what you think of Kent Hovind?

[timtofly]

Thanks. So what do you think of the idea that if we find a fossil that fits somewhere in the middle of that jump, we've now two new jumps to explain? Do we have a better understanding, because of a new fossil that gives us a more refined view, or do we have a worse understanding, because now we have more jumps to explain?

The only issue I have with evolution is time.

Not separate from science at all. Science is not just 'how things work' or 'how things worked in the past'. It is a way to test your ideas about how things work or worked, it is a way to improve your understanding of stuff, etc. There's a benefit to science of being wrong, because in order to know you're wrong, you have to find evidence that gives you a better understanding of what's actually right.

If it is not separate, then why all the fuss about Creation Science. Do we just not like the fact that their data does not match? If there is nothing dogmatic about it, who really cares?

NO! I can't say that strongly enough.

We would not want to make a dogmatic declaration would we?

Fact does not equal dogma. Much of what science has to say isn't considered fact, anyway. It's just our best guess based on the evidence, and all we can say is we're probably right.

So then facts have their place, but they have nothing to do with calling something right or wrong?

But the really, really important bit: It's not considered a fact because the scientific authority figures say so. It's considered a fact because that's what the evidence & experiments tell us.

So the human is not in authority, but the data itself?

Anybody who doubts it's a fact is able to check themselves, by repeating the experiment, by examining the evidence. It can make predictions. If the predictions turn out to be wrong, then our 'fact' isn't completely correct, and needs some refining, too. e.g. We can predict when Halley's comet will next be visible, we can predict when the next lunar & solar eclipses will be. If we reach that day and there's not an eclipse, then the fact we used to predict it isn't right. That's not dogma.

I would not call anything dogma, but that is what humans in the past have decided to do when they want to claim authority. We don't have to worry about humans any more though. It is the data that is important.

I may be wrong, but you seem to have a view that religion = religious authority figures (including the bible) telling us 'facts' that relate to god, creation, etc. science = scientific authority figures telling us 'facts' about how things work. history = historical authority figures telling us 'facts' about what happened in history, e.g. a biography of Julius Ceasar. That what separates them is simply the topic they're telling us 'facts' about. Is that close to the truth at all?

I know there is a God and God told us what happened. But that does not fit into the scientific method very well, because God does not correlate very well with data.

I'd call it science. Taking a hypothesis put forward by a 3500 year old document and testing it to see if it's accurate is fundamentally no different to taking a hypothesis put forward by a 35 year old person and testing it to see if it's accurate.

I am not going to turn this into a "religious" thread, but at least I am trying to show where I stand on the issue. Peter asked a few post back why I would not want to find out the truth about God. If God cannot tell me the truth about God, why would anything else be able to?

Why is deciding that the bible isn't factual discrediting it?

If it is wrong or not true, why would any one allow it to be creditable. I think it has been clearly pointed out in this thread that the Bible is wrong quite a few times. Now you can interpret it away if you want to. You could even re-write it if you wanted to change it to fit your interpretation. I would not believe the new version, any more than I believe that it has taken billions of years to get to this post. I am willing to post here and have an exchange of ideas, as long as others are willing to keep posting back. I am not against science one bit. It is just a method and it seems that people here are willing to keep looking at and testing the constant new data that keeps coming in if not a little slowly(there is that time issue again).

BTW, I am not trying to twist words or facts. I am just trying to figure out why one can say something is wrong, and then turn around and state that science is trying to figure out the truth and yet there is nothing dogmatic about it, because there is nothing right or wrong, but a continuous re-testing of the data, which is the authority and not the one running the test.

If hypothetically speaking God told Moses what happened, he is either a liar, or he did not know himself, or the data will always be wrong in the future and humans will remain confused, keep on searching for the truth, or allowed to have a little faith in God and not the data itself. And no this has nothing to do with religion and a search for God. This states that God is a known and constant in the equation that cannot be false or changed. Perhaps like c (the speed of light).

 

[sanabas]

The only issue I have with evolution is time.

You mean that there simply hasn't been all that time for things to evolve? If there hasn't been that time, then evolution as we know it is completely & utterly wrong.

