NationStates Jolt Archive

My friend is falling prey to the preaching of Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind). He's gone as far to link me and some friends to lengthy videos on Google Video (more than 2 hours), asking us to watch it. The main problem is, that after watching some of it, I find the guy's arguement very easy to understand for the average person.

Until I found out most of the claims that he makes are not factual, as well as some of them contradicted right there (his speaking of the 10th Ammendment not allowing the federal government to run schools, when it issues the right to the states). I was hoping someone could solict unto me some assistance in explaining to my friend (in easily understood terms for a Chirstain), that this guy's logic does not make valid sense.

Thanks.

edit -- link to said video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2528412371399195162

Just go to talk origins. They bitch slap Hovind left and right.

You need...


Jocabia: Christian Reasoner for hire

Or at least, he will be for hire, as soon as I convince him to accept money for his skills.

Just go to talk origins. They bitch slap Hovind left and right.

Well...Yeah, you could do that for free and stuff. But my font was bigger!

We're gonna need some specific points to address here. I've just checked his site, and as full of absurdities as it is, there's too much to discuss all at once.

try this:

http://www.kent-hovind.com/

You need...


Jocabia: Christian Reasoner for hire

Or at least, he will be for hire, as soon as I convince him to accept money for his skills.

Haha, funny because I can imagine that happening.

Easy...tell him the truth. http://www.venganza.org/

Easy...tell him the truth. http://www.venganza.org/

Hey, love the raytraced FSM!! Is he new?

We should alll know that that video is pseudoscience. and you can just argue with the guy that many users of google video believe it is pseudosience.

Ugh. The ridiculous psuedo-science and oversimplification hurts my brain.

I was hoping someone could solict unto me some assistance in explaining to my friend (in easily understood terms for a Chirstain), that this guy's logic does not make valid sense.

Today, there are two popular ways to come to explanations as to how nature works.
1.) Go sit in your room and write down a beautiful, consistent explanation derived entirely from your powerful mind.
2.) Go out, look at stuff and write down what you actually observe, Write an explanation based on that, no matter how ugly and unattractive it is.

Method 1 generally results in answers that are easy to understand and pretty appealing. Method 2 tends to raise more and more questions and become complex quickly.

However, method 1 is only useable for fiction. And that is what people like Hovind forget.

However, method 1 is only useable for fiction. And that is what people like Hovind forget.

hovind can't even master method 1. he gets especially hung up on the idea of internal consistency.

Reasoning with anyone who traffics in faith is pointless. They will believe what they want to believe.

Just point out to your friend that what he is saying requires faith and that you don't have that faith at the moment.

Reasoning with anyone who traffics in faith is pointless. They will believe what they want to believe.
Its only pointless if they believe they’re god has no input in this universe whatsoever. Which is unlikely, since there would be no point worshipping such a neutered entity. If it is believed that a god has any effect on this universe, no matter how small, then we may debate with the religious as the god’s effect would have a demonstratable scientific evidence.

We may not be able to demonstrate that evidence at our present technological level, but that’s not the point. Faith and science are not seperate domains.

God I can't stand that hack!

What arguements is your friend parroting?

Start questioning them on how they can be sure they believe in the right god, that they follow the right religion etc., then top it off with the "atheist question" (got that from somewhere...somewhere bad) in reverse: "Do you know everything? (Most likely they'll answer "no") Then how can you know there is only one god? How can you know Hinduism isn't the way to go?" Then laugh at them.

At least, that's what I do to my religious friends. They are not as amused as I am, though.

Its only pointless if they believe they’re god has no input in this universe whatsoever. Which is unlikely, since there would be no point worshipping such a neutered entity. If it is believed that a god has any effect on this universe, no matter how small, then we may debate with the religious as the god’s effect would have a demonstratable scientific evidence.

We may not be able to demonstrate that evidence at our present technological level, but that’s not the point. Faith and science are not seperate domains.You're wrong. Even if a gaggle of creator gods were messing around with everything, all the time, we'd never be able to find the source of that interference, because it's supernatural.

