Kent Hovind: Broccoli man

[phands]

Talk about saying something without actually meaning anything.

"Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"

 

[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.

Talk about saying something without actually meaning anything.

What do you mean by that? What are you "saying"?

I answered both questions.
Mind your own business.

 

[atrib]

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.

He recognizes the contradiction between the claims of the Bible and our current understanding of reality, acknowledges that it exists, and that he doesn't understand why it exists. What he doesn't do is attempt to justify the contradiction to himself or to others by lying about it, as many Christians do. Christians like Kent Hovind, who has been exposed to modern science in his role as a schoolteacher, yet continues to willfully repeat his lies about evolution to this day. That biological evolution by natural selection is a fact supported by vast amounts of evidence from different branches of science matters little to Hovind and creationists like him. They don't care for facts, and they choose to deal with the contradictions by lying about them. My friend won't lie, about evolution, about the age of the Earth, and other things just to defend his faith. That takes intellectual integrity, and I respect him for that. Do you understand now?

Intellectual integrity can be a hard concept to grasp for most Christians, to think for yourself and to make the effort to discover the facts, even if the facts lead you away from your dogmatic worldview. But it can also be very liberating as many nonbelievers will tell you. It is much easier to live your life with a clear conscience. You should try it sometime.

 

[atrib]

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.

I don't think he has much to say on the subject. He can't explain his position on evolution because he doesn't have one, at least one based on some degree of honest research into the facts. That much is obvious from his posts. The tools in the creationist toolbox don't work in a forum dominated by nonbelievers, no matter how brilliant they might appear in Sunday school. So what he does is deflect and avoid. What else can he do?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

What do you mean by that?

I thought it was pretty clear. You stated something without actually saying anything that had meaning.

I answered both questions.

Poorly.

Mind your own business.

[Zoidberg]Ohhhhhhhh.[/Zoidberg]

 

[Underseer]

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.

I don't think he has much to say on the subject. He can't explain his position on evolution because he doesn't have one, at least one based on some degree of honest research into the facts. That much is obvious from his posts. The tools in the creationist toolbox don't work in a forum dominated by nonbelievers, no matter how brilliant they might appear in Sunday school. So what he does is deflect and avoid. What else can he do?

Well, according to the Christian understanding of "truth," all that matters is that he answers you. It doesn't matter if the answer is coherent, logical, or in any way connected to reality, but as long as he has an answer, that proves that he is right and you are wrong.

 

[Underseer]

Worried that he didn't make a big enough fool of himself with the broccoli argument, now he's saying that grapes disprove evolution:

http://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/...ays-grapes-are-proof-that-evolution-is-false/

Creationist Kent Hovind has been on a tear lately attempting to explain why things like broccoli and celery disprove evolution because they were too complicated to have evolved without God’s help. (I guess bananas were taken.)

His latest example of Darwinian Kryptonite?

Grapes.

 

[phands]

Hovind is a fuckwit.

The claim that more chromosomes is more evolved is Not Even Wrong^TM​. We humans have a mere 46. An Atlas Blue butterfly has between 448 and 452 chromosomes.

The species with the largest known chromosome count is a protozoa which has 15600 MAC chromosomes multiplied by a ploidy level of 1900 (!!), leading to 29.64x10⁶ chromosomes.

 

[phands]

Creationist Kent Hovind Now Says Lettuce is Proof That Evolution is False

I wonder if this deranged fuckwit is going to go through every species, one by one, claiming that each somehow refutes evolution....

Creationist Kent Hovind has been on a tear lately attempting to explain why things like broccoli and celery and grapes disprove evolution because they are too complicated to have evolved without God’s help. (I guess bananas were taken.)


His latest example of Darwinian Kryptonite?


Lettuce.

http://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/...ays-lettuce-is-proof-that-evolution-is-false/

 

[Keith&Co.]

I wonder if this deranged fuckwit is going to go through every species, one by one, claiming that each somehow refutes evolution....

