Kent Hovind: Broccoli man

[Keith&Co.]

Lion is apparently ignorant of just how many creationists who argue from ignorance...

Including his own ignorance of the point of Hovind's 'challenge.'

 

[Lion IRC]

No need to splain stuff to us. We don't argue from ignorance. We have our rational conclusions in hand. Atheists are the ones who are ignorant - atheism of the gaps.

We don't need an alternate explanation. We never asked you for one. You can relax.

”Atheism of the gaps”??? Do you even know what ”of the gaps” expression means?

No. I just wrote it because it sounded like a zinger.

Deep down I know that atheism doesn't represent a knowledge 'gap'. It's a fully formed substantial worldview backed by overwhelming evidence and reason.

LIRC shamelessly stole the "gaps" comment from Atheists, as gawd is being forced into smaller and smaller gaps as science disproves claim after claim. As for claiming rationality...well that's just preposterous, given what god-botherers believe in the face of evidence to the contrary.

I didn't know (capital "A") Atheists owned the word "gaps".
I've used it hundreds of times so I expect they will want some form of royalty payment?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I love it when the caption writer just gives up.

(Autistic screeching intensifies.)

 

[atrib]

LOL
Don't you mean evidence that nobody was up to the challenge?

LOl. Do you know what evolution is? Or is this another attempt to derail a thread because that is the only way you can affirm your faith in a Bronze age god cobbled together from older mythology and folklore?

 

[atrib]

Evolution is easy to describe in theistic terms.
Kent Hovind would pay out if claimants used the bible to corroborate their theory.

Wrong. Hovind is a Christian who will lie through his back teeth any chance he gets. The evidence for biological evidence is overwhelming, and in this day and age there is no excuse for ignorance of basic science, unless of course you are one of those lying Christians. Hovind lied to the general public and he lied to the IRS, and the latter can have serious consequences as he found out.

 

[atrib]

Attacking Hovinds character doesn't strike me as a rational/intellectual argument against his position on evolution.

Hovind doesn't have a rational position on evolution. Unless sticking your hands over your eyes and going "nah, nah, nah, I can't see the evidence" could be considered a rational position.

So, do you want to tell us what the convicted criminal Hovind's position is on evolution or are you here simply to disrupt and disappear when you get called out on your shit?

 

[Lion IRC]

You said...
"Hovind doesn't have a rational position on evolution"
How would you know that? Been reading his work?

Seems you're the one who should be telling us what his position is.
Or maybe you just want to do that typical, unintellectual slander/adhom stuff. (yawn)

 

[phands]

This whole thread is essentially pointless, because Hovind redefined Evolution to mean something actual rational people don't claim.

He redefines evolution thus...

NOTE: When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without god:

1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
3. Matter created life by itself.
4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).

Evolution makes no statements or claims about 1, 2 or 3. They are outside the exploration space. That's why Hovind's challenge is idiotically dishonest. He also tries to distinguish between micro- and macro-evolution, and apparently, he's OK with micro, as he dismisses it in his "challenge" rules. This further shows his ignorance of evolution, as there's really no micro or macro, just evolution.

LIRC defending this nonsense just underlines the fact that xtians are quite happy to lie and cheat to avoid uncomfortable facts, and to defend their logically wrong positions.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Lion isn't defending the nonsense as nuch as he's stabding up forbthe nonsenseer.
And that's without being realky clear on the nonsenseer's nonsense.

All lion sees is the bottom line, a creationist fellow.

 

[Lion IRC]

Like a broken clock that's right once every 12 hours, phands is correct about a pointless thread discussing two different definitions of 'evolution'.
If Mr Hovind's Wager can't feasibly be won because his definition of 'evolution' isn't the one non-theists defend, then just concede and move on.
"...yes, Kent. You're right. We can't prove THAT version of evilution."

 

[atrib]

You said...
"Hovind doesn't have a rational position on evolution"
How would you know that? Been reading his work?

Seems you're the one who should be telling us what his position is.
Or maybe you just want to do that typical, unintellectual slander/adhom stuff. (yawn)

Yes, I have read some of his claims, and they are available for everyone to read on his website. Even other YEC groups like AIG think he is batshit crazy and a liar, and have distanced themselves from "Dr Dino". Hovind's position is that it is ok to lie for your cause if you are a Christian, no matter how outrageous the lie.

Are you familiar with Dr Dino's claims and do you agree with them?

 

[atrib]

Like a broken clock that's right once every 12 hours, phands is correct about a pointless thread discussing two different definitions of 'evolution'.
If Mr Hovind's Wager can't feasibly be won because his definition of 'evolution' isn't the one non-theists defend, then just concede and move on.
"...yes, Kent. You're right. We can't prove THAT version of evilution."

The wager will never be won because Hovind is a liar, and the wager is rigged. There is no amount of evidence that could convince Hovind that he was wrong. And no, there aren't really two definitions of evolution: there is the way it is defined in science which is the so-called modern evolutionary synthesis or neo-Darwinism, and then there is the way Hovind likes to pretend that it is defined so he can continue to repeat his lies.