If it is not separate, then why all the fuss about Creation Science. Do we just not like the fact that their data does not match? If there is nothing dogmatic about it, who really cares?

Personally, I don't like the fact that they are liars. I don't like the fact that they deliberately attempt to deceive the gullible. I really don't like the fact that not only do they preach that people should be wilfully ignorant, but that they should do their best to spread that ignorance to others. I really, really, really don't like the fact that they are trying to get their deliberate lies & deception taught in schools, that they campaign for the education system to teach kids to be stupid, teach kids to be ignorant, teach kids to be wrong, teach kids that all science is simply a matter of opinion.

We would not want to make a dogmatic declaration would we?

We would not. Which is why we didn't.

So then facts have their place, but they have nothing to do with calling something right or wrong?

I can't even figure out how to parse that.

I'll put it simply, factually, and non-dogmatically as I can. Your view of science, as expressed in your last couple of posts, IS WRONG.

So the human is not in authority, but the data itself?

Absolutely.

I would not call anything dogma, but that is what humans in the past have decided to do when they want to claim authority. We don't have to worry about humans any more though. It is the data that is important.

Yes. I don't accept evolution because Darwin said so. I accept it because I can look at the evidence. You are free to look at the evidence, too. Incidentally, that's why those other favourite creationist statements, like 'even Darwin didn't really believe this stuff' (usually including their favourite out of context quote, &#8220;To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances &#8230; could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.&#8221 or that Darwin renounced all this evolution silliness on his deathbed. Or that real scientists <tm> have examined the evidence and become creationists, like the Humphreys muppet referred to in the last article mentioned. If Darwin really didn't believe this stuff, or if Darwin really did renounce it, so what? It would make zero difference to the actual evidence, to the actual reasons to accept this stuff.

I know there is a God and God told us what happened. But that does not fit into the scientific method very well, because God does not correlate very well with data.

I am not going to turn this into a "religious" thread, but at least I am trying to show where I stand on the issue. Peter asked a few post back why I would not want to find out the truth about God. If God cannot tell me the truth about God, why would anything else be able to?

So how do you manage to reason at all? How do you trust the scientific reasoning that underpins the physics of the car you drive, the electricity powering the computer you're typing on, etc, etc? Is there any point to looking at evidence, attempting to figure out how stuff works, attempting to figure out rules for how things behave, aka science, when there's always the option of saying 'ignore that stuff, god changed it last week'?

How do you, personally, pick & choose which evidence to believe? What is your thought process that ends in you believing (I assume) the evidence for how electricity works, how gravity works, but refusing to believe the evidence that the earth has been around for billions of years? That is a genuine question, I really am interested to know.

If it is wrong or not true, why would any one allow it to be creditable. I think it has been clearly pointed out in this thread that the Bible is wrong quite a few times. Now you can interpret it away if you want to. You could even re-write it if you wanted to change it to fit your interpretation. I would not believe the new version, any more than I believe that it has taken billions of years to get to this post. I am willing to post here and have an exchange of ideas, as long as others are willing to keep posting back. I am not against science one bit. It is just a method and it seems that people here are willing to keep looking at and testing the constant new data that keeps coming in if not a little slowly(there is that time issue again).

If you flatly refuse to believe the results of the method, then how can you say you are not against that method one bit?

BTW, I am not trying to twist words or facts. I am just trying to figure out why one can say something is wrong, and then turn around and state that science is trying to figure out the truth and yet there is nothing dogmatic about it, because there is nothing right or wrong, but a continuous re-testing of the data, which is the authority and not the one running the test.

There is lots of stuff right and wrong. Hypotheses can be shown to be 100% wrong, but they're usually not able to be shown to be 100% right. More like 99.999999% right as more and more evidence supports it. But there's always the possibility that we do unearth a fossil rabbit in the precambrian, and then need to completely re-evaluate our theories. It's not dogmatic. It is evidence based.

If hypothetically speaking God told Moses what happened, he is either a liar, or he did not know himself, or the data will always be wrong in the future and humans will remain confused, keep on searching for the truth, or allowed to have a little faith in God and not the data itself. And no this has nothing to do with religion and a search for God. This states that God is a known and constant in the equation that cannot be false or changed. Perhaps like c (the speed of light).