However unlikely, it's wholly possible that the Abrahamic God is actively pulling the strings behind the scenes. We can't know, because if that god is indeed meddling with stuff, all we'll ever be able to see, is the effects - and those will look every bit as natural as everything else in the universe.

Proving or disproving deities requires magic. Unless you're a wizzard, you might as well forget about it.

You're wrong. Even if a gaggle of creator gods were messing around with everything, all the time, we'd never be able to find the source of that interference, because it's supernatural.

However unlikely, it's wholly possible that the Abrahamic God is actively pulling the strings behind the scenes. We can't know, because if that god is indeed meddling with stuff, all we'll ever be able to see, is the effects - and those will look every bit as natural as everything else in the universe.

Proving or disproving deities requires magic. Unless you're a wizzard, you might as well forget about it.


All hail the Great Wizzard!!!!

Saviour of the Disc! His back bears the scars of a thousand battles he has run away from!


And, that is very true. Which sucks. I really wish that I get absolute proof of Gods nonexistence, so I can be really smug at the religious with very good reason for at least some of my life.

My friend is falling prey to the preaching of Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind). He's gone as far to link me and some friends to lengthy videos on Google Video (more than 2 hours), asking us to watch it. The main problem is, that after watching some of it, I find the guy's arguement very easy to understand for the average person.

Until I found out most of the claims that he makes are not factual, as well as some of them contradicted right there (his speaking of the 10th Ammendment not allowing the federal government to run schools, when it issues the right to the states). I was hoping someone could solict unto me some assistance in explaining to my friend (in easily understood terms for a Chirstain), that this guy's logic does not make valid sense.

Thanks.

edit -- link to said video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2528412371399195162

Just to highlight one important point (from Talk Origins):

Real scientists are often involved in meaningful laboratory and field work. They are looking for new data which might clarify, overturn, or confirm their views.

Creationists spend most of their time combing through books and technical journals for quotes with which to snipe at evolution, geology, astronomy, and other areas of science which challenge their central dogma. When they're not doing that, they can usually be found out on the stump drumming up support among the uneducated public.

Actual bench work / field work is difficult and very boring. I know this because I actually do the science (bench). Creationists are too smart to suffer through that in order to discover new insights. Their holy book provides everything they will ever need, ever.

Also, it is much easier to fling shit at an previous data, than to actually do all that work and present the stuff only to have people fling shit at you. Trust me, I've been on both sides of the podium. :(

If you want a character attack. Talk about his tax evasion and assault charge.

http://www.answers.com/topic/kent-hovind

If you want a character attack. Talk about his tax evasion and assault charge.

http://www.answers.com/topic/kent-hovind

Ad hominem attacks are not a good form, it's better to address his points. Though I agree with you that it can be exasperating.

edit -- link to said video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2528412371399195162
sweet zombie jesus... is this guy serious? people actually buy into this shit? :confused:


i have problems with the first few words that spew out of his mouth. he ignore carbon-dating data and geologic periods (both chemical/physics and geological facts), and then goes on to back up his point with references from some 2,000+ year old book that might be just as fictional as superman comics, yet he treats it as gospel (see the pun there?)... its just retarded.


i can't believe this is serious

The writers of the Bible were illuminated more or less -- some more than others -- on the question of salvation. On other questions they were as wise or as ignorant as their generation. Hence it is utterly unimportant that errors of historic or scientific fact should be found in the Bible, especially if errors relate to events that were not directly observed by those who wrote about them.
The idea that because they were right in their doctrine of immortality and salvation they must also be right on all other subjects is simply the fallacy of people who have an incomplete understanding of why the Bible was given to us at all.Tell him that. Maybe there's hope.

Funny. Mr. Hovind believes that a person cannot know that no person has ever seen a dinosaur unless they have asked everyone about it, but that he is an expert on evolution and has to tell "evolutionists" what it is they really believe.

