• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Kent Hovind: Broccoli man

No matter which creoturd said that evolution claims that rocks evolved into life, they are wrong. Evolution makes no claims or statements about how life got started. None.

Ham and Hovind are mental midgets.
 
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.
Well, he can say it 'should' but it does not.
Mostly because the change from non-life to life is not an evolutionary change.

So charging the science to defend claims that it does not fucking make is pretty much a textbook example of a strawnan attack.
 
No matter which creoturd said that evolution claims that rocks evolved into life, they are wrong.
My comment was about Hovind's contribution to the Chickster's tract, Big Daddy. The biologist there puts out a description of evolution tenets including the Big Bang.
Just shows what a crappy science teacher Kent must have been.
 
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.

Hovind's definition of evolution? I have no idea what that means. If his definition is the same as that used by science then it isn't his definition. If it is different than science's definition then he is talking about something completely different so is using the wrong word.
 
Science says life evolved from non-life.
That's just about the plainest way of saying it without straying into philosophy/semantics.

So when Kent Hovind puts words into the mouth of science by describing evolution as being inclusive of the process of "rocks evolving into life," that's technically correct.

To try and draw a hard line in the sand and separate abiogenesis from evolution would be an anathema to evolution.
 
Science says life evolved from non-life.
That's just about the plainest way of saying it without straying into philosophy/semantics.
nope. Non-life does not change over generations of offspring. Offspring is a product of life, not non-life.

So, that's not what science says.
Unless you're using the simple 'changed' usage of 'evolve,' but if you are, then you're no longer talking about 'evolve' in the 'evolutionary theory' usage, which would add a bait-and-switch element to the strawman.
Is that what you're trying to do, Lion?

So when Kent Hovind puts words into the mouth of science by describing evolution as being inclusive of the process of "rocks evolving into life," that's technically correct.
If you say 'technically correct' then you really should actually fucking BE technically correct.
Evolutionary theory is not the part of science that explores where life started.
If Hovind's scientific opinion was worth two shits, he would be able to argue within the existing science, rather than have to lie about it.
To try and draw a hard line in the sand and separate abiogenesis from evolution would be an anathema to evolution.
No, actually, it's no anathema. It's an openly acknowledged limit of both sciences. Except for people whose agenda precludes dealing with the actual sciences.
 
Science says life evolved from non-life.
There is no reason to go any further because this opening premise is wrong.

If this is what Hovind told you then he has committed the sin of bearing false witness so, according to his professed belief, is going straight to hell.

If this is only from you then it could be attributed to simple ignorance.

The word, evolved, has a specific meaning. It may be more correct to say, "Life originated from non-life" but that would be what abiogenesis is studying, not evolution theory.
 
Yeah, like I was saying - semantics / philosophy (of science)

You invoke random, spontaneous mutation as a way to explain spooky changes everywhere else in TOE. Why not just say dirt spontaneously mutated into life?

That would fill the gap and silence all us creationists!
Checkmate religion!
 
Yeah, like I was saying - semantics / philosophy (of science)
You're the one who said 'technically.' In connection to something not technically true.
So, no, not semantics.
Hovind is just wrong.

Wrong as an airport made of honey.
You invoke random, spontaneous mutation as a way to explain spooky changes everywhere else in TOE.
aside from your mischaracterization of most of that, the salient detail is IN the ToE.
Why not just say dirt spontaneously mutated into life?
because
1) that would not be IN the ToE.
2) 'mutate,' in this context, has a meaning that would make this a lie
3) moral people dislike lying unnecesarily
That would fill the gap and silence all us creationists!
Checkmate religion!
Closed Captioning: (autistic screeching intensifies)
 
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?

Ken Ham is wrong. Rocks are not alive and lack the ability to reproduce and evolve. However, the minerals found in rocks are used by living things to build their bodies, and living things have the ability to pass on their genes to successive generations through the reproductive process. Living things also have the ability to evolve, i.e. the genetic makeup of populations of living things can change over time through natural processes and alter the physical structure of the organism. The changes themselves are usually filtered through the process of natural selection, i.e. changes in the organism's genome that increase the fitness of the organism have a higher probability of spreading through the population over successive generations. Did you really not know this?

The more likely scenario is that you do understand what biological evolution is, and deliberately chose to ignore this understanding so you could tilt at some invisible windmill that is spinning in your head. You are also likely aware that biological evolution does not directly address the question of how life arose, although our modern understanding of evolution sheds some light on that subject. At this point we don't know how life arose on Earth, but we have some good ideas. One hypothesis that appears plausible to me is that the first life on Earth was created in or around undersea hydrothermal vents. The chemistry that is used by living cells to power its needs mimics the chemistry found in the environments associated with hydrothermal vents. The energy producing mechanism of the eukaryotic cell is complex and involved with multiple steps, from pushing protons up energy gradients using energy from oxidation of food, a controlled release of the energy via proton waterfalls that drive molecular machines which generate certain chemicals, which are then processed through complex chemical reactions to release energy in a form the cell can use. The complexity is inexplicable in the context of an intelligent design claim, because an intelligent designer worth his salt would have designed a simpler, more efficient system. However, in the context of all life on the planet having evolved from a common ancestor or ancestral pool, which is what our genomes tell us actually happened, the complexity of the process makes sense.