Or Moses got it wrong. Or what Moses recorded is not what god told him. Or god does exist but never actually told Moses anything.

And again, if you're going to not trust some bits of data, based on what god said, then how do you manage to trust any bits of data? How do you work out which evidence is acceptable, and which evidence you shouldn't believe? How can you apply the scientific method to anything?

This states that God is a known and constant in the equation that cannot be false or changed. Perhaps like c (the speed of light).

The only issue I have with evolution is time.

This is like saying "The only issue I have with physics is c" That you do believe physics, except that c is only 10,000 m/second. What makes you accept that c is 3 x 10^8 m/s and not 10,000 m/s, but makes you reject that the earth is 4.5 x 10^9 years old and not 10,000 years old?

 

[timtofly]

You mean that there simply hasn't been all that time for things to evolve? If there hasn't been that time, then evolution as we know it is completely & utterly wrong.

Would you say that breeding is different from evolution?

Personally, I don't like the fact that they are liars. I don't like the fact that they deliberately attempt to deceive the gullible. I really don't like the fact that not only do they preach that people should be wilfully ignorant, but that they should do their best to spread that ignorance to others. I really, really, really don't like the fact that they are trying to get their deliberate lies & deception taught in schools, that they campaign for the education system to teach kids to be stupid, teach kids to be ignorant, teach kids to be wrong, teach kids that all science is simply a matter of opinion.

I really do not know how to respond to this. I would point out that this so-called education system educated the US for over 150 years. But perhaps it does not matter much, but I would not say that the US is any better now than it was then.

I'll put it simply, factually, and non-dogmatically as I can. Your view of science, as expressed in your last couple of posts, IS WRONG.

If it is wrong, then why do you ask how I can reason? If I used science to go around and correct every one's belief system, would that be right? That is a trick question.

Yes. I don't accept evolution because Darwin said so. I accept it because I can look at the evidence. You are free to look at the evidence, too. Incidentally, that's why those other favourite creationist statements, like 'even Darwin didn't really believe this stuff' (usually including their favourite out of context quote, “To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances … could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.”) or that Darwin renounced all this evolution silliness on his deathbed. Or that real scientists <tm> have examined the evidence and become creationists, like the Humphreys muppet referred to in the last article mentioned. If Darwin really didn't believe this stuff, or if Darwin really did renounce it, so what? It would make zero difference to the actual evidence, to the actual reasons to accept this stuff.

If I do not accept the evidence, I am labeled as wrong. That is a human judgment though. Would the evidence itself accuse me of being wrong?

So how do you manage to reason at all? How do you trust the scientific reasoning that underpins the physics of the car you drive, the electricity powering the computer you're typing on, etc, etc? Is there any point to looking at evidence, attempting to figure out how stuff works, attempting to figure out rules for how things behave, aka science, when there's always the option of saying 'ignore that stuff, god changed it last week'?

You are the one who states that my science is off. It is working quite fine for me though. Thank you for asking.

How do you, personally, pick & choose which evidence to believe? What is your thought process that ends in you believing (I assume) the evidence for how electricity works, how gravity works, but refusing to believe the evidence that the earth has been around for billions of years? That is a genuine question, I really am interested to know.

I do not rely on a belief system. I question and reason things out, believe it or not. I fail at providing hard evidence, but I strive to be understood.

If you flatly refuse to believe the results of the method, then how can you say you are not against that method one bit?

This seems to be an issue. I do not think that one can just use the term believe and accept interchangeably. The method is a tool, but it is not based on how I use that tool or even what I use that tool for. I realize that for some reason there is a need to integrate evolution into that method. Would you say that all science before Darwin is wrong and should not be considered science, even though the method would have worked billions of years ago, if a an entity so chose to use it? Is there a difference between how one uses the tool and the data one uses with the tool?

