hardcore, can I buy you a drink? Rotate your tires? Paint your porch?
You said what I wanted to say, but I was too lazy to to dig up the dirt.
You weren’t.
You have my admiration, if it means anything.
I also want to comment on RTFirefly and Polycarp’s posts. Both were brilliant, and I would have said so sooner if I wasn’t so self- absorbed in my scuffle with Izzy.
And after what hardcore posted, there really seems no point in continuing this.
I do, however, like the Toronto Maple Leafs for the Stanley Cup this year. Call me crazy, but it’s a hunch.
:D:D:D
Thanks for the props. Its nice to know that someone actually reads what I post. 
I’m sorry, 'Core . . . did you say something?
Ok, I’m confused. I was under the impression that some here didn’t believe anything that couldn’t be proved beyond the slightest doubt, but earlier posts have said something to the affect of, “We can’t prove evolution or win Hovind’s money.” I was assumed you guys, or at least some of you, had momuments of facts on your side to beat Creationists over the head with. Why can’t you prove evolution and out debate Hovind?
BTW, Hi to you too, Duck Duck Goose.
Um, because debate has nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with rhetoric? Because Hovind’s requirements for his little “debate” are impossible to fulfill? Because his team of evaluators of the evidence presented already are committed to the Creationist heresy? Because working scientists have better things to do with their time than participate in side-shows? Because science doesn’t “prove” anything, it merely developes more accurate models which explain the natural world?
All of these were coverd earlier in this thread, jenkinsfan.
It’s a question of epistemology. First, a slight nitpick with your terminology. I think it might be more fair to say that there are people here who wouldn’t believe anything that can’t be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. I have a lovely copper-colored ball point pen sitting here on my desk right now, in exactly the same spot as I left it last night. It is possible, highly unlikely but possible, that while I was sleeping a ninja crept into my room, took my pen, and used it to write a letter to his family in Japan. He put everything back exactly where he found it.
Am I pretty sure that there was no ninja in my room last night? Yes. Do I need to dust my pen for fingerprints before I’m willing to make that claim? No.
There are two reasons why I would consider Honvid’s claim to be impossible to debate. The first is his idea of what constitutes proof for evolution. The second is his idea of what evolution itself means.
In order to do this, one must not just demonstrate that evolution is the most likely explanation for life on this planet… one must show that it is the only possible explanation, and also explicitly disprove all other possibilities.
I think it’s fair to say that science doesn’t work in that way. If we want to say that the theory of evolution (as it is currently understood) is the only possible explanation for life, we must throw away the possibility of revising the theory as new evidence is uncovered. This isn’t particularly scientific; I’m sure you’re all familiar with how important the concept of falsifiability is to some people.
As for eliminating all other possibilities, I suspect that Honvid has only one other possibility in mind. Disproving that the universe was created by an omniscient, omnipotent being who cannot be detected isn’t something that can be done through empirical means.
Point two. Under his definition of evolution, Honvid slaps together a list of physical phenomena that are completely unrelated, then asks that they be proven together as a single unit. This just can’t be done.
So, IMHO, Honvid’s challenge is impossible to debate because it is set up in such a way that its requirements cannot be met by scientific evidence. Does anyone have a hypothetical situation in which it would be possible to meet the criteria set forth by Honvid? I don’t believe such a senario can exist, but feel free to correct me if you think I’m wrong about this.
I would not argue with your decision to believe Gould and not Hovind. (I wouldn’t want to get into details
of the many quotes that you bring, and you may be right for all I know). What I am saying is that you cannot
use the David B story in itself to show that Hovind is a liar. You can merely interpret the story that
way after you have already believe that he is a liar. IOW, the evidence that he is a liar is as strong as
the evidence that you can muster without using the story, no stronger. To use the story to show that he
is a liar when the proof from the story requires that one already assume that conclusion is circular logic.
Andros
Fair point. But would you also acknowledge that the fact that Gould had engaged in debates with
creationists would seem to undercut his claim to have never heard of Hovind?
Upon further reflection, I do think that the fact that Hovind predicted in advance of the debate that Gould
would not show up is fishy. Especially if, as Andros says, Gould had already debated other creationists.
OK- Hovind is, IMHO a nutcake. But he seems a SINCERE nutcake. Thus, altho his statements are full of stuff we know to be wrong- if he beleives them sincerely- he is not a “liar” in the sense we are using it here. Now, Gould is, in his own way- just as close minded. In fact- I had to stop reading his books, as so many of them expound so loudly and strongly on Gould’s opinion(fact to him) that all the races of man are equal- scientifically (as opposed to morally, which i accept). Thus- it is possible that Gould lied. And, Hovind also has little reason to lie. My guess? One of Goulds staff accepted an invitation to “discuss evolution”- and then Gould- finding out what sort of 'discussion" it was really going to be- decided not to go along with it- knowing full well he would be like a duck in a barrel. And there is no way he will win, in any case. It would “waste his time & annoy the pig”. Hovind WOULD not listen, or be convinceable.