That's the advantage of creationism. You know the conclusion, so everything leads to that conclusion.

Of course, this is a guy who thinks evolutionary theory says that rocks evolve...

 

[Lion IRC]

Exactly! Rocks are inanimate.
How can life evolve from rocks?
Silly Ken Ham.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I would wonder about a reading comprehension problem, if it were anyone else.

 

[skepticalbip]

I wonder if this deranged fuckwit is going to go through every species, one by one, claiming that each somehow refutes evolution....

Creationist Kent Hovind has been on a tear lately attempting to explain why things like broccoli and celery and grapes disprove evolution because they are too complicated to have evolved without God’s help. (I guess bananas were taken.)


His latest example of Darwinian Kryptonite?


Lettuce.

http://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/...ays-lettuce-is-proof-that-evolution-is-false/

I think he is going through the alphabet with the plan of finding something organic with the first letter of its name for each letter of the alphabet. This silliness series can't stop until he shows how zebras couldn't have possibly evolved.

 

[atrib]

I would wonder about a reading comprehension problem, if it were anyone else.

I don't think it is a reading comprehension problem either. Attacking a strawman is so much easier than addressing the actual argument. And apparently, so much more entertaining.

 

[Gun Nut]

I would wonder about a reading comprehension problem, if it were anyone else.

I don't think it is a reading comprehension problem either. Attacking a strawman is so much easier than addressing the actual argument. And apparently, so much more entertaining.

.. and EFFECTIVE in winning the hearts of men. You know how to win the argument, yet choose a path no one can follow you down.
"pick up a science book!" is as effective as "read your bible" to make a point. Triggered? that's the problem. you don't know how or don't want to trigger anyone into emotionally joining you.. which must happen first before they will LISTEN to you.

 

[Lion IRC]

Of course, this is a guy who thinks evolutionary theory says that rocks evolve...

Exactly! Rocks are inanimate.
How can life evolve from rocks?
Silly Ken Ham.

I would wonder about a reading comprehension problem, if it were anyone else.

Just for the record...
Is Ken Ham right or wrong in thinking that evolution entails inanimate rocks (non-life) evolving into animate (living) beings?

I wanted to say creatures instead of "beings" but that implies creation - Creator.
I wanted to say organisms instead of "creatures" but that implies organisation - design.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I would wonder about a reading comprehension problem, if it were anyone else.

Just for the record...
Is Ken Ham

1. Thread is about someone else, not Ken Ham. That was my concern about reading competency.

right or wrong in thinking that evolution entails inanimate rocks (non-life) evolving into animate (living) beings?

2. That would be, wrong. Evolutionary theory is about changes to life, not the start.

I wanted to say creatures instead of "beings" but that implies creation - Creator.

You can imply creators all you want. Terminology doesn't establish evidence.

I wanted to say organisms instead of "creatures" but that implies organisation - design.

But design does not prove a designer. An unintelligent trial-by-error process is also a design process. Just a slow one.

 

[Lion IRC]

/me writes blackboard lines x 100

...Kent Hovind is NOT Ken Ham...Kent Hovind is NOT Ken Ham......Kent Hovind is NOT Ken Ham...Kent Hovind is NOT Ken Ham...Kent Hovind is NOT Ken Ham...Kent Hovind is NOT Ken Ham...Kent Hovind is NOT Ken Ham...Kent Hovind is NOT Ken Ham...Kent Hovind is NOT Kent Ham...Ken Hovind is NOT Canned Ham...Hemp Coven is NOT...

/embarrassed mode

(Not really embarrassed. Soz not soz)

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yes, lion, that would be the salient detail of the discussion. You're clearly on top of the facts, now.

Still apparently have no idea what you were commenting on, but no one is surprised, there.

 

[Lion IRC]

I want to defend Kent Hovind's (non-strawman) definition of evolution which, (he would be right to say,) should be inclusive of the evolutionary change from rock to non-rock.