The big thing about evolution vs. creationism is that the theory of evolution is not like maths - you can't disprove it with a specific example or prove it with a specific example. It is a statement about history - more like "the American revolution existed". Saying evolution doesn't explain "example X" is very weak evidence just like saying the American Revolution doesn’t explain Mexico is very weak evidence that it did not occur.

Each fossil is like an old building or document from the revolution, and DNA is like the stories passed down and together all the evidence forms the body of history.

Got to....."Did he talk to Adam and Eve about that?"

Before slamming my head repeatedly off my laptop and screaming 'WHY? WHY? WWWWWWWHHHHHHHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY?!!?!?!?!!?!?!!?

Here's some advice- tell your friend ''I'm sorry, I don't speak dumbass, I don't know what he's saying''.

Got to....."Did he talk to Adam and Eve about that?"

Before slamming my head repeatedly off my laptop and screaming 'WHY? WHY? WWWWWWWHHHHHHHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY?!!?!?!?!!?!?!!?

I preferred the bit a few minutes later where he put forward the hypothesis that there used to be ice -- wait for it -- ice suspended above the Earth in the Earth's magnetic field. Presumably this would be, uh, iron ice, and the magnetic field was, yes, I get it, stronger back then, so much stronger that it could hold millions of tonnes of ice in some form of giant globe around the Earth...

...

... I can't do it. What this needs is breaking down into ten-second clips, and then having comments inserted between them. Or, possibly, it needs the attention of a flamethrower.

EDIT: So... if he's trying to prove dinosaurs were around until, oh, 900 years ago, and then apparently learnt to swim and became sea monsters (well, that seems to be his line of reasoning...) why did he just go off on a massive tangent about giant squid?

And I do begin to wonder whether he's ever going to address the difference between fossils and skeletons... maybe he thinks they had bones of stone?

Wow, it saddens me that people still believe this shit. Humanity is truly going downhill.

Speaking of 'Dr' Hovind:
dumbass (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8GJqcnepxU)

The saddest thing is seeing kids there, absorbing all that bullshit.

Wow, it saddens me that people still believe this shit. Humanity is truly going downhill.
I, on the other hand, am cheered that the OP still cares about his friend, and wants to prevent him falling into the easy but futile thinking of faith.

A world without dumbasses would be cheerless and rigorous. Making even one mistake would be equivalent to possession by evil, instead of ":shrug: I'm only human."

I, on the other hand, am cheered that the OP still cares about his friend, and wants to prevent him falling into the easy but futile thinking of faith.

A world without dumbasses would be cheerless and rigorous. Making even one mistake would be equivalent to possession by evil, instead of ":shrug: I'm only human."
Sorry, I was attacking the video and it's contents, not OP. I agree his cause is noble.

The big thing about evolution vs. creationism is that the theory of evolution is not like maths - you can't disprove it with a specific example or prove it with a specific example.Actually, a fossilized bunny dating from the mesozoic would disprove contemporary evolutionary theory quite nicely.

EDIT: So... if he's trying to prove dinosaurs were around until, oh, 900 years ago, and then apparently learnt to swim and became sea monsters (well, that seems to be his line of reasoning...) why did he just go off on a massive tangent about giant squid?

i loved the bit where he was trying to say that dinousaurs were nothing more than normal reptiles that had just grown really, really big... cos they lived so long. cos everything lived for 900 years back then before the flood. cos that's what the bible says.


:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: (no i am not overdoing the headbangs - each one feels SO good :p)

Actually, a fossilized bunny dating from the mesozoic would disprove contemporary evolutionary theory quite nicely.He got the prove bit right though.

well, my usual arguments about this:

indeed, noone alive ever talked to the first humans, so we dont know what they saw. On the other hand, we don't have original copies of the bible, or the stone slabs. Both sources are equaly invalid in this respect

Further, it is reasonable to keep in mind the world view of the time period when christianity started (a mere 2000 years ago). The bible is, very much, an attempt to explain the world

The land obviously floated on the water, and the water was unfathomable deep, which explains the "founded it in the seas and esteblished it upon the floods"