Evolution is a truth as surely as the Earth going around the Sun*. If Hovind allowed his challenge to be judged by neutrals- the money could even be mine. But- he will never lose- as he has defined the race, and is the sole judge of the results, also.
Let us make the assumption, as some have- that the Earth was created only some 6000 years ago, but as an “Old Earth” with all the evidence that it was billions of years old. Even with that assumption- demonstrable evolution has gone on since then, eg Darwins Finches. Hovind is one of those that assumes that Evolution means the Creation is wrong- and since he KNOWS the creation is right, Evolution must be wrong. However, G-d can certainly Create a world with Evolution, in fact if one accepts “free will”- He would really have to. Thus- for there to be any evidence that Evolution & Cosmology were not facts- one would have to assume that G-d 'screwed up" and left mistakes around for us to find, and prove the World was created- thus, no “free will” (at least as I define it). Thus, the fact that Evolution works so nicely- strengthens MY Faith- not lessens it. Evolution is just more evidence, IMHO- that “the watch runs well”.
*exactly how Evolution works- that is a subject of much dispute, however.
Strictly speaking Darwin was a racist who believed the evolutionary process would result in the eventual disappearance of the black race.I make this point to simply to correct one misconception in** hardcore’s **post.
Oh, I dunno, Izzy. I don’t see any reason why Gould shoudl have felt obligated to pay attention to every creationist that came down the pike–even those who claim to be scientists. As much as I, Hardcore, Doc F., and David may know who Hovind is, at the time of his challenge very few people outside the evangelical community had ever heard of the man.
And again, if he had heard of him, Gould would have had nothing to lose by admitting it. “Yes, I’ve heard of him. He’s a kook.” Instead, Hovind dropped names, knowing that Gould had either never heard of him or would dismiss him out of hand. Either way, Hovind would win–he would be able to assert that Gould was “scared” of debating him. True, not many people outside of Hovind’s circle and fundamnetalist/evangelical Christians woudl believe him, but that was and is Hovind’s sole target audience.
DitWD:
So if someone believes what he says, he is not a liar? Misrepresentation, obfuscation, and falsehood are not lies if they are sincerely believed? I don’t know if I can accept that. They might not be intentional lies, but that makes them no less false. (Or are we going to pardon President Clinton now?)
It depends on what your definition of the word “false” is…
Izzy, you still don’t know what circular reasoning is.
David provided you with links, showing that Hovind is a liar.
There is nothing to interpret here.
And you accuse me of not following the thread.
Either pay attention or drop out.
And I strongly suggest that you read andros’ post again, if you haven’t already.
It explains, much more clearly than I can, why you are completely out of touch here.
Izzy said:
To answer this part of your question: When this happened, Hovind was not “one of the leading creationists.” If you note, it was 1993 and, for example, his “challenge” was only $10,000 at the time, as compared to the $250,000 it is now (though he could make it twenty bazillion dollars and would have the same chance of actually paying off: Zero). I have no reason to believe that Gould would have heard of him at the time. Until that point, I might have heard of him once (if that – it was seven years ago, after all, so I don’t remember for certain), and only because he was doing something local to me.
So, we have two options here:
-
Hovind is telling the truth, Gould did indeed agree to a scheduled debate with a then-relatively-unknown creationist, and Hovind somehow knew he would not show. Then, when Gould was asked about this by the head of the National Center for Science Education, he flat-out lied to her. (She was the one to whom Gould sent his response, which I mentioned here.)
-
Hovind was lying through his teeth.
I have seen nothing to indicate that we should go with #1. Furthermore, since that day (and I know this does not, in and of itself, actually prove that the above was a lie, but it shows a pattern), he has been caught in many other lies.
Who had more to gain by lying? Hovind gained credibility by lying to a newspaper in Central Illinois, where it was likely the story would never be covered again, even if Gould somehow found out about it (as he did, only because an active member of the National Center for Science Education lives nearby). Gould had nothing to gain by accepting a debate with this man and then changing his mind.
Who had more to lose if they were caught in the lie? Gould would lose a great deal of respect if this creationist could prove that Gould had, indeed, agreed to debate and then backed out – and then further LIED about not even knowing him. Hovind, however, had little or nothing to lose, even if it was ever discovered.