There is lots of stuff right and wrong. Hypotheses can be shown to be 100% wrong, but they're usually not able to be shown to be 100% right. More like 99.999999% right as more and more evidence supports it. But there's always the possibility that we do unearth a fossil rabbit in the precambrian, and then need to completely re-evaluate our theories. It's not dogmatic. It is evidence based. Or Moses got it wrong. Or what Moses recorded is not what god told him. Or god does exist but never actually told Moses anything.

My hypothesis was evidence based. The evidence is just not observed in the same way. What is the hard evidence on the "Moses" assumptions?

And again, if you're going to not trust some bits of data, based on what god said, then how do you manage to trust any bits of data? How do you work out which evidence is acceptable, and which evidence you shouldn't believe? How can you apply the scientific method to anything?

If I used the method to choose my daily caloric intake, I would starve to death. Why do most people form habits? Why do we even have an education system, since people could just go around and figure things out on their own?

This is like saying "The only issue I have with physics is c" That you do believe physics, except that c is only 10,000 m/second. What makes you accept that c is 3 x 10^8 m/s and not 10,000 m/s, but makes you reject that the earth is 4.5 x 10^9 years old and not 10,000 years old?

Why can I not reason and question why c has to be fixed and cannot change? Nothing is sacred nor dogmatic when it comes to science.

 

[ShiningRice]

Keep it simple, first people will believe what they wish. Since the oldest of mans life seems to be no more than a few years over 100 I am a skeptic of anyone who is certain what has happened before that. But that is me, you can be you, I won't tell you you can't be. The most important thing is that we have the liberty to believe what we wish. For those that want to force any doctrine or idea on someone or tell me I can't believe something because they think its foolish etc.. then I say they are my enemy and its a tragedy that we have to share this earth with them.

However I believe that God created this world, and my evidence is called faith. I believe it by faith I wasn't there and its not important for me to prove it. I do not harm anyone by believing this so don't harm me for believing it.

 

[uppi]

However I believe that God created this world, and my evidence is called faith. I believe it by faith I wasn't there and its not important for me to prove it. I do not harm anyone by believing this so don't harm me for believing it.

You are free to believe that and nobody should be harmed for their beliefs. However when YECs dishonestly claim scientific evidence for that belief, there is harm and they should be called out on their lies.

 

[peter grimes]

Why can I not reason and question why c has to be fixed and cannot change? Nothing is sacred nor dogmatic when it comes to science.

Sure, you can wonder that all you like. But when people who have spent decades to reach a deep understanding of these things (which are then corroborated by other people's other specialized fields of inquiry!) you have, I think, quite an high opinion of yourself to think that you're capable of seeing something they're missing. Like a changing value of c, for instance.

Or that the earth isn't billions of years old.

It almost certainly is. The 'almost' involves that nth decimal place shy of 100% certainty which is never possible in science (unlike religion). But basically if the earth isn't factually 4.something billions of years old then we're left with a conundrum, because multiple lines of evidence converge to give us that age.

Geology says Yes. Nuclear physics which uses radiometric dating says Yes. Planetary Evolution says Yes. Paleo-Magnetism says Yes. Astrophysics says Yes.

Nothing at all points to a young earth. This isn't a dogmatic position , it's simply true because we have overwhelming evidence.

It took about a hundred years for the scientific community to acknowledge this. There was a lot of resistance because deep time is a very hard idea to fathom. I don't claim to fathom it. I can grasp about 20000 years and then I get a blur. 20000 years ago is not even half way to the oldest petroglyphs in Australia.

Deep Time is Crazy.

 

[timtofly]

The earth has aged pretty well then?

If the expansion of the universe has always been accelerating. And the expansion at the start was more rapid than what we currently observe, then it would seem that light and time has changed. The point of accelerating is that it never goes slower than when it first started.

The point that what seems like billions of years to achieve by the observable time frame, could have been achieved in a fraction of what is actually observed. It would be what we would call the observable horizon, and objects moving away from us in an accelerating fashion.

If the expansion was so rapid, and then slowed down and now is again accelerating. How could it have slowed down and then sped back up again?

Either there never was a point at which everything occupied a singularity and expanded from it. Or there is no longer any expansion and the universe will stay the same size forever. After 14 billion years we would not be able to see anything else. What we are seeing now is no longer in view. All we see is the light, and one day poof, there will be no more the ability to see anything at all, because the source is beyond the 14 billion year horizon, we have set for ourselves.