Reptiles growing all their life is true, but is only valid if you believe in immortality. as animals age, defects creep in, the basis of mortality, not a good argument for "giant lizards"
his argument on the ark... he basicaly says "you dont know for sure it couldnt be done, so it must be true"
Also, on the "big bang theory" he totaly misuses and things like that... He leaves out a lot of modern discoveries

He basicaly only quotes the bible, glosses over science with jokes, only jokes

you cant argue with jokes, cause the answer will be a joke too

the stories he mentiones on the flood:
he devaluates the ability of science to find evidence in the past, but he does believe a book, written 2000 years after the facts (the flood). How much do we know about events 2000 years ago? practically nothing

another thing: he believes all animals can evolve from the ark survivors in 4000 years, but doestn believe it could happen in billions of years from bacteria

Next, on the ark, it seems other people in that time couldnt build boats. Also, it seems we are very forgetfull, since it seems the ark was build using very modern technology and ideas

i must admit he is very good at diverting attention from the actual issues. he doesnt argue on his points, he places them and walks away, letting us convince ourself they must be true

fascinating how he argues that dinosaurs are dragons, but cant prove dragons atualy existed

i just had enough of it now, and my arguments aint complete either, right now

i just had enough of it now, and my arguments aint complete either, right now

I didn't even watch it. Mea culpa.
There's nothing like sitting down with a friend and watching their favourite vid on a big screen, and shooting holes in it with two-to-ten word observations.
I've personally damaged a lot of friendships that way. But I just can't resist.
:D :headbang: :D :headbang: :D :headbang: :D
EDIT: I realize that looks ironical. It's not. I can't keep my mouth shut when shit is on the screen.

Proving or disproving deities requires magic. Unless you’re a wizzard, you might as well forget about it.
But nevertheless, science and religion are not, and cannot be, seperated in two distinct realms. The instant you invoke a supernatural creator or designer, you are laying out a scientific hypothesis which is either right or wrong. From a purely scientific point of view, a universe that has a scientific creator is, obviously, a hugely different universe from one that hasn’t, and that difference must be pointed out.

I agree, a piece of evidence that conclusevly ‘proves God’ may well be impossible to find; there may well be no scientific way of deciding the question one way or another. However, that doesn’t detract from the fact that either it is true or false.

Although they’re case is laughably full of holes, muddled with poor thinking and a misunderstanding of evolution and chance, the ID proponents are at least going through the right channels; advancing a scientific theory, rather than some internal revalation, some ‘leap of faith’.

At least I hope they are, though interviews with most proponents of ID I’ve read or seen seem to find them awfully willing to jump to the conclusion that the Judeo-Christian god was the intelligence in their theory.

If you have an education above 5th grade, you shouldnt agree with this video.

But nevertheless, science and religion are not, and cannot be, seperated in two distinct realms.Science & religion are & must be seperate, as long as religion invokes that which is beyond nature.The instant you invoke a supernatural creator or designer, you are laying out a scientific hypothesis which is either right or wrong.The instant you invoke the supernatural - that which is beyond the natural realm - you move beyond the scope of science. No amount of scientific rigour will ever disclose that which is beyond nature. For that, you need magic, not science.From a purely scientific point of view, a universe that has a scientific creator is, obviously, a hugely different universe from one that hasn’t, and that difference must be pointed out. From a purely scientific view, the existence or non-existence of supernatural entities, be they creator gods or drunken smurfs, is inconsequential. As long as the natural realm is consistent, science works. Whether that's due to gods or something else, is of no consequence what so ever.I agree, a piece of evidence that conclusevly ‘proves God’ may well be impossible to find; there may well be no scientific way of deciding the question one way or another.Not "may well be". It would be impossible to recognise such evidence via science. The method can only be used to determine the "evidence's" relation to the natural world. Any supernatural significance of the "evidence" will be undetectable. What you propose is a logical impossibility & would require magic, not science.However, that doesn’t detract from the fact that either it is true or false.Agreed. Just understand that you're, in metaphorical terms, trying to weld a chassis with a screwdriver. Science isn't the right tool for the job. You need magic to divine the answer to your question.Although they’re case is laughably full of holes, muddled with poor thinking and a misunderstanding of evolution and chance, the ID proponents are at least going through the right channels; advancing a scientific theory, rather than some internal revalation, some ‘leap of faith’. The various IDisms aren't scientific theories. They're - at most - philosophical ideas. The validity of any given ID thesis can't be supported without the use of magic. That indisputable fact leaves ID in conflict with scientific methodology in several ways.At least I hope they are, though interviews with most proponents of ID I’ve read or seen seem to find them awfully willing to jump to the conclusion that the Judeo-Christian god was the intelligence in their theory.Hope has nothing to do with it. Here's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) a link to the Wiki explaining the basics of scientific methodology. You don't need to take my word for it; you can read yourself why no form of ID can be considered a scientific theory.

