12c5815-f092-497e-9b8e-d0d7ddab0...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
>
> >On Dec 9, 8:16 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> dali_70 wrote:
> >> > Here it is, for your amusement! Kent "the fucktard" Hovind's 102 page
> >> > ranting dissertation. LMFAO!
>
> >> >http://88.80.13.160.nyud.net/leak/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf
>
> >> My favorite bit is the bibliography. I like it so much that I'll post it
> >> here in full:
>
> >> Comparing this dissertation with others I've read (and one I've
> >> written), I find that the standards are considerably different between
> >> accredited and non-accredited universities. And not in a good way.
>
> >Having supervised 15 or so, this would not have made it through our
> >first year progression assessment.
>
> Sure, but you have academic standards. Can you really expect that of
> folks who are dogmatically opposed to all knowledge that doesn't fit
> with their religious doctrines?
which religious people arent dogmatically opposed to all knowledge
that doesnt fit with their religious doctrines?
VoiceOfReason
What utter shite. I've read screeds in alt.talk.creationism that were
better constructed than this drivel.
Free Lunch
snex <xe...@comcast.net> wrote in
<8a638d94-c1c9-4b37...@z10g2000prh.googlegroups.com>:
The ones that the fundamentalists and evangelicals whine about because
they actually adjust their doctrines to reality.
Mitchell Coffey
Procedures vary from school to school, but I imagine in your
experience the complete absence of citations through the entire work
would have proven problematical.
Mitchell Coffey
Kleuskes & Moos
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:07:53 -0800 (PST), dali_70
>
> > Here it is, for your amusement! Kent "the fucktard" Hovind's 102 page
> > ranting dissertation. LMFAO!
>
> >http://88.80.13.160.nyud.net/leak/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf
>
> DNS lookup error. Damn.
>
> Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
> "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Try again. I got it second time around, and sheesss... It is worth the
trouble! Did you know the ToE dates back fromthe times of the Tower of
Babel and several "evolution-type myths" were floating around in
Turkey and Greece and Asia? A "fellow named Thales" helped spread
them. Says so on page 19 of Dr. Hovind thesis...
Best laugh i've had this day.
Mitchell Coffey
You need to brush up on your Talmud.
Mitchell Coffey
Mitchell Coffey
wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:07:53 -0800 (PST), dali_70
>
> > Here it is, for your amusement! Kent "the fucktard" Hovind's 102 page
> > ranting dissertation. LMFAO!
>
> >http://88.80.13.160.nyud.net/leak/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf
>
> DNS lookup error. Damn.
Google the file by name, it's available in a number of places.
By the way, this Wikileak is a valuable site.
Mitchell Coffey
Kleuskes & Moos
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:07:53 -0800 (PST), dali_70
> <w_e_coyot...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >Here it is, for your amusement! Kent "the fucktard" Hovind's 102 page
> >ranting dissertation. LMFAO!
>
> >http://88.80.13.160.nyud.net/leak/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf
>
> I loved the way he kept talking about the creation/evolution
> controversy but then talking about geology, time and a lot of other
> things that have nothing to do with life.
>
> Now I know, beyond ALL doubt, that his degree is totally bogus.
No! Nononono! How can you say that about Good Dr. Hovind? When he
wrote _such_ a BRILLIANT thesis!
He should be made a Doctor Honoris Causa, for this briliant piece of
parody!
Oh, my GAWWDD....
The more i read the sillier it gets! Does this guy actually believe
the bullshit he's writing, or is he sitting there, sniggering while he
writes it, wondering if anyone will actually believe him?
Whoever put this on the net...
THANKS! I needed that!
Kleuskes & Moos
Me.
Kleuskes & Moos
This wouldn't have made it as a 3 grade homework assignment.
Burkhard
That would indeed have been one. The other would have been the idea
that you can start a dissertation by more or less saying that you do
not intend to have any original ideas, but just want to collect stuff
others have done in one place and explain it in laymans terms - would
have fallen foul of the 1 year progression criteria: evidence of a
feasible research project that significantly enhances the sum of human
knowledge".
.
snex
oh really? which religious doctrines do you hold?
snex
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 13:44:24 -0800 (PST), in talk.origins
> <8a638d94-c1c9-4b37-bf85-84c924cc0...@z10g2000prh.googlegroups.com>:
you sure about that? or is it that their doctrines just didnt address
those matters to begin with?
Free Lunch
snex <xe...@comcast.net> wrote in
<022b9d79-dbdc-4abc...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>:
Most of those church bodies used to have opinions that turned out to be
contrary to more recent observations. When that happened, as with
geology and then biology, they grumbled for a bit and reset their
theology to meet reality. The theology that doesn't get changed is the
stuff that doesn't have to do with any thing that we are able to
observe.
johnetho...@yahoo.com
The majority.
Burkhard
me too
snex
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 14:26:00 -0800 (PST), in talk.origins
> <022b9d79-dbdc-4abc-bcee-3c9b48a29...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>:
i didnt mention church bodies. i mentioned religious people.
<snip>
snex
typical content-free dismissal from a theist. why dont you try
actually presenting some facts?
snex
then ill ask you the same question i asked K&M. which religious
doctrines do you hold?
Mitchell Coffey
Are you at all familiar with the Talmud? Please note that I was
responding to a sweeping generalization on your part.
Mitchell Coffey
Mitchell Coffey
This other is probably related to my observation that the darn thing
didn't have a name - I mean, what the heck exactly was it about?
Mitchell Coffey
.
Kleuskes & Moos
I'm a Tjaoist. And no, that's no typo. I believe Doubt is the Mother
of all Wisdom.
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
"dali_70" <w_e_co...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:67d1e28f-596e-471d...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> Here it is, for your amusement! Kent "the fucktard" Hovind's 102 page
> ranting dissertation. LMFAO!
>
> http://88.80.13.160.nyud.net/leak/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf
>
A legitimate doctorate - from a biblical diploma mill????
Free Lunch
"Pepsi...@teranews.com" <bobsyo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<PgWTm.85121$Xf2....@newsfe12.iad>:
You don't have to read the whole thing to realize that MR. Hovind has no
clue what a doctoral dissertation is. A hundred pages of BS does not
qualify, which, presumably, is why he got it from a religiously-oriented
diploma mill.