Duck Duck Goose said:
Just so you aren’t crucified needlessly, this is more commonly referred to as “directed evolution” or another term using “evolution” that somehow slips my mind right now (dang – we use it all the time, too). Anyway, calling yourself a “modified Creationist,” while it may be accurate in your mind, tends to paint a much different picture.
Because, to him and other literalists, your “middle ground” is simply wrong. They want a literal interpretation. You aren’t taking one.
And this surprises you?
jenkinsfan said:
Yes, you are.
As has already been explained several times over, Hovind is unwilling to deal with the facts. And he is the judge of when evolution is “proven.” So, since he has already made up his “mind” and will never be convinced otherwise, there is no way to “prove” it to his satisfaction.
Danielinthewolvesden said:
Um, Daniel, have you been reading this thread? How can you suggest that he’s sincere after all that’s been pointed out about him? His lies, his shilling of his tapes and books, his bogus “challenge,” etc. Do you really think he “sincerely” believed that Gould had scheduled a debate with him, but that Hovind somehow knew Gould would back out? I like your “guess” but you have absolutely nothing to back it up – including, I’m afraid, simple logic.
I know I’m going to flamed for jumping in the middle of this, but I can’t resist. Izzy happens to be right that the structure of David’s argument is weak, although the conclusion is true (there’s no question that Ken Hovind is a lying fruitcake, and Dr. Gould is in my opinion an honourable and brilliant scientist who gets undeserved grief from both deceitful creationists and pan-selectionists like Dawkins). David’s argument to prove that Hovind is a liar boiled down to:
- Hovind says that he and Gould agreed to do something
- Gould says they didn’t.
Anyone familiar with both Gould and Hovind would obviously add 1)+ 2) to get 3) Hovind lied again. But without all that extra evidence (premises 4 through infinity showing how reliable Gould is and nutty Hovind is) all the argument shows is that one of them is lying - not which one. David has used this example before of a Hovind lie, and I’ve never understood why - there’s no way it would change anyone’s mind about Hovind or Gould. Far better examples of Hovind’s duplicity exist…
If I’ve read him right that’s all Izzy was saying - all by itself this example of mutual accusations is evidence of nothing - only when one already knows that Hovind is a liar, is it evidence of another lie - and that sounds pretty circular to me.
Andy
You are gonna have to back that up grienspace, and with some actual quote’s from Darwin. In opposition to your view, I offer the following passages.
Sorry for the lengthy quotes, but I felt it necessary to provide a clear picture of Darwin’s views. Hardly seems to be the writings of a 19th century racist. Perhaps you might share what evidence has led you to believe otherwise.
Nothing happens in a vacuum, IzzyR. You are the only one using the David B story by itself to show Hovind is a liar. In fact, the almighty high-priest David B himself immediately stated "And that’s just the most easily documented of his lies. He has all sorts of tall tales in his video series – and either he is lying about science in them or he is quite ignorant. " So the only one making the claim you are attempting to decry as circular logic is you.
Well, isn’t that nice, even slaves have an instinct for wife and children. Furthermore, the races graduate into each other. I think what Darwin is suggesting is that whites are at one end of the scale and blacks at the other. To back up my charge of Darwin’s racism I offer:
I don’t think it can be made any clearer than that.To be fair, that kind of thinking was rampant throughout white society, resulting at the turn of the century with a black man in a cage with another ape at the Bronx zoo.
grienspace, that’s not quite what you claimed.
In no way did he state that evolution would result in the extermination of blacks. He predicted that civilized society would replace savage tribes, but he did not attribute this to evolution, nor did he condone it. He also predicted the extinction of apes closely related to man, something that may yet come to pass. His discussion was in the context of addressing “The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies”, and “With respect to the absence of fossil remains, serving to connect man with his ape-like progenitors”.
Did Darwin believe that blacks were slightly less advanced than whites? Probably, though he certainly didn’t agree with the notion that the various races represented different species. To label the man as racist based simply because one sentence could be construed as positing a closer relationship between negroes and aborigines with gorillas, while ignoring his lengthy essays against slavery, is making the mistake of projecting 21st century information and morality onto a 19th century man.
Well I have to say I don’t get racism from that. The first sentence says that whites will probably exterminate “savage races” and apes. It’s a prediction. I do not take that to mean that this is desirable in Darwins opinion nor that the “savage races” **are ** apes, merely that they will get the same treatment. Now the second sentence could, I suppose be taken as some evidence of racism but I don’t think it makes sense as a sentence in it’s own right. Possibly I’m just not used to the language patterns of the time.
Could you supply the paragraphs on each side so we can get some idea of the context in which this text is written?