Finally: yes, life would be easier with flying broomsticks & magic crystal balls. Unfortunately we don't have such things, so we have to rely on the scientific method to form an accurate understanding of the natural world. Trying to invalidate or subvert our only means of furthering our understanding via ridiculous shit like the IDisms, is both foolish & counterproductive.

Be an ignoramus if you must, but don't force your handicap on others.

Actually, a fossilized bunny dating from the mesozoic would disprove contemporary evolutionary theory quite nicely.
Not really, it would only mean that those animals evolved before than previously thought.

There are fossils of rabbit-like creatures from that era, much more advanced than what was believed they would be. Why did they think they wouldn't be as evolved? Not because of an impediment of evolutionary theory, but because they hadn't found fossils.

I got as far as the crap about magnetic water, then got so nauseated I had to turn it off.

To make things easiest, simply explain what Circular Reasoning is and why it's a logical fallacy to your friend.

That entire video is filled with Circular Reasoning.

My friend is falling prey to the preaching of Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind). He's gone as far to link me and some friends to lengthy videos on Google Video (more than 2 hours), asking us to watch it. The main problem is, that after watching some of it, I find the guy's arguement very easy to understand for the average person.

Until I found out most of the claims that he makes are not factual, as well as some of them contradicted right there (his speaking of the 10th Ammendment not allowing the federal government to run schools, when it issues the right to the states). I was hoping someone could solict unto me some assistance in explaining to my friend (in easily understood terms for a Chirstain), that this guy's logic does not make valid sense.

Thanks.

edit -- link to said video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2528412371399195162

Invite your friend to register an account on NS so he can debate the issue on this forum. We'll try to beat some sense into him. :p

Actually, a fossilized bunny dating from the mesozoic would disprove contemporary evolutionary theory quite nicely.Not really, it would only mean that those animals evolved before than previously thought.
Or that contemporary bunnies remain unevolved far enough into the future that they are chosen as guinea-pigs in the dolphins' time-machine experiments. Those experiments they will wisely abandon because they will have been messing up history ... :eek:

(I'm really helping advance the debate here, aren't I? Goodnight all)

My friend is falling prey to the preaching of Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind). He's gone as far to link me and some friends to lengthy videos on Google Video (more than 2 hours), asking us to watch it. The main problem is, that after watching some of it, I find the guy's arguement very easy to understand for the average person.

Dear Leet Hacker,

This video is garbage. It's racist, sexist, anti-gay. What else do you expect from a right-wing fundy that's probably friends with Fred Phelps. The guy is also from the South. If you believe any of it, you're stupid. I learned early on in public school that these guys are nutcases.

For example, the 10th amendment does not say that the federal government should not run education. What about the 1st, 4th, 9th and 14th amendments which strongly support free universal public education? This guy doesn't even look at those. Of course he wouldn't, it requires progressive vision to see that these amendments, in fact, MANDATE free federal universal public education.

While a lot of the arguments might be convincing, it's just not true. The basic thing is, you have take Evolution on faith and accept it as scientific fact. Otherise, how can we explain how we got here? If you look at the Bible for answers, you're crazy. Instead look to science and the answers provided by it. The fact is, you simply have to take scientists at their word.