Burkhard
Well, I started out in the protestant church in an environment that
was heavily influenced by the historical critical method and
Schleiermacher, so at that time my believes would change as new
linguistic data came in (e.g. I changed my belief about the
historicity of certain key figures like the Gospel writers a few
times). But then I read Kant and thought that Schleiermacher's idea to
rescue knowledge of the noumenon did not really work. Furthermore, I
realised that while my religious convictions were _compatible_ with
the type of Christianity I was brought up in, there was really no
close or necessary connection between the two. So I revised that one,
and flirted a bit with Buddhism, before realising that music and
"secular" literature are arguably a better expression of spiritual
experience anyway. I then I adopted pretty much my current omni-theist
approach (all gods exist), influenced by Gaiman and certain theories
of science I was studying at the time, in particular Quine's
ontological relativity. But there is an ongoing danger of a schism
with myself on the status of abstract objects in non-religious
literature which I hope to resolve one day when i have really thought
through the logic of abstract objects, and read more on the issues
involved. For instance Wilkin's ideas here on TO have me made to
reconsider if the link between my inclusive pantheon and my preferred
theories of science is really as convincing as I thought they were.
I also belief that the Axiom of Choice is absolutely true and not just
a pragmatic issue of convenience, and that generally mathematical
statements are based on a notion of the infinite that guarantees
absolute mathematical truth in all segments of the set theoretical
universe, and not just certain parts of it.
I'm also a mind-body dualist, but willing to reconsider if
neuroscience should come up with a really good take at the issue of
qualia.
chris thompson
> dali_70 wrote:
> > Here it is, for your amusement! Kent "the fucktard" Hovind's 102 page
> > ranting dissertation. LMFAO!
>
> >http://88.80.13.160.nyud.net/leak/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf
>
> My favorite bit is the bibliography. I like it so much that I'll post it
> here in full:
>
> Comparing this dissertation with others I've read (and one I've
> written), I find that the standards are considerably different between
> accredited and non-accredited universities. And not in a good way.
I got as far as "Hello, my name is Kent Hovind." Should I proceed?
Chris
John Wilkins
<d12c5815-f092-497e...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Dec 9, 8:16�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > dali_70 wrote:
> > > Here it is, for your amusement! Kent "the fucktard" Hovind's 102 page
> > > ranting dissertation. LMFAO!
> >
> > >http://88.80.13.160.nyud.net/leak/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf
> >
> > My favorite bit is the bibliography. I like it so much that I'll post it
> > here in full:
> >
> > Comparing this dissertation with others I've read (and one I've
> > written), I find that the standards are considerably different between
> > accredited and non-accredited universities. And not in a good way.
>
> Having supervised 15 or so, this would not have made it through our
> first year progression assessment.
>
Skip Evans sent me a copy of Hovind's "thesis" about ten years ago. I
was so appalled I could barely read it. It looked like the dribblings
of a conspiracy theorist who had no education nor mental balance.
Oh, wait...
Ye Old One
Could not agree more. And I've saved a copy to two different hard
drives so there is no way I wont be able to refer to it in future.
--
Bob.
snex
that didnt answer my question at all.
snex
no, i asked a question. instead of answering it, you made the same
whiny complaint that you folks always do about atheists not
understanding "sophisticated theology" without actually stating any of
this alleged "sophisticated theology." apparently you expect us to
just have faith that its out there somewhere.
snex
if you are as willing to change your mind as you claim you are, why
have you decided to form conclusions when you admit that you dont have
the necessary information to do so?
Burkhard
?? As a comment that is about as sensible as Adman's idea that we
should not formulate scientific theories unless we have "absolute
truth" You form theories on the basis what you have, that is why
revision is not only possible, but necessary. .
John Harshman
> On Dec 9, 8:16 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> dali_70 wrote:
>>> Here it is, for your amusement! Kent "the fucktard" Hovind's 102 page
>>> ranting dissertation. LMFAO!
>>> http://88.80.13.160.nyud.net/leak/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf
>> My favorite bit is the bibliography. I like it so much that I'll post it
>> here in full:
>>
>> Comparing this dissertation with others I've read (and one I've
>> written), I find that the standards are considerably different between
>> accredited and non-accredited universities. And not in a good way.
>
> Having supervised 15 or so, this would not have made it through our
> first year progression assessment.
>
was capable of writing that.
snex
and what do you have to indicate that mind-body dualism is true?
Louann Miller
@y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
>> > which religious people arent dogmatically opposed to all knowledge
>> > that doesnt fit with their religious doctrines?
>>
>> You need to brush up on your Talmud.
>
> typical content-free dismissal from a theist. why dont you try
> actually presenting some facts?
He'd pointing out the widely known fact that the Talmud is made up almost
entirely OF long arguments about how knowledge fits in with religious
doctrines, with the longstanding custom that knowledge has the right of
way. This is not obscure or secret.
r norman
wrote:
<really major snippage and a total change in subject matter>
>I also belief that the Axiom of Choice is absolutely true and not just
>a pragmatic issue of convenience,...
As Jerry Bona said, ""The Axiom of Choice is obviously true, the
well-ordering principle obviously false, and who can tell about Zorn's
lemma?"
(It helps if you know that the three statements are logically
equivalent to each other)
John Harshman
> On Dec 9, 3:50 pm, Jim <jimwille...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 9, 3:07 pm, dali_70 <w_e_coyot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Here it is, for your amusement! Kent "the fucktard" Hovind's 102 page
>>> ranting dissertation. LMFAO!
>>> http://88.80.13.160.nyud.net/leak/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf
>> could not open...
>
> Tried again, and got it. This is one of the most piss-poor excuses
> for scholarship I think I have ever seen.
>
What do you expect? It's a doctoral degree from the University of Do You
Have $20?
snex
> snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote in news:2ca2bbe6-d8f4-4350-976c-3285578ab446
in other words, either the "knowledge" is distorted or the "religious
doctrine" aint so doctrinaire after all. since you seem to be the
expert, why dont you tell us which it is?
Burkhard
Well, mainly my introspection that gives me a very clear impression
that I made a decision to answer your post, and my hands obey when
told to type certain words. Something which none of the current
theories that I know explains to my satisfaction.
And then I'm toying around with a quasi-darwinian argument that I
suggested on TO before: it explains better the convergence, for "old"
behavioral patterns, between what is experienced as pleasant and what
is advantageous (from an evo-fitness perspective) , and what is
experienced as unpleasant and disadvantageous (we had a bit of a
discussion on this recently in one of Nando's threads, you can look
the full argument up there)
el cid
> http://88.80.13.160.nyud.net/leak/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf
Admirable. Some famous PhD theses were shorter, for example de
Broglie's
which is only 81 pages, and that includes lots of filler space for
things
like tables of contents, lists of figures and equations and stuff
that
isn't even really writing.
http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/LDB-oeuvres/De_Broglie_Kracklauer.pdf
r norman
In all honesty, I think you are being terribly unfair to both the
University and to Hovind. I am sure it costs significantly more than
$20!
