Kent Hovind: Broccoli man

[blastula]

Hovind has moved onto oranges.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5WA8cggZjE[/YOUTUBE]

 

[atrib]

(slightly off topic) I think its probably still a debatable Idea. Has something new been dicovered? ( genuine curiosity)

Dark matter interacts with spacetime and that is how we know it exists. We can measure distortions in spacetime (gravitational fields) caused by dark matter. This can be through direct measurements of the trajectory of light as it passes through zones of distorted spacetime (gravitational lensing) or through inference, by modeling the gravitational field around galaxies using general relativity and comparing the predictions of the models related to the behavior of regular matter within these fields with what we observe. Without the effect of dark matter our models predict that these galaxies would not be dynamically stable, yet they are stable over billions of years, so we infer there must be additional matter present within these areas that cannot be seen with our radio telescopes. Hence the name, dark matter.

Everything in science is debatable. That is what makes science such a powerful tool. There are no absolute authorities whose word cannot be questioned. Everything is open to debate, and if observations show an idea to be wrong, the idea can be updated or discarded altogether. Ideas that are tested over decades or even centuries and found to be good models of reality are accepted as valid scientific theories. Like Darwin's idea that living things evolve over time and that this evolution is strongly influenced by their natural environment, or Einstein's idea that our universe is comprised of the spacetime continuum, that matter/energy can interact with this continuum and change each other's characteristics (geometry and motion). Darwin first published his idea in 1859, and his idea has been tested and verified over the past 150 years through countless observations and experiments. Einstein published his idea in 1915, and general relativity has been experimentally verified many times over the past century as well. It should be noted that neither Darwin's description of evolution or Einstein's description of gravity are complete, and science keeps adding details to these ideas as these details are discovered.

In stark contrast, theism is in most cases based on some document or person that is considered an absolute authority that is beyond question (the Bible, or the idea that everything that God does is good, even if God commits genocide or tortures people). The models developed from such authorities are poorly defined, and often contain elements that are either internally inconsistent, or inconsistent with the wider reality they try to model. Theism has no explanatory power; simply saying Goddidit without describing the characteristics of God or the mechanisms through which God did something (create the universe for example) adds nothing to our body of knowledge. The models of theism provide no testable predictions, and the claimed existence of these gods has no measurable impact on our universe or our lives. Therefore, these gods can safely be ignored, and we lose nothing.

 

[atrib]

Indeed, but I would still be right then.

The historical record tells us that the probability of you being right about anything is very, very low. Pretty much zero, in fact. In most cases where you venture an opinion, you don't even seem to understand what the topic of discussion is.

 

[Learner]

I think I know it now .. and so... do you want to discuss more on my past poor (rational) performances, which seems more of interest to you?

 

[atrib]

I think I know it now .. and so... do you want to discuss more on my past poor (rational) performances, which seems more of interest to you?

I think we've talked about it enough. You obviously have an interest in science and cosmology, so I would encourage you to read. You can find a lot of material online, and if you live in the US you can check out textbooks and books on popular science from your local library. Many counties in the US have public libraries that will allow you to borrow books for free or for a small fee, but you will need ID (driver's license) and proof that you live in the county (like a utility bill). You can also find online courses on many subjects like evolution and cosmology on YouTube and university websites, and these will typically be a series of lectures that covers a particular topic. Don't waste your time on creationist websites, because all you will find there are half truths and outright lies.

One more suggestion; if you don't know anything about a particular subject, don't put forward an opinion, at least not without educating yourself at least a little on the subject first. You can defend creationism all you like, but don't just make up stuff - take the time to research what you want to say and think it through in your head before you post.

 

[Learner]

I think we've talked about it enough. You obviously have an interest in science and cosmology, so I would encourage you to read. You can find a lot of material online, and if you live in the US you can check out textbooks and books on popular science from your local library. Many counties in the US have public libraries that will allow you to borrow books for free or for a small fee, but you will need ID (driver's license) and proof that you live in the county (like a utility bill). You can also find online courses on many subjects like evolution and cosmology on YouTube and university websites, and these will typically be a series of lectures that covers a particular topic. Don't waste your time on creationist websites, because all you will find there are half truths and outright lies.

Cheers, I do have people I could talk to (who doesn't) in some of the fields in discussion, just in case I hear half truths.

One more suggestion; if you don't know anything about a particular subject, don't put forward an opinion, at least not without educating yourself at least a little on the subject first. You can defend creationism all you like, but don't just make up stuff - take the time to research what you want to say and think it through in your head before you post.

I take note of your suggestion, to which I'm so glad "I don't make stuff up" fortunately, otherwise you would point them out, That, I have no doubt. (I think I said once, I speak a lot better than I type , but thanks to you ( really) I'm taking a little more time).

 

[Gun Nut]

So something is only true in science if someone wins $250,000?

I don't think you understand how science works. You should consider going back to elementary school.

Yeah, I always thought it was weird how those Nobel Foundation folks in Sweden give millions of dollars in prize money for scientific achievement.