The idea of God and a moral code is just crazy. We cannot allow this fundy to get his ideas out there. Isn't there some provision where the government can put up a notice showing that what that guy says is untrue? The implications of accepting a God might be drastic in the area of women's rights and sexual freedom. If you accept the fundy argument, you would have to prohibit abortion (because life comes from God theoretically) and then you would have to abide by the Bible's moral code for risk of ending up in hell if you don't.

The other piece is government programs to help people. The risk of allowing this fundy theory to go unchecked is that people will expect other people to pay for their own things. Because back in that day, it was expected that people care for themselves or else be considered a "burden" on society. We know now from sociology, another science that needs to be accepted, that poverty isn't caused by not working hard.

In summary, I'm frightened that anyone would talk about what this guy is saying. The government has to step-in and strengthen the teaching of evolution and other modern sciences, even if there is no proof for them, because it's important to ensure progressive views for humanity and allow every human to freely develop. Free development only occurs when you can do what you want without external controls, including the threat of financial uncertainty.

Just go to talk origins. They bitch slap Hovind left and right.
But it requires the ability to unserstand facts and logic, now to swallow bullshit.

What I find truly scary is that he obviously believes his own bullshit and has made enough money from it to further annoy everyone else out there.
He's the classic example of a bully: Belittles people through making jokes on their beliefs. They can't answer, because it makes them look foolish and churlish. If they do attempt to engage in serious debate, he just continues to ridicule them until they give up, which he takes as 'proof' of his superior debating skills and truth of his position.

I find it especially ironic (and pathetic) that he claims evolution causes racism, even though science has shown that there is practically no diference between the races.
In reality it was the Church that really pushed that: They believed that Africans descended from Canaan, who was cursed by Noah (bizaarely because Canaan's father had seen Noah naked and drunk) to be 'servant to his brothers'. This was used to justify slavery.

What I find truly scary is that he obviously believes his own bullshit and has made enough money from it to further annoy everyone else out there.
He's the classic example of a bully: Belittles people through making jokes on their beliefs. They can't answer, because it makes them look foolish and churlish. If they do attempt to engage in serious debate, he just continues to ridicule them until they give up, which he takes as 'proof' of his superior debating skills and truth of his position.

Demented Hamster, I agree that anyone who actually believes the Bible is scary to me.

People should be studying True Science. It's a shame that the USSR had so many other problems, because one of their good things, separate from the fact that they had 0 UNINSURED and everyone had healthcare, was that they abolished religion and made science very improtant.

What we need to do is ramp up science teaching, not necessarily the hard stuff, because not everyone is a science genius, for example me, but we should emphasize as TRUTH the theories of Evolution with the Big Bang. This is the only way to get rid of the waste of religion and its bigotry.

Demented Hamster, I agree that anyone who actually believes the Bible is scary to me.

People should be studying True Science. It's a shame that the USSR had so many other problems, because one of their good things, separate from the fact that they had 0 UNINSURED and everyone had healthcare, was that they abolished religion and made science very improtant.

What we need to do is ramp up science teaching, not necessarily the hard stuff, because not everyone is a science genius, for example me, but we should emphasize as TRUTH the theories of Evolution with the Big Bang. This is the only way to get rid of the waste of religion and its bigotry.

Oh good God. Please, stop with the lame attempts at trolling. Just come out as a Creationist, for Gods sake. Your attempts in the other thread weren't funny, either.

I also agree with DH's post- people like that scare the shit out of me, and keep humanity from progressing.

He's like a stand up comedian for idiots

Oh good God. Please, stop with the lame attempts at trolling. Just come out as a Creationist, for Gods sake. Your attempts in the other thread weren't funny, either.

I also agree with DH's post- people like that scare the shit out of me, and keep humanity from progressing.

If you agree with me and Demented Hamster, why do you attack me as troll? I am a true progressive Democrat, and just because you hide your beliefs, and I'm honest about them, doesn't mean I'm troll.

In fact, if the Democratic party started to be honest about it's beliefs, like I have been, they would win elections, as opposed to trying to be Republican lite, like you are. Being open about true progress is best for the party.