Burkhard
mmh, sorry, need my lawyer to answer this and might have to plead the
5th ;o(
(just marking first year essay's, depressed)
snex
which is the same argument from ignorance that IDers use. care to
rethink that?
>
> �And then I'm toying around with �a quasi-darwinian argument that I
> suggested on TO before: it explains better the convergence, for "old"
> behavioral patterns, between what is experienced as pleasant and what
> is advantageous (from an evo-fitness perspective) , and what is
> experienced as unpleasant and disadvantageous (we had a bit of a
> discussion on this recently in one of Nando's threads, you can look
> the full argument up there)
how does magic explain anything?
r norman
wrote:
Not to mention that he got the Nobel Prize for his PhD dissertation!
A translation is available at
http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/LDB-oeuvres/De_Broglie_Kracklauer.pdf
Burkhard
Not really, no. It is an argument about the adequacy of explanations.
It is not a question of simply more possible observations or
improvements of existing theories, but the type of thing that counts
as an explanation. Nor do I say that any specific scientific theory is
wrong.
You can read up on the problem e.g. here:
Smythies, J. R. and Beloff, J, (eds) (1989): The Case for Dualism,
University of Virginia Press
Btw, even if you were right, I'd not be particularly bothered. The
"god of the gaps" charge is really only a problem for people who think
they already have absolute truth and would therefore be nervous about
new insights that reduce the gap. It is not however a logical
fallacy, and since we have assumed ex hypothesis willingness to see
the gap closed in the light of new research, it is really a non-issue
here.
>
> > �And then I'm toying around with �a quasi-darwinian argument that I
> > suggested on TO before: it explains better the convergence, for "old"
> > behavioral patterns, between what is experienced as pleasant and what
> > is advantageous (from an evo-fitness perspective) , and what is
> > experienced as unpleasant and disadvantageous (we had a bit of a
> > discussion on this recently in one of Nando's threads, you can look
> > the full argument up there)
>
> how does magic explain anything?
You are of course really committing the fallacy you accuse me of
committing above. Just because we don't have _yet_ an adequate theory
of dualism does not mean it needs to be magic or nonexistent.
. Anyhow, you asked me about the religious beliefs I hold, not the
scientific theories I subscribe to, and if they could be subject to
change.
Jim
> On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:12:55 -0800, John Harshman
>
>
>
> >Jim wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> >> Tried again, and got it. �This is one of the most piss-poor excuses
> >> for scholarship I think I have ever seen.
>
> >What do you expect? It's a doctoral degree from the University of Do You
> >Have $20?
>
> In all honesty, I think you are being terribly unfair to both the
> University and to Hovind. �I am sure it costs significantly more than
> $20!
Hey, this is *Kent Hovind* we're talking about. I seriously doubt he
paid much of anything out-of-pocket for his - um - essay into higher
education.
snex
ID is exactly about "adequacy of explanations." dembski thinks that
law and chance are inadequate, therefore "magic" is the default
preferred explanation. "i dont know" never enters his vocabulary.
>
> You can read up on the problem e.g. here:
> Smythies, J. R. and Beloff, J, (eds) (1989): The Case for Dualism,
> University of Virginia Press
>
> Btw, �even if you were right, I'd not be particularly bothered. The
> "god of the gaps" charge is really only a problem for people who think
> they already have absolute truth and would therefore be nervous about
> new insights that reduce the gap. �It is not however a logical
> fallacy, and since we have assumed ex hypothesis willingness to see
> the gap closed in the light of new research, it is really a non-issue
> here.
it absolutely is a logical fallacy. "i dont know, therefore i do know"
is a contradiction. if you dont know, then admit you dont know. dont
throw around magic and then demand respect for your beliefs. nobody
owes your willingness to draw conclusions in the absence of evidence
an ounce of respect.
>
>
>
> > > �And then I'm toying around with �a quasi-darwinian argument that I
> > > suggested on TO before: it explains better the convergence, for "old"
> > > behavioral patterns, between what is experienced as pleasant and what
> > > is advantageous (from an evo-fitness perspective) , and what is
> > > experienced as unpleasant and disadvantageous (we had a bit of a
> > > discussion on this recently in one of Nando's threads, you can look
> > > the full argument up there)
>
> > how does magic explain anything?
>
> You are of course really committing the fallacy you accuse me of
> committing above. Just because we don't have _yet_ an adequate theory
> of dualism does not mean it needs to be magic or nonexistent.
there are no theories of dualism that arent equivalent to magic.
anything that wasnt magic wouldnt be dualism.
> . Anyhow, you asked me about the religious beliefs I hold, not the
> scientific theories I subscribe to, and if they could be subject to
> change.
you are in the camp that asserts that faith and science are
compatible. yet you are using faith to arrive at conclusions that you
know science may one day prove wrong. so how are these two systems
which lead to contradictory conclusions compatible? they arent.
John Harshman
the University of Do You Have $250? by now.
John Harshman
Joe Felsenstein had a really short dissertation too. I know because the
official bound copies of all the department's dissertations used to be
stored in my office (early in my graduate career), and his was the
skinniest. But I suspect that length is not the main criterion here.
Eric Root
> On Dec 9, 3:35�pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 13:19:36 -0800 (PST), in talk.origins
> > Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in
> > <d12c5815-f092-497e-9b8e-d0d7ddab0...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > >On Dec 9, 8:16 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > >> > Here it is, for your amusement! Kent "the fucktard" Hovind's 102 page
> > >> > ranting dissertation. LMFAO!
>
> > >> >http://88.80.13.160.nyud.net/leak/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf
>
> > >> here in full:
>
> > >> Comparing this dissertation with others I've read (and one I've
> > >> written), I find that the standards are considerably different between
> > >> accredited and non-accredited universities. And not in a good way.
>
> > >Having supervised 15 or so, this would not have made it through our
> > >first year progression assessment.
>
> > Sure, but you have academic standards. Can you really expect that of
> > folks who are dogmatically opposed to all knowledge that doesn't fit
> > with their religious doctrines?
>
> which religious people arent dogmatically opposed to all knowledge
> that doesnt fit with their religious doctrines?
Me.
Eric Root
Dave Oldridge
c5ba4a...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>Here it is, for your amusement! Kent "the fucktard" Hovind's 102 page
>ranting dissertation. LMFAO!
>
>http://88.80.13.160.nyud.net/leak/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf
It would be an insult to sophomores to call it sophomoric.
--
Dave Oldridge+
snex
you are opposed to the knowledge that human bodies dont rise from the
dead.
