Origin of Life

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Coulda fooled me.

Easily to fool someone who intentionally misleads themselves.

 

[rambot]

Kent Hovind entered an academia arena and gave a three minute (?) answer to someone who asked where God came from.

The audience cheered and clapped.

Once upon a time, I went on this hike.
It was really long and tiring. On that hike, near a mountain top, I found some sea shells.
My friends got really excited.



Did your post MEAN anything to what I wrote? Were you trying to address it? I'm not sure if you're trying to obfuscate your point so I'll just play along.

 

[AV1611VET]

Did your post MEAN anything to what I wrote? Were you trying to address it? I'm not sure if you're trying to obfuscate your point so I'll just play along.

Sorry.

I was thinking of Kent Hovind's video as to where God came from.

Nevermind.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Question: Do you feel the same way about Martha's recipes as you do Kent's "recipes"?

For the record, Martha Stewart, Kent Hovind and Dinesh D'Souza can all eat a bag of rocks.

 

[dlamberth]

Kent Hovind entered an academia arena and gave a three minute (?) answer to someone who asked where God came from.

The audience cheered and clapped.

Some posters here think his answer is wrong, because he did time in prison.

Good thing he didn't say 2 plus 2 equal 4, else his "prison record" would show his statement to be a lie.

That's not even close for why I have little regard for what Hovind says.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's not even close for why I have little regard for what Hovind says.

I suspect it's because he dares to disagree with your beliefs.

Martha Stewart?

No problem.

She doesn't threaten your beliefs.

Kent Hovind? Ken Ham? David Mainse? John Ankerberg?

Look out!

Now there's a Who's Who of pariahs!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I suspect it's because he dares to disagree with your beliefs.

Yeah... that's not it at all.

It's definitely more the question of HOW Hovind does it that we find disagreeable. Since it massively amounts to just outright lies from him...

 

[NxNW]

Coulda fooled me.

Why are you so easily fooled?

 

[AV1611VET]

It's definitely more the question of HOW Hovind does it that we find disagreeable. Since it massively amounts to just outright lies from him...

Nobody can stand a liar, can they?

 

[BCP1928]

I suspect it's because he dares to disagree with your beliefs.

No, because he disagrees with facts. That he is a scoundrel only explains why he tries to back it up with Christian doctrine.

Martha Stewart?

No problem.

She doesn't threaten your beliefs.

You're right. She doesn't threaten my beliefs.

Kent Hovind? Ken Ham? David Mainse? John Ankerberg?

Look out!

Now there's a Who's Who of pariahs!

Neither does Kent Hovind, Ken Ham or John Ankerberg.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, because he disagrees with facts.

Ya ... no facts have ever been disagreed with before, have they?

You must really have problems with Percival Lowell now!

 

[BCP1928]

Ya ... no facts have ever been disagreed with before, have they?

You must really have problems with Percival Lowell now!

What facts did he disagree with?

 

[dlamberth]

I suspect it's because he dares to disagree with your beliefs.

My life reality is based on what the Earth itSelf shows us and not on any religious dogma or religious spokesperson who preaches pseudoscience as truth.

Martha Stewart?

No problem.

She doesn't threaten your beliefs.

I know who Martha Stewart is, but that's about it. She in no way threatens my reality in life.

Kent Hovind? Ken Ham? David Mainse? John Ankerberg?

Look out!

Now there's a Who's Who of pariahs!

And neither do any of these people.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Nobody can stand a liar, can they?

Especially those who continue to lie and lie after being caught and told that they're wrong repeatedly. Exactly like Kent.

 

[Shemjaza]

I suspect it's because he dares to disagree with your beliefs.

Martha Stewart?

No problem.

She doesn't threaten your beliefs.

Kent Hovind? Ken Ham? David Mainse? John Ankerberg?

Look out!

Now there's a Who's Who of pariahs!

I notice no one is telling us to trust Martha Stewart as a source on fact and morality in opposition of the vast majority mainstream science and history.

 

[AV1611VET]

And neither do any of these people.

Is that why you said they preach pseudoscience as truth?

 

[AV1611VET]

I notice no one is telling us to trust Martha Stewart as a source on fact ...

So no one takes her cookbooks literally?

 

[dlamberth]

So no one takes her cookbooks literally?

I've never used one. Nor do I really want to. She's not really my cup of tea.

 

[dlamberth]

Is that why you said they preach pseudoscience as truth?

It's religion that they preach as if it's science. But it's not science. Thus pseudoscience.

 

[Ophiolite]

Question: Do you feel the same way about Martha's recipes as you do Kent's "recipes"?

If not, I submit the problem is on your end.

That is a remarkably foolish statement. Martha's lies had a comparatively small impact upon society's legally acceptable behaviour, for which she was appropriately punished. Hovind's lies impact upon important aspects of reality which are capable of corrupting people's perception of reality. Your lies (on thalidomide, the renaming of Pluto, etc) are less troublesome since they are attributable to lack of critical thinking, rather than deliberate deception.