A blow for the YEC's around here

Originally posted by scottishinnz
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.

Why do people cry about recs? I could care less about them. But I guess you're consistent; it bothers you that someone gives a rec though it has nothing to do with the validity of my argument and it bothers you that Hovind is accused of something though that has nothing to do with his argument. You are committing a slew of logical fallacies. BTW, Hovind is not a witness in any sense of the word. The idea that one should judge the merits of any scientific explanation based even in the slightest part on the reputation of the person proposing the explanation is just plain weird and kinda stupid. It certainly isn't scientific. Are the YECs correct to pull up personal details of Darwin's life to discredit Evolution? You're being ridiculous to apply the same standard to Hovind.

EDIT: I'd say the "argument":

Ken Hovind is a tax cheat,
Tax Cheats are con men,
Con Men lie,
Ken Hovind believes in YEC,
Therefore, YEC is a lie

would fall under at least 1, 20, 32, and 33 and probably more of the Fallacies on this list. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

EDIT2: If a man with an unquestioned reputation of solid morality and personal truthfulness told you that there was a world wide flood 6,000 years ago with a 600 year old man bringing pairs of animals onto a big boat, would his reputation for personal veracity make you more likely to believe it?

Here's some evidence against the Theory of Evolution by the logic adopted by some in this thread:

Darwin also had a penchant for stretching the truth when relating some of his childhood discoveries. Sir Gavin de Beer, former Director of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote: ". . . The boy [Darwin] developed very slowly: he was given, when small, to inventing gratuitous fibs and to daydreaming; and he was passionately fond of collecting seals, franks (equivalents of postage stamps), pebbles, and minerals-an important trait in his future as a naturalist." (22)

Which of these traits was important to his future as a naturalist, telling fibs or collecting pebbles or both, is not specified.

In the biographical note on Charles Darwin attached to the publication of his Origin of Species and Descent of Man, the editors state: "His childhood fantasies were concerned with fabulous discoveries in natural history; to his schoolmates he boasted that he could produce variously colored flowers of the same plant by watering them with certain colored fluids." (23)

Browne further informs us: "Lies-and the thrills derived from lies-were for him indistinguishable from the delights of natural history or the joy of finding a long-sought specimen." (24)

So we see that the boy who was later to distinguish himself with the theory of evolution had a very inauspicious beginning

There's plenty more at http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number1/Darwinpapers1Htm.htm

Originally posted by scottishinnz
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.

I gave him one, I thought he was thinking clearly. I didn't stop to
think about the truth in what he said until he said it, and I was glad
he said it.
Kelly

Kent Hovind is a nut and he has a complete lack of scientific integrity.
Kent Hovind broke the law and is therefore going to jail.

These are both true but one does not imply the other.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5207159640493874061&q=Kent+Hovind
The Theory of Evolution caused Columbine. The Theory of Evolution caused the Holocaust.

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.

I wouldn't be so quick to judge the situation. Knowing the IRS' penchant for all types of illegal action against citizens, I say the chances of Hovind's innocence are 70/30, for.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I wouldn't be so quick to judge the situation. Knowing the IRS' penchant for all types of illegal action against citizens, I say the chances of Hovind's innocence are 70/30, for.

That's why I added "if Hovind has done what he is accused of" in my first post.

Originally posted by Nordlys
That's why I added "if Hovind has done what he is accused of" in my first post.

Yes you did. But, as I responded to that post, we are all liars: all unfaithful to our own beliefs, to ourselves. My failures as a man shed no light whatsoever on the truth of the word of God. We cannot do anything against the truth by our failure to be consistent with it.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I wouldn't be so quick to judge the situation. Knowing the IRS' penchant for all types of illegal action against citizens, I say the chances of Hovind's innocence are 70/30, for.

Oh really? It seems pretty damn cut and dry to me.

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).

It goes straight to the issue of character. That's been my point all along. I have made it clear, several times now, that KH's criminal behavior has no bearing on the idea of YEC itself, but rather on the people that use him as an authority.

But don't bother telling no1 that. Once he picks a fight, it's better not to explain yourself.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Why do people cry about recs? I could care less about them. But I guess you're consistent; it bothers you that someone gives a rec though it has nothing to do with the validity of my argument and it bothers you that Hovind is accused of something though that has nothing to do with his argument. You are committing a slew of logical fallacies. BTW, Hovind ...[text shortened]... big boat, would his reputation for personal veracity make you more likely to believe it?

Nope on both counts. One, it doesn't bother me who gets recs, I just think whoever did rec that post is kinda stupid. Two, I have said nothing (in this thread) about the validity or non-validity of YESism. Only you have done that. I am merely talking about a single person, a person who is frequently cited as the top "anti-evolution" proponent. If Thomas Henry Huxley, "Darwin's Bulldog" had been convicted of fraud you can be assured that the YEC would have used character assasination to try and dis-credit Darwin's idea. I have not tried that, as well you know, I am merely casting doubt on the trustworthyness of the person in question.

Stop trying to redefine the terms of reference to suit your own needs and wants #1.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Nope on both counts. One, it doesn't bother me who gets recs, I just think whoever did rec that post is kinda stupid. Two, I have said nothing (in this thread) about the validity or non-validity of YESism. Only you have done that. I am merely talking about a single person, a person who is frequently cited as the top "anti-evolution" proponent. If ...[text shortened]... n.

Stop trying to redefine the terms of reference to suit your own needs and wants #1.

"Stop trying to redefine the terms of reference to suit your own needs and wants #1."

It's just one of his many hobbies ...... 😛

Originally posted by ivanhoe
"Stop trying to redefine the terms of reference to suit your own needs and wants #1."

It's just one of his many hobbies ...... 😛

Go post about MSG ivanhoe.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Here's some evidence against the Theory of Evolution by the logic adopted by some in this thread:

Darwin also had a penchant for stretching the truth when relating some of his childhood discoveries. Sir Gavin de Beer, former Director of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote: ". . . The boy [Darwin] developed very slowly: he was given, ...[text shortened]... ere's plenty more at http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number1/Darwinpapers1Htm.htm

Show me a kid who doesn't tell any lies, and I'll show you an astute liar.

Now, in order to shoot down evolutionary theory, you just have to shoot down Alfred Russel Wallace as well. And every one who has ever used the theory successfully to explain difficult data.

I, of course, have no requirement to do the same. It's impossible to use ID to explain anything. And it seems the YEC's are shooting themselves down. What fun!

Originally posted by telerion
Yesterday's longer story on Hovind's dark deeds.

Edit:http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060714/NEWS01/607140333/1006

He sounds like he's just in rebellion against an aspect of the government he feels is unjust. I guess he thinks he's a martyr figure now.

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).

He'll just say it was his personal sin and that he's asked forgiveness from Jesus.