SeppoP
> Here it is, for your amusement! Kent "the fucktard" Hovind's 102 page
> ranting dissertation. LMFAO!
>
> http://88.80.13.160.nyud.net/leak/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf
>
Priceless!
-- Seppo P.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Creationism is based on ignorance and dishonesty, it breeds from
ignorance and
dishonesty, and it breeds ignorance and dishonesty. Spreading ignorance and
dishonesty is the lifeblood and sustenance of the creationists.
Wallowing in
ignorance and dishonesty is the natural lifestyle of creationists.
Burkhard
You miss again the point, maybe you really should try to read up a bit
on the academic literature on the field that has been cited to you by me
and a couple of others first. Dembski's analysis is purely about the
quantity of data, not the nature of adequate explanations. In the debate
on philosophy of mind, the issue is if a qualia can in principle be
explained by neurological data, and what that sort of explanation would
actually mean.
>
>> You can read up on the problem e.g. here:
>> Smythies, J. R. and Beloff, J, (eds) (1989): The Case for Dualism,
>> University of Virginia Press
>>
>> Btw, even if you were right, I'd not be particularly bothered. The
>> "god of the gaps" charge is really only a problem for people who think
>> they already have absolute truth and would therefore be nervous about
>> new insights that reduce the gap. It is not however a logical
>> fallacy, and since we have assumed ex hypothesis willingness to see
>> the gap closed in the light of new research, it is really a non-issue
>> here.
>
> it absolutely is a logical fallacy. "i dont know, therefore i do know"
> is a contradiction. if you dont know, then admit you dont know. dont
> throw around magic and then demand respect for your beliefs. nobody
> owes your willingness to draw conclusions in the absence of evidence
> an ounce of respect.
That results in the same epistemological nihilism that Adman and fellow
travellers espouse. I don't have perfect knowledge now (or will ever
have) so I make do with the best that its available is not a logical
fallacy.
BTw, may I remark that your own posts are as usual totally evidence free?
>
>>
>>
>>>> And then I'm toying around with a quasi-darwinian argument that I
>>>> suggested on TO before: it explains better the convergence, for "old"
>>>> behavioral patterns, between what is experienced as pleasant and what
>>>> is advantageous (from an evo-fitness perspective) , and what is
>>>> experienced as unpleasant and disadvantageous (we had a bit of a
>>>> discussion on this recently in one of Nando's threads, you can look
>>>> the full argument up there)
>>> how does magic explain anything?
>> You are of course really committing the fallacy you accuse me of
>> committing above. Just because we don't have _yet_ an adequate theory
>> of dualism does not mean it needs to be magic or nonexistent.
>
> there are no theories of dualism that arent equivalent to magic.
> anything that wasnt magic wouldnt be dualism.
Only if you think the theory of gravity, particle physics etc are magic
too. I observe a specific correlation (between things that are
experienced as pleasant and that are evolutionary advantageous) I posit
an abstract concept, mind, that explains this correlation. I further
find tat a large number of theories operates with the same concept (from
psychology to history to sociology) That makes it a perfectly
acceptable theoretical assumption unless, as always in science,
something better comes along. Your crure metaphysical physicalism by
contrast has to deny a considerable body of human knowledge from a
variety of disciplines with the "jam tomorrow" hope that one day science
will come up with a reductionist explanation of equal explanatory power.
It just shows that your understanding of how science formulates theories
is as piss poor as your understanding of religion.
>
>> . Anyhow, you asked me about the religious beliefs I hold, not the
>> scientific theories I subscribe to, and if they could be subject to
>> change.
>
> you are in the camp that asserts that faith and science are
> compatible. yet you are using faith to arrive at conclusions that you
> know science may one day prove wrong.
Because you asked specifically for parts of my belief that can be
changed in the light of new insights. Now you seem to be complaining
about the fact that there are some. Make up your mind.
so how are these two systems
> which lead to contradictory conclusions compatible?
They haven't. Once they do the issue of revision comes up, Just as you
asked for.
they arent.
>
el cid
> snex wrote:
> > On Dec 9, 8:12 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> On Dec 10, 1:54 am, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
...
> > it absolutely is a logical fallacy. "i dont know, therefore i do know"
> > is a contradiction. if you dont know, then admit you dont know. dont
> > throw around magic and then demand respect for your beliefs. nobody
> > owes your willingness to draw conclusions in the absence of evidence
> > an ounce of respect.
>
> That results in the same epistemological nihilism that Adman and fellow
> travellers espouse. I don't have perfect knowledge now (or will ever
> have) so I make do with the best that its available is not a logical
> fallacy.
>
> BTw, may I remark that your own posts are as usual totally evidence free?
No, you are not allowed to point that out. Snexy is a man of
profound convictions which do not require actual logical
support or, err, especially do not require an understanding of
the process of logical support. He has conviction that his
positions are logically supported making process irrelevent
to him.
All-Seeing-I
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 14:26:00 -0800 (PST), in talk.origins
> snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote in
> <022b9d79-dbdc-4abc-bcee-3c9b48a29...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 9, 3:55�pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 13:44:24 -0800 (PST), in talk.origins
> >> snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote in
> >> <8a638d94-c1c9-4b37-bf85-84c924cc0...@z10g2000prh.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >> >On Dec 9, 3:35�pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 13:19:36 -0800 (PST), in talk.origins
> >> >> Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in
> >> >> <d12c5815-f092-497e-9b8e-d0d7ddab0...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >> >> >On Dec 9, 8:16 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> dali_70 wrote:
> >> >> >> > Here it is, for your amusement! Kent "the fucktard" Hovind's 102 page
> >> >> >> > ranting dissertation. LMFAO!
>
> >> >> >> >http://88.80.13.160.nyud.net/leak/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf
>
> >> >> >> My favorite bit is the bibliography. I like it so much that I'll post it
> >> >> >> here in full:
>
> >> >> >> Comparing this dissertation with others I've read (and one I've
> >> >> >> written), I find that the standards are considerably different between
> >> >> >> accredited and non-accredited universities. And not in a good way.
>
> >> >> >Having supervised 15 or so, this would not have made it through our
> >> >> >first year progression assessment.
>
> >> >> Sure, but you have academic standards. Can you really expect that of
> >> >> folks who are dogmatically opposed to all knowledge that doesn't fit
> >> >> with their religious doctrines?
>
> >> >which religious people arent dogmatically opposed to all knowledge
> >> >that doesnt fit with their religious doctrines?
>
> >> they actually adjust their doctrines to reality.
>
> >you sure about that? or is it that their doctrines just didnt address
> >those matters to begin with?