I would also caution you against joining the crusade being waged by Kent Hovind. Kent is the poster boy for stupid on steroids, and even the most brainwashed creationists usually want nothing to do with his stupid on parade freak-show.
 
... snip ...


I would also caution you against joining the crusade being waged by Kent Hovind. Kent is the poster boy for stupid on steroids, and even the most brainwashed creationists usually want nothing to do with his stupid on parade freak-show.
I have been struggling to decide if Hovind is really as dumb as he sounds or if he is a sharp con man.

I keep leaning toward dumb and then am hit by the knowledge that there is a hell of a lot of money to be made through taking advantage of the ignorance of others. After all Hovind's net worth is approximately $2.5 million he has amassed "leading the flock". televangelists like Jim and Tammy Baker plus a lot more made fortunes. Even L Ron Hubbard made an outrageous fortune doing it.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, like I was saying - semantics / philosophy (of science)

You invoke random, spontaneous mutation as a way to explain spooky changes everywhere else in TOE. Why not just say dirt spontaneously mutated into life?

Spooky? I know halloween is near, but what's spooky about allele changes over time?
 
In science we aren't supposed to ask 'why' questions. Only 'how' questions.
Appealing to spontaneity of the gaps because the how (agent/mechanism) is undetected is tantamount to invoking magic.
It's the scientific equivalent of saying evolution works in mysterious ways.
HOW did rocks turn into living creatures?
 
In science we aren't supposed to ask 'why' questions. Only 'how' questions.
Appealing to spontaneity of the gaps because the how (agent/mechanism) is undetected is tantamount to invoking magic.
It's the scientific equivalent of saying evolution works in mysterious ways.
HOW did rocks turn into living creatures?
That is an easy one to answer.... they didn't.

The question that is still being worked on is how did organic molecules like amino acids etc. combine to become a self replicating molecule.
 
What gaps are you talking about?
 
The gap is where you insert the word "spontaneous" instead of "cause(s) unknown".

...unlike in biblical theism where God is the known cause. (No gap to fill.)
 
The gap is where you insert the word "spontaneous" instead of "cause(s) unknown".
but in that context, a phrase like 'spontaneity of the gaps' is just circular bullshit.
...unlike in biblical theism where God is the known cause. (No gap to fill.)
But superstition is not a real reason to ignore the findings of science.

Science does not say not to ask why. It merely does not claim that it is able to answer why questions.
Science, actual science, is neutral to the question of gods. Why this gets you so het up is beyond me.
 
I have been struggling to decide if Hovind is really as dumb as he sounds or if he is a sharp con man.

I keep leaning toward dumb and then am hit by the knowledge that there is a hell of a lot of money to be made through taking advantage of the ignorance of others.
But you don't HAVE to be all that smart to take advantage. It would be like natural selection. People respond to his message, he profits, so he continues to spout it.

But the smart ones try a lot harder to avoid tax court. Even the Joker doesn't mess with the IRS. Whereas Hovind perjured himself in tax court, saying he did not own any property, and on the lunch break, drove to his property to evict his tenants. They did not leave immediately so he assaulted them. He told the arresting officer he was allowed to do that, since he was the property owner.
 
The gap is where you insert the word "spontaneous" instead of "cause(s) unknown".

...unlike in biblical theism where God is the known cause. (No gap to fill.)

No gap because god is gap spackle to fill in the gaps in our understanding. Once little was known about the workings of nature so most of the wall was god spackle. The gaps in our understanding continue to shrink and disappear as our understanding grows so the amount of god spackle needed to fill those gaps keep shrinking. There are some who fear the small gaps that are remaining so fill them with god spackle - some see the small gaps remaining as a challenge to fill with knowledge.

Personally, I prefer a solid, well built wall over relying on spackle.
 
I have been struggling to decide if Hovind is really as dumb as he sounds or if he is a sharp con man.

I keep leaning toward dumb and then am hit by the knowledge that there is a hell of a lot of money to be made through taking advantage of the ignorance of others. After all Hovind's net worth is approximately $2.5 million he has amassed "leading the flock". televangelists like Jim and Tammy Baker plus a lot more made fortunes. Even L Ron Hubbard made an outrageous fortune doing it.

I think he is just plain stupid. He went to prison for tax invasion, and it takes a lot of stupid to make that happen. Making money fleecing other stupid people is a motivation too, I am sure, but in Kent's case, I think it is primarily a lack of brain cells.
 
Back
Top Bottom