A Molecular Geneticist proves hovind is an idiot
Added: May 21, 2007 From: thewayofgrowingpains Ouch! Category News & Politics
Tags: | thewayofthemaster Kent Hovind Evolution Genetics Biochemistry Creation Creationism Kirk Cameron Ray Comfort |
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
- Printer-friendly version
- Login to post comments
The painful defeat of Kent Hovind
Okay, so this entire movie is all about how a molecular biologist interrupts and tries to corner Hovind into answering a question, not about science, but about how he plans to commericalize his beliefs. In other words how can he earn tax money? If a person believes in God and wants to prove He exists I doubt he is going to concern himself with how his findings can bring in a little cash. Maybe that's the problem with evolution, it focuses on how to bring in grant money instead of actual science, but then again it isn't science anyway so that's probably why.
Richard333 wrote: Okay, so
His point was that science tends to have commercial applications... or applications in general.
The Intelligent Design/Creation Science lobbies distance themselves from theology, actually, since they want theirs to be considered a scientific field.
So... can you answer the guy's question? In case you missed it: If Creationism/Intelligent Design is a science, what predictions does it make (future discoveries that can specifically validate it) and what applications does it have? Forget about commerce, since you seem hung up on that. How do we use it?
Richard333 wrote: Okay, so
How exactly is evolution not science? It makes predictions such as there will be transitional forms(which we have found). It is falsifible (if you could find a truly irreducible thing that couldn't have come about by gradual step by step evolution you would falsify evolution). So please do explain how it is not science.
Richard333 wrote: Okay, so
Richard333 is a dipshit. Here are his emails to us through our contact form (which has the disclaimer that they made be public). Look as Richard makes an utter fool of himself, and wasn't worthy of much more of a response than this link and an IP ban.
1 minute later....
LOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSEEEEERRR
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Well it looks like another
Well it looks like another total idiot who won't listen to any actual logic gone from the forums *invisible tear rolls don cheek*
Although i still wanna here how exactly evolution isn't science that would be a hoot.
zntneo
I want to hear that, too. I'm sure the thousands of working biologists are interested in how their experiments and genetic findings are useless even though they've revolutionized everything.
Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
It's really not fair
I always cringe a bit when an Evolutionary Biologist (or anyone in a related scientific field) gets a hold of a creationist. It's like putting a PhD with an IQ in the 150's against a high school drop out with an IQ in the 80's. Oh wait, it's not like that, it IS that.
That guy was right
The core predictability of evolution and the the veracity of evolutionary genetic science is born out by its applications.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Kent Hovind
Absolutely brilliant, If he could have taken his foot out of this mouth, he would own a shoe store. We will see what his rebuttal is when he gets out of prison. I watched on of his sermons on youtube and he made a logical, scientific or factual error about every 15 seconds not to mention a pompous egotistical, and flippant ignorance of the beauty of true science.
The most illogical example was measuring the melting candle as a metaphor for creation, with an initial height of 7 inches?, he then said "do we know when it was lit?" The next statement was it burns at rate of 1" \hour, he then says again "do we know when it was lit?" He said he taught science and can't reconcile the logic that in order to calculate a rate in the case the of a burning candle that 2 distance measurments plus the measured time to reach those 2 distances constitutes a rate.