>
> Most of those church bodies used to have opinions that turned out to be
> contrary to more recent observations. When that happened, as with
> geology and then biology, they grumbled for a bit and reset their
> theology to meet reality. The theology that doesn't get changed is the
> stuff that doesn't have to do with any thing that we are able to
> observe.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Where is your textual evidence for this hypothesis?
All-Seeing-I
This is a good point that many evolutionist's just will not admit to,
or they just can't grasp.
The very fact that scientific discoveries are subject to change forces
the requirement of faith to believe their current conclusions.
Some of the conclusions are not backed up by tangible evidence but
rather by an inference of data which leads to a conclusion. Further
requiring a "faith" to accept.
Believing in God is just as easy.
Inferring from textual data and historical documents can lead to the
conclusion that God exists in much the same way inferences are made to
believe man evolved.
Garamond Lethe
> On Dec 9, 3:35 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 13:19:36 -0800 (PST), in talk.origins
>> Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in
>> <d12c5815-f092-497e-9b8e-d0d7ddab0...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Dec 9, 8:16 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >> dali_70 wrote:
>> >> > Here it is, for your amusement! Kent "the fucktard" Hovind's 102 page
>> >> > ranting dissertation. LMFAO!
>>
>> >> >http://88.80.13.160.nyud.net/leak/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf
>>
>> >> My favorite bit is the bibliography. I like it so much that I'll post it
>> >> here in full:
>>
>> >> Comparing this dissertation with others I've read (and one I've
>> >> written), I find that the standards are considerably different between
>> >> accredited and non-accredited universities. And not in a good way.
>>
>> >Having supervised 15 or so, this would not have made it through our
>> >first year progression assessment.
>>
>> Sure, but you have academic standards. Can you really expect that of
>> folks who are dogmatically opposed to all knowledge that doesn't fit
>> with their religious doctrines?
>
> which religious people arent dogmatically opposed to all knowledge
> that doesnt fit with their religious doctrines?
Poorly worded question, but I expect it's the best you can do.
From my personal experience: Buddhist, Jewish, Quaker, Unitarian, UCC,
Hindu, and the occasional evangelical Christian. I've restricted my
sample to scientists with whom I have collaborated.
I notice your replies to others are evidence-free, citation-free, and
betray several fundamental misunderstandings of the nature of science,
knowledge, religion, and.... well, everything, really.
Kent Hovind used the same approach. That's why we don't take either of
you seriously.
All-Seeing-I
wrote:
> dali_70 <w_e_coyot...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:67d1e28f-596e-471d-94e5-
> c5ba4a6e6...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>
> >Here it is, for your amusement! Kent "the fucktard" Hovind's 102 page
> >ranting dissertation. LMFAO!
>
> >http://88.80.13.160.nyud.net/leak/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf
>
> It would be an insult to sophomores to call it sophomoric.
>
> --
> Dave Oldridge+
Having read all 102 pages of his dissertation I believe the paper is
both well written and each of his thoughts are backed up with specific
textual evidence from the bible that explains why he thinks what he
does. Certainly meeting any university's criteria for a thesis.
One can only assume that it is the content that most of you diasagree
with and not with the actual paper, since, as i said, the paper is
well written and well supported with bible verse and chapter in
context.
Why the need to belittle the man and his work based on personal
factors should be a topic for scientific study. Any reseach should
focus in the area of Brain Damage.
bpuharic
heliocentrism. germ theory of disease. earthquakes. all at one time
were blamed on 'demons' or other entities. IOW creationism
now, nobody thinks these are true except, of course, the hardcore
islamist and christianists who are still creationists
bpuharic
except you forgot one thing:
science can not tell us what is RIGHT
but it CAN tell us what is WRONG. and creationism is wrong.
creationism itself, however, lacking a self correcting mechanism, can
not revise itself like science can, and does
>
>Some of the conclusions are not backed up by tangible evidence but
>rather by an inference of data which leads to a conclusion. Further
>requiring a "faith" to accept.
meaningless
>
>Believing in God is just as easy.
believing 'god did it' is impossible
>Inferring from textual data and historical documents can lead to the
>conclusion that God exists in much the same way inferences are made to
>believe man evolved.
really? i can put god in a petri dish and expose him to antibiotics?
who knew!!
Burkhard
> On Dec 9, 10:58 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
> wrote:
>> dali_70 <w_e_coyot...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:67d1e28f-596e-471d-94e5-
>> c5ba4a6e6...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> Here it is, for your amusement! Kent "the fucktard" Hovind's 102 page
>>> ranting dissertation. LMFAO!
>>> http://88.80.13.160.nyud.net/leak/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf
>> It would be an insult to sophomores to call it sophomoric.
>>
>> --
>> Dave Oldridge+
>
> Having read all 102 pages of his dissertation I believe the paper is
> both well written and each of his thoughts are backed up with specific
> textual evidence from the bible that explains why he thinks what he
> does. Certainly meeting any university's criteria for a thesis.
Which simply shows your extraordinary lack in judgement and ignorance of
university standards.
here an example how a proper PhD in Evolutionary theory looks like
http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/1842/2564/1/Sykes%20E%20thesis%20%2007.pdf
and here an example of a proper PhD in Theology:
http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/1842/1395/1/Sim_thesis.pdf
The differences are quite obvious - just compare the bibliographies, and
the claims in the introductions that explain what gaps in our knowledge
the PhD fills.
Kleuskes & Moos
> On Dec 9, 5:14 pm, "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 9 dec, 23:26, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 9, 4:11 pm, "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> > > > On 9 dec, 22:44, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 9, 3:35 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 13:19:36 -0800 (PST), in talk.origins
> > > > > > Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in
> > > > > > <d12c5815-f092-497e-9b8e-d0d7ddab0...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > > > > > >On Dec 9, 8:16 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > > > >> dali_70 wrote:
> > > > > > >> > ranting dissertation. LMFAO!
>
> > > > > > >> >http://88.80.13.160.nyud.net/leak/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf
>
> > > > > > >> here in full:
>
> > > > > > >> Comparing this dissertation with others I've read (and one I've
> > > > > > >> written), I find that the standards are considerably different between
> > > > > > >> accredited and non-accredited universities. And not in a good way.
>
> > > > > > >Having supervised 15 or so, this would not have made it through our
> > > > > > >first year progression assessment.
>
> > > > > > Sure, but you have academic standards. Can you really expect that of
> > > > > > folks who are dogmatically opposed to all knowledge that doesn't fit
> > > > > > with their religious doctrines?
>
> > > > > which religious people arent dogmatically opposed to all knowledge
> > > > > that doesnt fit with their religious doctrines?
