A blow for the YEC's around here

Aren't politics interesting ? 😀

Originally posted by telerion
Simply put, besides being a deranged anti-science twit; he is also a deranged anti-government twit too.

You forgot to add religious twit.

Originally posted by no1marauder
How is that he cheats on his taxes (IF he cheats on his taxes) a "blow" to YECs? Surely the correctness of their ideas has no relation to their personal conduct. If Einstein cheated on his wife, would that mean Relativity would have received a "blow"?

No; but it might mean that Einstein received one.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I recant; he failed to get proper building permits! Hang him from the highest yardarm.

I didn't realize you'd gone to the dark side no1.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Absolutely hilarious.

Mark 12:17

Your afro is hilarious.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Sorry, I fail to see how it's a blow to YECs in general. That Hovind may be a tax cheat or a scam artist has no bearing on others who hold YEC's beliefs. As a non-YECs, I don't consider it a "blow" when some geologist or biologist who doesn't believe such nonsense gets a speeding ticket or shoplifts a bagel or eats his children.

True, but KH is one of these guys foremost "authorities" on why evolution cannot be correct. The thing about regular science is that it is built up from the work of many. When your single source gets sued for fraud, it should make you stop and wonder about the validity of the source, no?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
True, but KH is one of these guys foremost "authorities" on why evolution cannot be correct. The thing about regular science is that it is built up from the work of many. When your single source gets sued for fraud, it should make you stop and wonder about the validity of the source, no?

No it doesn't when it is totally unrelated to YEC.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I recant; he failed to get proper building permits! Hang him from the highest yardarm.

No1, I take back 48% of what I previously held about you: you are consistent.

Originally posted by telerion
I didn't realize you'd gone to the dark side no1.

He has a point, though. Misbehaviour of a representative of a theory shouldn't be used as an argument against the theory. On the other hand, if Hovind has done what he is accused of, that doesn't seem quite in line with the bible. As his theory has the bible as its main source, one would expect that he would rely on the bible and behave accordingly. If he shows with his behaviour that he doesn't take the bible seriously, he kind of discredits his main source (unless he states somewhere that only parts of the bible are trustworthy).

Originally posted by Nordlys
He has a point, though. Misbehaviour of a representative of a theory shouldn't be used as an argument against the theory. On the other hand, if Hovind has done what he is accused of, that doesn't seem quite in line with the bible. As his theory has the bible as its main source, one would expect that he would rely on the bible and behave accordingly. If he sh ...[text shortened]... ts his main source (unless he states somewhere that only parts of the bible are trustworthy).

Nordy, we're all liars. 'Doesn't make the things we believe any less (or more) true.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Nordy, we're all liars. 'Doesn't make the things we believe any less (or more) true.

I am not a liar.
I lie exactly half the time.
Exactly one of these statements is true.
I cheat on my taxes.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
I am not a liar.
I lie exactly half the time.
Exactly one of these statements is true.
I cheat on my taxes.

My mind is a tax deduction.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Nordy, we're all liars. 'Doesn't make the things we believe any less (or more) true.

True. But if a main representative of a theory doesn't believe in the theory or its main source himself, the theory must be rather unconvincing. Of course a theory could be true even if nobody believed it to be true, but usually at least those who defend it believe it to be true.

Originally posted by Nordlys
True. But if a main representative of a theory doesn't believe in the theory or its main source himself, the theory must be rather unconvincing. Of course a theory could be true even if nobody believed it to be true, but usually at least those who defend it believe it to be true.

We are our own worst enemies, don't you think?

Originally posted by no1marauder
No it doesn't when it is totally unrelated to YEC.

How do you get a rec for this?

So, you see no difference in the reliability of witnesses, based upon their past actions? The man is understood to be, shall we say, questionable on the telling the truth front. I'm not saying that every, or indeed, any scientist is completely pure of heart and deed, but we don't claim to be.

Perhaps you routinely trust con-men to represent you and your viewpoints to the world, but I do not.