Oh good God. Please, stop with the lame attempts at trolling. Just come out as a Creationist, for Gods sake. Your attempts in the other thread weren't funny, either.Really? I think it's hillarious. The Hovind shit had me quietly chuckling. C&T's posts have me roaring with laughter.

I, for one, hope s/he keeps up the good work. It's right up there with The Onion.

He's like a stand up comedian for idiots

I'm completely serious. I wish I was a Briton. Your people are so smart, especially compared to Americans.

Then I would be so happy to live in a society where science is presented to everyone, particularly Evolution and the Big Bang, the rest of science is too hard for most of the population.

What we need to is to progress beyond traditional notions of God and morality, for the advancement of humanity.

For example, look at religion and all the wars it has caused.

He's like a stand up comedian for idiotsLook.. I know it's not polite to laugh at handicapped people, but I hardly see how it makes me an idiot. Rude perhaps, but an idiot?

Look.. I know it's not polite to laugh at handicapped people, but I hardly see how it makes me an idiot. Rude perhaps, but an idiot?

Sorry, I was refering to Hovind, not to you :)

I'm completely serious. I wish I was a Briton. Your people are so smart, especially compared to Americans.

Then I would be so happy to live in a society where science is presented to everyone, particularly Evolution and the Big Bang, the rest of science is too hard for most of the population.

What we need to is to progress beyond traditional notions of God and morality, for the advancement of humanity.

For example, look at religion and all the wars it has caused.

Meh, lame. I've seen much better trolls. Just come out as a Creationist and get mocked already.

But on a serious note, Hovind is a nutter, and his stuff full of crap. How anyone can support him is beyond me. Also, what society do you live in, where science isn't presented to everyone? It's called the Public School System.

Sorry, I was refering to Hovind, not to you :)Oh! Sorry 'bout the confusion.Just come out as a Creationist and get mocked already.Shhh!!! How often do you get Trolls so inane that they troll themselves? Don't spoil the fun.But on a serious note, Hovind is a nutter, and his stuff full of crap. How anyone can support him is beyond me.What.. You don't believe in magic ice & immortal lizzards? :p Also, what society do you live in, where science isn't presented to everyone?America, obviously. Where else can you find Flat-Earth'ers with internet connections?

My friend is falling prey to the preaching of Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind). He's gone as far to link me and some friends to lengthy videos on Google Video (more than 2 hours), asking us to watch it. The main problem is, that after watching some of it, I find the guy's arguement very easy to understand for the average person.

Until I found out most of the claims that he makes are not factual, as well as some of them contradicted right there (his speaking of the 10th Ammendment not allowing the federal government to run schools, when it issues the right to the states). I was hoping someone could solict unto me some assistance in explaining to my friend (in easily understood terms for a Chirstain), that this guy's logic does not make valid sense.

Thanks.

edit -- link to said video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2528412371399195162
One, tell your friend that evolutionists don't exist and never have. It's not a religion or belief system. It never will be.

Two, tell your friend that science is a snake pit full of vipers. He'll like the reference. Right from the Bible. Scientists are not like a religous group. People get their grants and make their name by proving others wrong or coming up with something new and innovative, not be talking a good game. There is no money, and thus no incentive, in toeing the 'company line' as Creationists like to suggest. Thus, if someone discovered credible evidence that evolution was wrong, they would be singing it from every rooftop. Hell, give me the evidence and I'll publish it. I'll be the most famous scientist of this century. Of course, as long as that evidence is actually scientific evidence and not "I don't understand it so it must be wrong" evidence.

Three, people like this insert just enough of the truth to make their hoaxes sound reasonable. Look at any good urban myth. They make it sound credible so people don't even bother to check and find out it's completely absurd. Ever hear the urban myth about what coke will disolve. Complete and utter bullocks but because they use just enough of the truth... well, you get the point.

Four, I haven't watched the video but I'll bet my eye teeth that everything I've said applies to this guy. How do I know because if it didn't you'd have seen right through it?