Kent Hovind. Alfred Nobel.
Why, the names side by side just roll off the tongue.

Anyway, it's a bummer nobody was able to prove evolution is true and claim the cash.

someone helped me understand better by saying, "you can prove science just as much as you can prove you exist.. I can always come up with some snarky way to deny your existence... like maybe everything is just a dream... proof failed"

 

[skepticalbip]

So something is only true in science if someone wins $250,000?

I don't think you understand how science works. You should consider going back to elementary school.

Yeah, I always thought it was weird how those Nobel Foundation folks in Sweden give millions of dollars in prize money for scientific achievement.

Kent Hovind. Alfred Nobel.
Why, the names side by side just roll off the tongue.

Anyway, it's a bummer nobody was able to prove evolution is true and claim the cash.

There have been several Nobels given for work in evolution. Here is the latest;

https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2018/10/03/nobel-prize-chemistry-goes-three-scientists-who-harnessed-power-evolution/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.32ad0b00ee5b

Nobel Prize in chemistry goes to three scientists who harnessed ‘the power of evolution’

 

[Keith&Co.]

There have been several Nobels given for work in evolution.

Much more to the point, I think, the Nobel Prize is not a wager. You don't have to prove the Nobel Selection Committee incorrect to be awarded the prize. And the selection committee actually exists.

Nothing in science can be proven to the standards Hovind demands, and he won't identify the judges that only he can submit information to.

 

[atrib]

So something is only true in science if someone wins $250,000?

I don't think you understand how science works. You should consider going back to elementary school.

Yeah, I always thought it was weird how those Nobel Foundation folks in Sweden give millions of dollars in prize money for scientific achievement.

Kent Hovind. Alfred Nobel.
Why, the names side by side just roll off the tongue.

Anyway, it's a bummer nobody was able to prove evolution is true and claim the cash.

someone helped me understand better by saying, "you can prove science just as much as you can prove you exist.. I can always come up with some snarky way to deny your existence... like maybe everything is just a dream... proof failed"

Exactly. The challenge was not made in good faith, and Hovind never had any intention of paying out, irrespective of the evidence.

 

[Elixir]

The challenge was not made in good faith, and Hovind never had any intention of paying out, irrespective of the evidence.

He's just one of the recent ones in a very long line of religionists who refuse to "look through the glass".

 

[skepticalbip]

The challenge was not made in good faith, and Hovind never had any intention of paying out, irrespective of the evidence.

He's just one of the recent ones in a very long line of religionists who refuse to "look through the glass".

When I see these over-the-top evangelicals, I can't help myself wondering how much, if any, sincerity there is in their spiel. There is a hell of a lot of money to be made in pandering to any belief system that has a significant following and these evangelicals certainly rake in a nice share of that money. It reminds me of P.T.Barnum.

I once considered writing books pandering the the large UFO believers community, even did some research to develop a niche slant. But then reconsidered... I couldn't bring myself to lie and encourage their delusions even though there could be a lot of financial rewards for doing so.

 

[Keith&Co.]

... I couldn't bring myself to lie and encourage their delusions even though there could be a lot of financial rewards for doing so.

But is it integrity or shame? If kthe latter, you vould write anonymously.
For the UFO trade, be an inidentified government insider, for creationism, present as a whistleblowing part of the conspiracy to destroy creationist truths, like
*Chemical taxonomist
*Anthropologist
*Astronomer
*Astrophysicist
*Medical testing
*Behaviorist research
*Biologists
*Cancer patients
*Asthmatics
*Physicists
*Diabetics
*Law Enforcement
*Chemists
*Biochemists
*Center For Disease Control
*Dog Breeders
*Glaciologists
*Paleoclimatologists
*Paleontologists
*Geologists
*Historians
*Hydrodynamicists
*NASA
*Oil Companies
*Immunologists
*Epidemiologists
*Surgeons
*Nobel Prize Committee
*Paleobotanists
*Biological Systematist
*Vulcanologists
*Anyone convicted by DNA
*Anyone acquitted by DNA

If you have integrity, though, can't be helped.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Saint Augustine once said:

Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, . . . and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn." -- "De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim"

I was watching a sitcom and realized this has a greater application. A character in the sitcom was explaining something, quickly exceeded their actual knowledge, and just started making shit up. Everyone in the room, and the audience, rolled their eyes at this display of teh stupids.


It struck me that when you are ignorant about a topic, your arguments are only compelling to those who know less than you do.
Whatever Hovind actually knows about evolutionary theory, what he presents publically is a stunning ignorance.
Even other creationists know enough about evolutionary theory to know Hovind is talking shit.

Which means that his supporters are either
a) paying no attention at all to the issue, they just cherish the conclusion he offers
b) about as sharp as a bag of ballpeen hammers.

 

[SLD]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ewTPbarLZkc

There’s a $100,000 flat earth challenge. Would love to see Kent Hovind or any of his ilk take this on. Some surveyor who’s prove it’s flat by extreme measurements.

In your heart you know it’s flat.

SLD