>
>
> > > oh really? which religious doctrines do you hold?
>
> > I'm a Tjaoist. And no, that's no typo. I believe Doubt is the Mother
> > of all Wisdom.
>
> that didnt answer my question at all.
It did not provide you with the answer you hoped for. However, It
answers your question exactly.
Ye Old One
All around you Mudbrain. It is called the real world.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
alextangent
> On Dec 9, 10:58�pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
> wrote:
>
> > dali_70 <w_e_coyot...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:67d1e28f-596e-471d-94e5-
> > c5ba4a6e6...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>
> > >Here it is, for your amusement! Kent "the fucktard" Hovind's 102 page
> > >ranting dissertation. LMFAO!
>
> > >http://88.80.13.160.nyud.net/leak/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf
>
> > It would be an insult to sophomores to call it sophomoric.
>
> > --
> > Dave Oldridge+
>
> Having read all 102 pages of his dissertation
Liar. Even you don't have the ability to hold your nose for that long.
> I believe the paper is
> both well written and each of his thoughts are backed up with specific
> textual evidence from the bible that explains why he thinks what he
> does. Certainly meeting any university's criteria for a thesis.
What??? The Patriot Dribble Unifercity might have the bar set that
low, but this is truly a giant pile of excrement. Perhaps he got extra
marks for shovelling it onto paper and being able to put it in an
envelope.
>
> One can only assume that it is the content that most of you diasagree
> with and not with the actual paper, since, as i said, the paper is
> well written and well supported with bible verse and chapter in
> context.
What content?
>
> Why the need to belittle the man and his work based on personal
> factors should be a topic for scientific study. Any reseach should
> focus in the area of Brain Damage.
I doubt any "reseach" done on Kent Hovind would provide more than a
few microgrammes of undamaged brain tissue. This "paper" is
unadulterated bollocks.
You, sir, are a numpty.
LT
> Here it is, for your amusement! Kent "the fucktard" Hovind's 102 page
> ranting dissertation. LMFAO!
>
> http://88.80.13.160.nyud.net/leak/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf
The man refers to his parents, in a so-called DOCTORAL DISSERTATION,
as "Mom and Dad".
LOL
LT
LT
> On Dec 9, 10:58�pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
> wrote:
>
> > dali_70 <w_e_coyot...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:67d1e28f-596e-471d-94e5-
> > c5ba4a6e6...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>
> > >Here it is, for your amusement! Kent "the fucktard" Hovind's 102 page
> > >ranting dissertation. LMFAO!
>
> > >http://88.80.13.160.nyud.net/leak/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf
>
> > It would be an insult to sophomores to call it sophomoric.
>
> > --
> > Dave Oldridge+
>
> Having read all 102 pages of his dissertation
Enjoy wasting time do you?
> I believe the paper is
> both well written and each of his thoughts are backed up with specific
> textual evidence from the bible that explains why he thinks what he
> does.
Of course you'd think that. And there's that term "textual evidence"
that you made up and keep foisting on everyone in this NG.
> Certainly meeting any university's criteria for a thesis.
Certainly you've never been to university, and wouldn't have the first
clue what is expected in a thesis. Citing the Bible is not citing
evidence in any way, shape or form.
> One can only assume that it is the content that most of you diasagree
> with and not with the actual paper, since, as i said, the paper is
> well written and well supported with bible verse and chapter in
> context.
Your standards of quality are non-existent, clearly. Just because you
said that it's well written and well supported doesn't make it so. The
opposite is in fact true, and this can been seen just by reading the
very first page.
> Why the need to belittle the man and his work based on personal
> factors should be a topic for scientific study. Any reseach should
> focus in the area of Brain Damage.
The man belittles himself by making a mockery of his own religion,
lying to people for money, and unlawfully not paying his taxes.
He is a man who has a dangerous mix of poor morals, selfishness, and
mental compartmentalization.
LT
Kleuskes & Moos
Oh, i think the crowd gasps it, alright.
> The very fact that scientific discoveries are subject to change forces
> the requirement of faith to believe their current conclusions.
Nope. Just an acceptance of the fact that our understanding of the
physical universe is not perfect, nor complete.
It's just the best we've got, and it's served us well.
> Some of the conclusions are not backed up by tangible evidence but
> rather by an inference of data which leads to a conclusion. Further
> requiring a "faith" to accept.
Nope. It requires you can follow the train of logic which lead to the
inference in question, and a carefull analysis of that logic.
> Believing in God is just as easy.
In your believe-system, it is.
> Inferring from textual data and historical documents can lead to the
> conclusion that God exists in much the same way inferences are made to
> believe man evolved.
From textual data i infer that a venerableold knight named Don Quixote
and his donkey-driver Sancho Panza rode the roads of spain in the 15th
century and fought all kinds of monsters.
From textual data i Infer that the world looked different in the Third
Era, before Sauron was defeated by Gollem.
From textual data i Infer that the answer to LIfe, the Universe and
Everything is in fact 42.
Kleuskes & Moos
Ain't it cute?
VoiceOfReason
In a Norman Bates kind of way.
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Dec 9, 8:39�pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Dec 9, 8:12 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
[snip]
>> > . Anyhow, you asked me about the religious beliefs I hold, not the
>> > scientific theories I subscribe to, and if they could be subject to
>> > change.
>>
>> you are in the camp that asserts that faith and science are
>> compatible. yet you are using faith to arrive at conclusions that you
>> know science may one day prove wrong. so how are these two systems
>> which lead to contradictory conclusions compatible? they arent
>
>This is a good point that many evolutionist's just will not admit to,
>or they just can't grasp.
>
>The very fact that scientific discoveries are subject to change forces
>the requirement of faith to believe their current conclusions.
Rubbish.
>
>Some of the conclusions are not backed up by tangible evidence but
>rather by an inference of data which leads to a conclusion. Further
>requiring a "faith" to accept.
All scientific conclusions are backed up by evidence - if they were
not then science would not be science.
>
>Believing in God is just as easy.
No it is not.
>Inferring from textual data and historical documents can lead to the
>conclusion that God exists in much the same way inferences are made to
>believe man evolved.
You do spout some rubbish Mudbrain.
>
>
>
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
Science causes disease.
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
The [Dropa] stone is real, the troglodytes exist, the graves are
there, many books have been written on the subject...
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
north5
> Here it is, for your amusement! Kent "the fucktard" Hovind's 102 page
> ranting dissertation. LMFAO!
>
> http://88.80.13.160.nyud.net/leak/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf
I particularly like the bit where he says,
"As I was thinking on this subject, I wrote a poem to try to explain
this..."