Five, the guy is correct that the schools are not run by the federal government. Absolutely and 100% correct. They need to stay out of our schools. However, the fourteenth amendment requires that all of the bill of rights apply to every person in the country and that every person in the country have those rights respected by every level of government. That means that a school, a government entity, cannot violate my first amendment rights. I'm a Christian and I have a big problem with a school teaching my children about God by lying about scientific evidence. It's a violation of religious rights for a school to teach my children about God at all.

Is that enough or do I have to watch the video to tell you specific things that this 'Christian' is blatantly lying about to fool his followers? Remember this:

Matthew 15:7You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8" 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.
9They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'"
....
13He replied, "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. 14Leave them; they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit."

Matthew 23: 5"Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them 'Rabbi.'

8"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ. 11The greatest among you will be your servant. 12For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

13"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.[c]

15"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.



Tell your friend to beware of the modern-day pharisees because they use lies and call it the work of the Lord. The Lord doesn't need them or their lies.

Five, the guy is correct that the schools are not run by the federal government. Absolutely and 100% correct. They need to stay out of our schools. However, the fourteenth amendment requires that all of the bill of rights apply to every person in the country and that every person in the country have those rights respected by every level of government. That means that a school, a government entity, cannot violate my first amendment rights. I'm a Christian and I have a big problem with a school teaching my children about God by lying about scientific evidence. It's a violation of religious rights for a school to teach my children about God at all.

Where in the 14th amendment is this stated?

But nevertheless, science and religion are not, and cannot be, seperated in two distinct realms. The instant you invoke a supernatural creator or designer, you are laying out a scientific hypothesis which is either right or wrong. From a purely scientific point of view, a universe that has a scientific creator is, obviously, a hugely different universe from one that hasn’t, and that difference must be pointed out.

I agree, a piece of evidence that conclusevly ‘proves God’ may well be impossible to find; there may well be no scientific way of deciding the question one way or another. However, that doesn’t detract from the fact that either it is true or false.

Although they’re case is laughably full of holes, muddled with poor thinking and a misunderstanding of evolution and chance, the ID proponents are at least going through the right channels; advancing a scientific theory, rather than some internal revalation, some ‘leap of faith’.

At least I hope they are, though interviews with most proponents of ID I’ve read or seen seem to find them awfully willing to jump to the conclusion that the Judeo-Christian god was the intelligence in their theory.

Dude, do you know ANYTHING about science? Science requires that a theory be falsifiable. You admit that God isn't and thus His inclusion in a 'scientific' theory in and of itself makes the theory unfalsifiable. Science isn't about objective truth. It's about subjective truth. Religion and philosophy are about objective truth.

Subjective truth relies on what we can observe and study and is true for all intents and purposes in practicality. Objective truth is either true or not and we don't have access to it. We may be right or wrong, but we have no way of knowing until someone or something with more access than we have gives us that access. Currently, we're just guessing.

Where in the 14th amendment is this stated?

Uh-huh. And the troll is revealed. Weren't you just claiming a page ago that it was in the 14th. Did you forget since the last page or did you accidentally break character?

What about the 1st, 4th, 9th and 14th amendments which strongly support free universal public education?

I guess I must have been really, really convincing.

I guess I must have been really, really convincing.Jacobia! You're threatning the troll population. You bastard! :p

Jacobia! You're threatning the troll population. You bastard! :p

He's one of the trolls' natural predators, along with mods and the ignore button.

Start questioning them on how they can be sure they believe in the right god, that they follow the right religion etc., then top it off with the "atheist question" (got that from somewhere...somewhere bad) in reverse: "Do you know everything? (Most likely they'll answer "no") Then how can you know there is only one god? How can you know Hinduism isn't the way to go?" Then laugh at them.

At least, that's what I do to my religious friends. They are not as amused as I am, though.
... i might be. Good answer. :D

Invite your friend to register an account on NS so he can debate the issue on this forum. We'll try to beat some sense into him. :p
Seconded. A few of our more fun "arguers" are on a vacation of sorts ...