The Hovind Scale

Frumious Bandersnatch · May 28, 2008

Tomk80 said:
Why should we? I'd say they deserve points subtracted for being at least more literalist than young earth creationists and hence more coherent when it comes to adhereing to a literalist interpretation.

Hmmm. I hadn't thought of that.

Danyc · May 28, 2008

Hey, no more hating on Richard. I never knew him, but an ex-geocentricist and creationist?

Wow!

That's something I've never seen here before. Give the guy some credit.

Frumious Bandersnatch · May 28, 2008

Danyc said:
Hey, no more hating on Richard. I never knew him, but an ex-geocentricist and creationist?

Wow!

That's something I've never seen here before. Give the guy some credit.

Oh come on. AFAIK nobody "hates on" Richard. He's actually a pretty good guy. I was just teasing him a little since we have had some discussions of his geocentrism and apparent hero worship of Gerardus Bouw.

Danyc · May 28, 2008

Frumious Bandersnatch said:
Oh come on. AFAIK nobody "hates on" Richard. He's actually a pretty good guy. I was just teasing him a little since we have had some discussions of his geocentrism and apparent hero worship of Gerardus Bouw.

He just seemed like he was getting a little [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]ed off is all.

RichardT · May 28, 2008

You are no longer one? If I may ask, what made you realize that you were wrong? I've enjoyed lurking most of the debates, so am curious to know.

I decided a while ago that I would simply assume that the bible's historical narration was true and try to fit all the evidence into this assumption. I thought that this was the only way that I could "interpret" the evidence properly. Then a little logic crept in and I asked myself how I could possibly show myself to be wrong when entering this mental trap. And it hit me, there is no such thing as applying some "atheistic philosophy" on the evidence, the scientific method simply looks at the evidence for what it is. It's coming to proper conclusions from what the evidence tells us. If flood geology had any merit it would be able to stand up to strong criticism, while evolutionary biology has done just that. If I want to know anything about anything then I will apply the scientific method. I've been consistent in my appreciation of the scientific method for a couple of months now. It allows us to remain skeptical and can be applied to many ideas, gimmicks, pseudo-sciences.

EecoErin · May 28, 2008

Richard T is amazing!!!!!

the scientific method simply looks at the evidence for what it is. It's coming to proper conclusions from what the evidence tells us. If flood geology had any merit it would be able to stand up to strong criticism, while evolutionary biology has done just that. If I want to know anything about anything then I will apply the scientific method. I've been consistent in my appreciation of the scientific method for a couple of months now. It allows us to remain skeptical and can be applied to many ideas, gimmicks, pseudo-sciences.

That's a pretty gutsy statement, and I think you deserve kudos. Does that translate into negative points? Hurrah.

plindboe · May 29, 2008

RichardT said:
I decided a while ago that I would simply assume that the bible's historical narration was true and try to fit all the evidence into this assumption. I thought that this was the only way that I could "interpret" the evidence properly. Then a little logic crept in and I asked myself how I could possibly show myself to be wrong when entering this mental trap. And it hit me, there is no such thing as applying some "atheistic philosophy" on the evidence, the scientific method simply looks at the evidence for what it is. It's coming to proper conclusions from what the evidence tells us. If flood geology had any merit it would be able to stand up to strong criticism, while evolutionary biology has done just that. If I want to know anything about anything then I will apply the scientific method. I've been consistent in my appreciation of the scientific method for a couple of months now. It allows us to remain skeptical and can be applied to many ideas, gimmicks, pseudo-sciences.

Thanks for the explanation. I've always considered you to be a very intelligent and investigative chap, even when you had beliefs I personally found very odd, so I always had hope for you. That said, I am surprised that it happened so suddenly.

I can imagine such a dramatic paradigm shift must be difficult to go through. I do hope you won't run into any vengeful creationists, as it might be hurtful when they start calling you the antichrist or an atheist, when they hear about how you've changed.

Best of luck,

Peter

Frumious Bandersnatch · May 29, 2008

RichardT said:
I decided a while ago that I would simply assume that the bible's historical narration was true and try to fit all the evidence into this assumption. I thought that this was the only way that I could "interpret" the evidence properly. Then a little logic crept in and I asked myself how I could possibly show myself to be wrong when entering this mental trap. And it hit me, there is no such thing as applying some "atheistic philosophy" on the evidence, the scientific method simply looks at the evidence for what it is. It's coming to proper conclusions from what the evidence tells us. If flood geology had any merit it would be able to stand up to strong criticism, while evolutionary biology has done just that. If I want to know anything about anything then I will apply the scientific method. I've been consistent in my appreciation of the scientific method for a couple of months now. It allows us to remain skeptical and can be applied to many ideas, gimmicks, pseudo-sciences.