There then follows sixty lines of truly, amazingly dire poetry ... um,
I mean scholarship, of course. :)
What an amazing read. The level of respect I have for the man has
doubled.
Al
Jack Dominey
<8a638d94-c1c9-4b37...@z10g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
snex <xe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>which religious people arent dogmatically opposed to all knowledge
>that doesnt fit with their religious doctrines?
"If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will
have to change." - Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama quoted in The New
York Times (12 November 2005)
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Tenzin_Gyatso,_14th_Dalai_Lama
--
Usenet: http://xkcd.com/386/
Jack Dominey
jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Dec 9, 10:58�pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
>wrote:
>> dali_70 <w_e_coyot...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:67d1e28f-596e-471d-94e5-
>> c5ba4a6e6...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >Here it is, for your amusement! Kent "the fucktard" Hovind's 102 page
>> >ranting dissertation. LMFAO!
>>
>> >http://88.80.13.160.nyud.net/leak/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf
>>
>> It would be an insult to sophomores to call it sophomoric.
>>
>> --
>> Dave Oldridge+
>
>Having read all 102 pages of his dissertation I believe the paper is
>both well written
By your standards anything is well written. By the standards of a
reputable universities his "dissertation" is totally laughable.
>and each of his thoughts are backed up with specific
>textual evidence from the bible that explains why he thinks what he
>does.
>Certainly meeting any university's criteria for a thesis.
What would an illiterate troll like you know about any "university's
criteria for a thesis"?
>
>One can only assume that it is the content that most of you diasagree
>with and not with the actual paper, since, as i said, the paper is
>well written
No it isn't. It contains no original work/research and the writing is
below what I would expect from an A Level student.
>and well supported with bible verse and chapter in
>context.
The bible is poor support for anything.
>
>Why the need to belittle the man
Because he is such a liar.
>and his work based on personal
>factors should be a topic for scientific study. Any reseach should
>focus in the area of Brain Damage.
Yes, I would imagine that, like you, Kent 'Bogus Degree' Hovind does
suffer from brain damage - it seems to be common among creationists.
Now, while we are on the subject of Kent 'Bogus Degree' Hovind, have
you found any evidence that "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of
*scientific* discoveries...
[Message-ID: <3Olyk.31543$Ep1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net>]
Or will finally admit you were a fool to say that.
--
Bob.
When D-G made Madman out of clay he forgot to magic the brain. I think
that explains everything.
RAM
This reveals the level of one creationist's attempt at scholarship and
it is, like your life appears to be, a confused mess and signal
failure.
Garamond Lethe
> In
><8a638d94-c1c9-4b37...@z10g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> snex <xe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>which religious people arent dogmatically opposed to all knowledge
>>that doesnt fit with their religious doctrines?
>
> "If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will
> have to change." - Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama quoted in The New
> York Times (12 November 2005)
> http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Tenzin_Gyatso,_14th_Dalai_Lama
Thanks for that!
Ye Old One
<w_e_co...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Here it is, for your amusement! Kent "the fucktard" Hovind's 102 page
>ranting dissertation. LMFAO!
>
>http://88.80.13.160.nyud.net/leak/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf
Some good comments on the subject over at Pharyngula
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/kent_hovinds_doctoral_disserta.php
I think one comment sums it up very well:-
Posted by: NewEnglandBob [not relation by the way] | December 9, 2009
12:46 PM
Unreal, I skimmed the document. How childish! This would get an F in
sixth grade! I could have a more meaningful discussion with my three
year old granddaughter.
Nuff said I think.
--
Bob.
"Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible
propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them"
Thomas Jefferson.
Walter Bushell
John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> In article
> <d12c5815-f092-497e...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 9, 8:16�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > dali_70 wrote:
> > > > Here it is, for your amusement! Kent "the fucktard" Hovind's 102 page
> > > > ranting dissertation. LMFAO!
> > >
> > > >http://88.80.13.160.nyud.net/leak/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf
> > >
> > > My favorite bit is the bibliography. I like it so much that I'll post it
> > > here in full:
> > >
> > > Comparing this dissertation with others I've read (and one I've
> > > written), I find that the standards are considerably different between
> > > accredited and non-accredited universities. And not in a good way.
> >
> > Having supervised 15 or so, this would not have made it through our
> > first year progression assessment.
> >
> Skip Evans sent me a copy of Hovind's "thesis" about ten years ago. I
> was so appalled I could barely read it. It looked like the dribblings
> of a conspiracy theorist who had no education nor mental balance.
>
> Oh, wait...
Maybe you got a copy instead of this thesis, you got a copy of his
feces? Perhaps the librarian went oranatan?
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Mike Dworetsky
> On Dec 9, 10:58 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
> wrote:
>> dali_70 <w_e_coyot...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:67d1e28f-596e-471d-94e5-
>> c5ba4a6e6...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> Here it is, for your amusement! Kent "the fucktard" Hovind's 102
>>> page ranting dissertation. LMFAO!
>>
>>> http://88.80.13.160.nyud.net/leak/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf
>>
>> It would be an insult to sophomores to call it sophomoric.
>>
>> --
>> Dave Oldridge+
>
> Having read all 102 pages of his dissertation I believe the paper is
> both well written and each of his thoughts are backed up with specific
I know you like to insert quirky humour in your posts, but really!! It's at
about junior high school level.
> textual evidence from the bible that explains why he thinks what he
> does. Certainly meeting any university's criteria for a thesis.
You obviously know nothing about University criteria for a doctoral thesis
even in, Lord help us, education. Firstly, there is NO originality, it's a
hotchpotch of tired old creationist arguments. Secondly, there are no
references at all except Bible quotes.
Maybe it could be a long and tedious sermon in a creationist tent meeting,
but it isn't a thesis. Whenever Hovind claims some particular "fact", for
example, there is no reference to the source of that fact in primary
literature. And for the most part they turn out to be incorrect fictions,
not facts. Did you even notice that there is no list of references?
One obvious example is his claim about the recession of the Moon being so
fast that the Earth has to be young. Even you yourself, as we all recall,
had to withdraw that claim when confronted with the correct maths.
> One can only assume that it is the content that most of you diasagree
> with and not with the actual paper, since, as i said, the paper is
> well written and well supported with bible verse and chapter in
> context.
But not supported by facts. It's a work of fiction. It's got an error on
practically every page.
>
> Why the need to belittle the man and his work based on personal
> factors should be a topic for scientific study. Any reseach should
> focus in the area of Brain Damage.
Hovind probably does have mental problems, because he does do crazy things.