 

[phands]

Like a broken clock that's right once every 12 hours, phands is correct about a pointless thread discussing two different definitions of 'evolution'.
If Mr Hovind's Wager can't feasibly be won because his definition of 'evolution' isn't the one non-theists defend, then just concede and move on.
"...yes, Kent. You're right. We can't prove THAT version of evilution."

The wager will never be won because Hovind is a liar, and the wager is rigged. There is no amount of evidence that could convince Hovind that he was wrong. And no, there aren't really two definitions of evolution: there is the way it is defined in science which is the so-called modern evolutionary synthesis or neo-Darwinism, and then there is the way Hovind likes to pretend that it is defined so he can continue to repeat his lies.

Exactly...the criminal and liar (shall we just abbreviate that to "true christian"?) Hovind made up his own, utterly wrong definition of evolution that no sane person agrees with, and then set up a bogus challenge based on that fallacy. There is no end to xtian dishonesty.

 

[Lion IRC]

You said...
"Hovind doesn't have a rational position on evolution"
How would you know that? Been reading his work?

Seems you're the one who should be telling us what his position is.
Or maybe you just want to do that typical, unintellectual slander/adhom stuff. (yawn)

Yes, I have read some of his claims, and they are available for everyone to read on his website. Even other YEC groups like AIG think he is batshit crazy and a liar, and have distanced themselves from "Dr Dino". Hovind's position is that it is ok to lie for your cause if you are a Christian, no matter how outrageous the lie.

Are you familiar with Dr Dino's claims and do you agree with them?

Yes. I'm familiar and no I don't share his opinions on every single aspect of (what he calls) evolution.

 

[atrib]

You said...
"Hovind doesn't have a rational position on evolution"
How would you know that? Been reading his work?

Seems you're the one who should be telling us what his position is.
Or maybe you just want to do that typical, unintellectual slander/adhom stuff. (yawn)

Yes, I have read some of his claims, and they are available for everyone to read on his website. Even other YEC groups like AIG think he is batshit crazy and a liar, and have distanced themselves from "Dr Dino". Hovind's position is that it is ok to lie for your cause if you are a Christian, no matter how outrageous the lie.

Are you familiar with Dr Dino's claims and do you agree with them?

Yes. I'm familiar and no I don't share his opinions on every single aspect of (what he calls) evolution.

So why are you posting in this thread? Did you have something to contribute, or are you here just to get people riled up? Because that is all you have been doing lately.

One of my closest friends is a born-again Baptist who believes the Bible to be literal truth. But he doesn't lie to justify his faith as many Christians do; he acknowledges that the Bible is contradicted by reality as we understand it today, and that he cannot explain this disparity. I respect him a great deal for his honesty and wish more Christians were like him.

 

[bilby]

What he calls evolution is mostly nothing to do with evolution at all. That suggests that either he is completely clueless about the topic he spends so much time criticizing, or that he is deliberately dishonest, or both.

His 'challenge' is rather like some guy 'challenging' historians by saying, "If, as you claim, the Industrial Revolution led to a huge increase in the worldwide use of wrought iron, then what's the difference between a duck?"

It's not possible to give a coherent answer to an incoherent question. So he can be confident that nobody will defeat his challenge. And that nobody who understands the subject will be left with any doubt that he doesn't.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You said...
"Hovind doesn't have a rational position on evolution"
How would you know that? Been reading his work?

Seems you're the one who should be telling us what his position is.
Or maybe you just want to do that typical, unintellectual slander/adhom stuff. (yawn)

Yes, I have read some of his claims, and they are available for everyone to read on his website. Even other YEC groups like AIG think he is batshit crazy and a liar, and have distanced themselves from "Dr Dino". Hovind's position is that it is ok to lie for your cause if you are a Christian, no matter how outrageous the lie.

Are you familiar with Dr Dino's claims and do you agree with them?

Yes. I'm familiar and no I don't share his opinions on every single aspect of (what he calls) evolution.

Talk about saying something without actually meaning anything.

 

[Lion IRC]

Yes. I'm familiar and no I don't share his opinions on every single aspect of (what he calls) evolution.

One of my closest friends is a born-again Baptist who believes the Bible to be literal truth.
[...]he acknowledges that the Bible is contradicted by reality,
[...]he cannot explain this disparity.
[...]I respect him a great deal for his honesty

You respect a person who simultaneously thinks the bible is literally true and yet not true.

I wish more Christians were like him.

I'm sure you do.

 

[atrib]

You respect a person who simultaneously thinks the bible is literally true and yet not true.

My post was written in plain English. Which part do you not understand? This is typical of your behavior here, you twist people's words around because you have no effective answer, but you still apparently have a need to post and justify your view even if it means you have to be dishonest about it.

I wish more Christians were like him.

I'm sure you do.

Of course I do. The world would be a better place if religious people did not lie so much.

 

[Lion IRC]

My post was written in plain English. Which part do you not understand believe?

FYP

A person who simultaneously thinks the bible is literally true and yet not true is lying to themself.
Go and explain this to your friend.