Good post. I always wondered if your intellegence and sincere efforts to understand science might eventually lead you in this direction.

BTW, weren't you engaged in an effort to correct some to the more egregious nonsense on CreationWiki at one time?

Reps from me.
(But your Hovind scale points are crashing :clap:

)

Psudopod · May 29, 2008

And it hit me, there is no such thing as applying some "atheistic philosophy" on the evidence

This is the important bit, and well done for coming to that conclusion. Reps for you.

Loudmouth · May 29, 2008

RichardT said:
I decided a while ago that I would simply assume that the bible's historical narration was true and try to fit all the evidence into this assumption. I thought that this was the only way that I could "interpret" the evidence properly. Then a little logic crept in and I asked myself how I could possibly show myself to be wrong when entering this mental trap. And it hit me, there is no such thing as applying some "atheistic philosophy" on the evidence, the scientific method simply looks at the evidence for what it is. It's coming to proper conclusions from what the evidence tells us. If flood geology had any merit it would be able to stand up to strong criticism, while evolutionary biology has done just that. If I want to know anything about anything then I will apply the scientific method. I've been consistent in my appreciation of the scientific method for a couple of months now. It allows us to remain skeptical and can be applied to many ideas, gimmicks, pseudo-sciences.

Welcome to the Dark Side!!

Good luck on your continued journey.

Dragar · May 29, 2008

RichardT said:
Then a little logic crept in and I asked myself how I could possibly show myself to be wrong when entering this mental trap.

Well done! I was wondering when you'd get there.

MrGoodBytes · May 29, 2008

Bravo for RichardT!

RichardT · May 29, 2008

BTW, weren't you engaged in an effort to correct some to the more egregious nonsense on CreationWiki at one time?

That was a really long time ago.

Nitron · May 29, 2008

Wow, kudos to you Richard!

(And at the same time I feel really patronizing saying this. I've barely lived and here I am complimenting a guy for "thinking rationally.")

Frumious Bandersnatch · May 29, 2008

RichardT said:
That was a really long time ago.

Your perception of time is different from mine Grasshopper.

MrGoodBytes · May 30, 2008

Frumious Bandersnatch said:
Your perception of time is different from mine Grasshopper.

I think that's a side effect of being a geologist. ^_^

Frumious Bandersnatch · May 30, 2008

MrGoodBytes said:
I think that's a side effect of being a geologist.

No, it is a side effect of being more than 3X as old as Richard. I am not quite a fossil yet but getting there.

AintNoMonkey · May 31, 2008

Congrats, Richard. I'm glad you came to this conclusion so early in your life, as it will benefity you greatly in the future. The scientific method is a wonderful thing when applied correctly.

Naraoia · May 31, 2008

Loudmouth said:
Welcome to the Dark Side!!

Dark Side? Isn't the Dark Side about letting our passions guide us? ^_^

I don't deny I have a passion for the science I'm learning, but if one side has to be the Dark one I don't think it's ours

us38 · Jun 3, 2008

RichardT said:
I decided a while ago that I would simply assume that the bible's historical narration was true and try to fit all the evidence into this assumption. I thought that this was the only way that I could "interpret" the evidence properly. Then a little logic crept in and I asked myself how I could possibly show myself to be wrong when entering this mental trap. And it hit me, there is no such thing as applying some "atheistic philosophy" on the evidence, the scientific method simply looks at the evidence for what it is. It's coming to proper conclusions from what the evidence tells us. If flood geology had any merit it would be able to stand up to strong criticism, while evolutionary biology has done just that. If I want to know anything about anything then I will apply the scientific method. I've been consistent in my appreciation of the scientific method for a couple of months now. It allows us to remain skeptical and can be applied to many ideas, gimmicks, pseudo-sciences.

Wow. I leave for a month, and this happens. Guess I need to stick around more often.

The Hovind Scale

Contributor

Senior Member

Contributor

Senior Member

Contributor

Newbie

Senior Member

Contributor

Godspeed, Spacebat

Contributor

Like the root of -1

Seeker for life, probably

Contributor

HIKES CAN TAKE A WALK

Contributor

Seeker for life, probably

Contributor

Regular Member

Apprentice Biologist

im in ur mind, disturben ur sanities

Similar threads