If everything was created 6000 years, then we would be able to see and map with the stars 14 billion years into the future, before they pass beyond the horizon.


Radiometric dating works because we all know that the core of the earth is billions of years older than the topsoil.

 

[El_Machinae]

However when YECs dishonestly claim scientific evidence for that belief, there is harm and they should be called out on their lies.

The harm gets propagated when the beliefs are taught, is the problem. Now, being a YEC is only a specific hindrance in a handful of scenarios. I've seen kids make it through med school as YECs. BUT, little things as citizens become harder. How can you participate in the global warming discussion if you think 100% of the historical evidence is being misinterpreted? How can you investigate biodiversity loss trends if you think dinosaurs went extinct a few thousand years ago? It just creates a confused citizenry.

So, Hovind? Pretty pissed at him. Not because he was so, so wrong, but because people are still being fooled by him.

 

[dutchfire]

Why can I not reason and question why c has to be fixed and cannot change? Nothing is sacred nor dogmatic when it comes to science.

Slightly off topic, but there's actual a fair amount of physics research going into the question if the constants of nature are really constant.

 

[timtofly]

The point of c is not that far off topic. Time is very important to some people and it is very much related to the speed of light. Pointing out that time began 6000 years ago is just part of the problem. Taking the Bible literally one would have to take into consideration that in the future time will be no more. The difficulty I have is pointing out that time is not important yet hold that time started 6000 years ago, if that makes any sense?

 

[peter grimes]

If the expansion of the universe has always been accelerating. And the expansion at the start was more rapid than what we currently observe, then it would seem that light and time has changed. The point of accelerating is that it never goes slower than when it first started.

I'm not sure this is correct. Lucky for you, a theoretical cosmologist is going to be answering questions on reddit starting at 1pm EDT. You should ask him, he'll be able to give you an intelligent and informed answer.

Radiometric dating works because we all know that the core of the earth is billions of years older than the topsoil.

No. Radiometric dating works because of radioactive decay. It has nothing to do with soil or the earth's core. The earth's core could be 2 years old and radiometric dating would still work the same.

 

[timtofly]

Thanks for the heads up.

I learned that the universe is infinite, and that it started out roughly 14 billion years ago. That is a new twist to think about. I don't think that Genesis disputes that fact. There is still the time factor involved in light travelling that far, but I see their point.

 

[El_Machinae]

We don't know if the universe is infinite, it's just that we currently don't have a good reason to suspect it isn't. We have good reason to believe it's at least vastly bigger than the universe we can see.

 

[Pegasus_77]

Maybe there are multiverses

 

[El_Machinae]

There are good reasons to think so. The math certainly implies so. The biggest issue is coming up with experiments to test the idea. Math has a great track record when it comes to physics, but we still need to have properly designed experiments.

 

[Pegasus_77]

But it is creepy to think about. All the related questions and doubts makes me think human are vulnerable, like ants in a big stadium.

 

[El_Machinae]

We are vulnerable. All of physics is telling us that we're going to die after a slow degeneration. And yeah, we're small. Knowing we're an ant in a stadium, we can either go hide in the anthill, or try to build a bigger hive.

 

[Pegasus_77]

We are vulnerable. All of physics is telling us that we're going to die after a slow degeneration. And yeah, we're small. Knowing we're an ant in a stadium, we can either go hide in the anthill, or try to build a bigger hive.

tbh,as time goes by,I have more and more respect for the mysteries of the world. But I also dare not delve into them.One thing is that I do not have much scientific knowledge to understand them. Second thing is that they are too complex, scary and unfathomable, even the top scientists have no idea how to deal with them.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, frankly whether we live in a multiverse or not doesn't really change the expectations of what's going to happen in my life. In my lifetime, we went from knowing the universe was about 14 billion light years in radius to at least 100x that. It didn't really change anything, even though I technically realized I was 100x smaller than I thought.

 

[dutchfire]

Slightly off topic, but there's actual a fair amount of physics research going into the question if the constants of nature are really constant.

Heard another talk about this last week...