One reason he is in Federal Prison and not walking the streets. A PhD in
psychology by someone who studies Hovind's mentality might be interesting,
if very hard on the reader.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
All-Seeing-I
For GROSS Stupidity
All-Seeing-I
For Being a Psyco Freak Of Nature
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
You evo-freaks just want to bash an obviously religious man because he
stands in contradiction to the ToE. Which BTW it does not take much to
contradict the ToE. Because the ToE is riddled with holes,
assumptions, presuppositions and out right exaggerations. Not to
mention the occasional frauds.
Theology is not science. Why compare a scientific thesis to a theology
thesis? The structure, the outline and the textual evidences used will
be different.
In it's own right, The thesis he presented is a good one. If I were
grading it as part of a concurrent final grade I would give it a B. It
is well written, mistake free and the content is biblically accurate.
Of course since you have no biblical knowledge, and since you do not
understand what valid textual evidence is, you would not know this.
OR. You could just be another dumb-ass atheist.
I vote both.
Dismissed. You may now go.
All-Seeing-I
You sound jealous.
All-Seeing-I
You sound jealous too
All-Seeing-I
Jealously? Of course.
Desertphile
<kle...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> On 9 dec, 22:04, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:07:53 -0800 (PST), dali_70
> >
> > <w_e_coyot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Here it is, for your amusement! Kent "the fucktard" Hovind's 102 page
> > > ranting dissertation. LMFAO!
> >
> > >http://88.80.13.160.nyud.net/leak/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf
> >
> > DNS lookup error. Damn.
> Try again. I got it second time around, and sheesss... It is worth the
> trouble! Did you know the ToE dates back fromthe times of the Tower of
> Babel and several "evolution-type myths" were floating around in
> Turkey and Greece and Asia? A "fellow named Thales" helped spread
> them. Says so on page 19 of Dr. Hovind thesis...
>
> Best laugh i've had this day.
Golly, I had no idea! Alazing what one learns when one is a
Creationist and has gods telling one such things. I still get a
DNA lookup error.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
<m.co...@starpower.net> wrote:
> On Dec 9, 4:04�pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:07:53 -0800 (PST), dali_70
> >
> > <w_e_coyot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Here it is, for your amusement! Kent "the fucktard" Hovind's 102 page
> > > ranting dissertation. LMFAO!
> >
> > >http://88.80.13.160.nyud.net/leak/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf
> >
> > DNS lookup error. Damn.
> Google the file by name, it's available in a number of places.
> By the way, this Wikileak is a valuable site.
Looks like tis works:
http://88.80.16.63/leak/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf
Thank you. It makes me want to run out and get a Ph.D. in Santa
Clausism.
> Mitchell Coffey
Desertphile
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Dec 9, 8:16�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > dali_70 wrote:
> > > Here it is, for your amusement! Kent "the fucktard" Hovind's 102 page
> > > ranting dissertation. LMFAO!
> >
> > >http://88.80.13.160.nyud.net/leak/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf
> >
> > My favorite bit is the bibliography. I like it so much that I'll post it
> > here in full:
> >
> > Comparing this dissertation with others I've read (and one I've
> > written), I find that the standards are considerably different between
> > accredited and non-accredited universities. And not in a good way.
> Having supervised 15 or so, this would not have made it through our
> first year progression assessment.
Is it normal for people to dedicate their "doctorial thesis" the
way Rev Hovind did?
Tim DeLaney
> Here it is, for your amusement! Kent "the fucktard" Hovind's 102 page
> ranting dissertation. LMFAO!
>
> http://88.80.13.160.nyud.net/leak/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf
Another link that might be of interest:
http://foo.ca/wp/2009/12/10/unbiased-readability-analysis-of-the-hovind-thesis/
You can also find a more legible copy on this site in html format
Tim
Desertphile
<lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 13:44:24 -0800 (PST), in talk.origins
> snex <xe...@comcast.net> wrote in
> <8a638d94-c1c9-4b37...@z10g2000prh.googlegroups.com>:
> >On Dec 9, 3:35�pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 13:19:36 -0800 (PST), in talk.origins
> >> Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in
> >> <d12c5815-f092-497e-9b8e-d0d7ddab0...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >On Dec 9, 8:16 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> >> dali_70 wrote:
> >> >> > Here it is, for your amusement! Kent "the fucktard" Hovind's 102 page
> >> >> > ranting dissertation. LMFAO!
> >>
> >> >> >http://88.80.13.160.nyud.net/leak/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf
> >>
> >> >> My favorite bit is the bibliography. I like it so much that I'll post it
> >> >> here in full:
> >>
> >> >> Comparing this dissertation with others I've read (and one I've
> >> >> written), I find that the standards are considerably different between
> >> >> accredited and non-accredited universities. And not in a good way.
> >>
> >> >Having supervised 15 or so, this would not have made it through our
> >> >first year progression assessment.
> >> Sure, but you have academic standards. Can you really expect that of
> >> folks who are dogmatically opposed to all knowledge that doesn't fit
> >> with their religious doctrines?
> >which religious people arent dogmatically opposed to all knowledge
> >that doesnt fit with their religious doctrines?
> The ones that the fundamentalists and evangelicals whine about because
> they actually adjust their doctrines to reality.
Ah, the Fale Christian Scum. I'm having a Steve Winters deja
vu....
RAM
> What an amazing read. The level of respect I have for the man has
> doubled.
>
> � � � � � Al
Now that is humorous. I did get a good laugh out of this. You
wouldn't be exaggerating just a little would you.
If you are serious that speaks tons about you intellectual skills and
explains a lot about your kooky beliefs religious and otherwise.
Desertphile
<m.co...@starpower.net> wrote:
> On Dec 9, 4:19�pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > On Dec 9, 8:16�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > > dali_70 wrote:
> > > > Here it is, for your amusement! Kent "the fucktard" Hovind's 102 page
> > > > ranting dissertation. LMFAO!
> >
> > > >http://88.80.13.160.nyud.net/leak/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf
> >
> > > My favorite bit is the bibliography. I like it so much that I'll post it
> > > here in full:
> >
> > > Comparing this dissertation with others I've read (and one I've
> > > written), I find that the standards are considerably different between
> > > accredited and non-accredited universities. And not in a good way.
> >
> > Having supervised 15 or so, this would not have made it through our
> > first year progression assessment.
> Procedures vary from school to school, but I imagine in your
> experience the complete absence of citations through the entire work
> would have proven problematical.
Lair! Evolutionismist! Doctor Kent Hovind Ph.D. clearly referenced
his thesis throughout! There are dozens and dozens of "God"s and
"The Bible says." Stop slandering a man of god, atheist scum!
> Mitchell Coffey