Aron Ra destroys Hovind

[Brightmoon]

He really leaned into the persona:

cool python . They're rather easy going animals but they freak out people who don’t know that.

 

[mark kennedy]

I haven’t had the pleasure of talking to mr Ra but he is an atheist I respect. I don’t debate theological beliefs as you can’t prove or disprove any religious belief. However you can disprove nonsense claims about natural phenomena. Creationist ideas tend to be bizarre disproven nonsense and I’ll call it nonsense and I’m sorry that you don’t like that

The statement lacks specificity. By the way, I did have a formal debate with Aron Ra, he had moments of pure brilliance but inevitably he would go into a rant. He did a fairly interesting discussion of a paper concerning a fossil that was thought to have had a fossilized heart. That didn't bother him much but I found it fascinating. He didn't seem to know much about Darwin and Mendel, which I found puzzling. Now I have some pretty serious issues with creationism at large, I really don't care for how they do Biblical expositions for instance. The term 'creationism' like 'intelligent design' is a gross misnomer, what those two schools of thought really are is natural theology. It belongs neither to theology proper or science as it has come to be defined since the Scientific Revolution.

I couldn't bring myself to watch the debate, I'm no big fan of Hovinid and I can't imagine those two discussing anything relevant to the subject of origins. I had always hoped Aron Ra would get into paleontology are maybe archaeology, he seemed to have a knack for it.

Meanwhile watching your arguments go in circles, it's disappointing. There are some fascinating issues; philosophical, scientific, theological and most important, with regards to history and how it's determined. I've seen so many prolific posters that never learned much about the life sciences which is profoundly disturbing, since they are growing by leaps and bounds in this day, with a rich history. The course you have chosen won't get you any closer to it, it's too bad, it's a fascinating study.

 

[Brightmoon]

Why would any modern scientists care about Darwin or Mendel? Biologists have gone light years past them. They’re 150 years out of date . They weren’t inaccurate , we just know a lot more than they did

 

[mark kennedy]

Why would any modern scientists care about Darwin or Mendel? Biologists have gone light years past them. They’re 150 out of date . They weren’t inaccurate , we just know a lot more than they did

Oh my, you really don't know:

The rediscovery of Mendel's laws of heredity in the opening weeks of the 20th century sparked a scientific quest to understand the nature and content of genetic information that has propelled biology for the last hundred years. The scientific progress made falls naturally into four main phases, corresponding roughly to the four quarters of the century. The first established the cellular basis of heredity: the chromosomes. The second defined the molecular basis of heredity: the DNA double helix. The third unlocked the informational basis of heredity, with the discovery of the biological mechanism by which cells read the information contained in genes and with the invention of the recombinant DNA technologies of cloning and sequencing by which scientists can do the same.

The last quarter of a century has been marked by a relentless drive to decipher first genes and then entire genomes, spawning the field of genomics. (Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature 2001)
​

See what I mean, you haven't a clue about the importance of Mendelian genetics. In answer to your question, Francis Collins and the Human Genome Project had deep regard for Gregor Mendel and his contribution to the rise of genetics in the 20th century.

 

[Brightmoon]

Oh my, you really don't know:

The rediscovery of Mendel's laws of heredity in the opening weeks of the 20th century sparked a scientific quest to understand the nature and content of genetic information that has propelled biology for the last hundred years. The scientific progress made falls naturally into four main phases, corresponding roughly to the four quarters of the century. The first established the cellular basis of heredity: the chromosomes. The second defined the molecular basis of heredity: the DNA double helix. The third unlocked the informational basis of heredity, with the discovery of the biological mechanism by which cells read the information contained in genes and with the invention of the recombinant DNA technologies of cloning and sequencing by which scientists can do the same.

The last quarter of a century has been marked by a relentless drive to decipher first genes and then entire genomes, spawning the field of genomics. (Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature 2001)
​

See what I mean, you haven't a clue about the importance of Mendelian genetics. In answer to your question, Francis Collins and the Human Genome Project had deep regard for Gregor Mendel and his contribution to the rise of genetics in the 20th century.

umm Mark , I’ve got a biology degree. We’ve long since gone way past what Mendel or Darwin figured out

 

[mark kennedy]

umm Mark , I’ve got a biology degree. We’ve long since gone way past what Mendel or Darwin figured out

Ok, so you have never saw that quote before or somehow disagree? I would also assume you have some small inkling of Newodarwinism and the Modern Synthesis. You have studied all this stuff and you can read the words of the Human Genome Project and dismiss Mendel and his contributions to genetics, really?

 

[Brightmoon]

Ok, so you have never saw that quote before or somehow disagree? I would also assume you have some small inkling of Newodarwinism and the Modern Synthesis. You have studied all this stuff and you can read the words of the Human Genome Project and dismiss Mendel and his contributions to genetics, really?

What part of we’ve learned more than Mendel ever knew , didn’t you get . I’m not bashing the man, he originated genetics .

 

[mark kennedy]

What part of we’ve learned more than Mendel ever knew , didn’t you get . I’m not bashing the man, he originated genetics .

I get it just fine, dismissing him was what left me cold. The Laws of Inheritance that is his legacy remains valid. What we know based on Mendelian genetics is no different then what he found:

“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
​

I've seen a Biology Professor, an MIT scientist and a number of professional scientists and academics make the same basic mistake. Saying things about creationists isn't a positive argument. What has always puzzled me is why you guys even care about creationism. If it's so weak as an evidential argument, I would think a quick dismissal is all it would take. We don't get theologians on here, Pastors, we actually don't get that many creationists anymore. If it's that cut and dried, why bother? Disagreement I get, but the seething contempt has always puzzled me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I get it just fine, dismissing him was what left me cold. The Laws of Inheritance that is his legacy remains valid. What we know based on Mendelian genetics is no different then what he found:

“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
​

I've seen a Biology Professor, an MIT scientist and a number of professional scientists and academics make the same basic mistake. Saying things about creationists isn't a positive argument. What has always puzzled me is why you guys even care about creationism. If it's so weak as an evidential argument, I would think a quick dismissal is all it would take. We don't get theologians on here, Pastors, we actually don't get that many creationists anymore. If it's that cut and dried, why bother? Disagreement I get, but the seething contempt has always puzzled me.

Mendel has been shown to be wrong about that quote. No creationist has been able to find a limit to evolution. Mendel did not understand that the genome undergoes mutation. He made the error of assuming it was fixed.

 

[Brightmoon]

I get it just fine, dismissing him was what left me cold. The Laws of Inheritance that is his legacy remains valid. What we know based on Mendelian genetics is no different then what he found:

“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
​

I've seen a Biology Professor, an MIT scientist and a number of professional scientists and academics make the same basic mistake. Saying things about creationists isn't a positive argument. What has always puzzled me is why you guys even care about creationism. If it's so weak as an evidential argument, I would think a quick dismissal is all it would take. We don't get theologians on here, Pastors, we actually don't get that many creationists anymore. If it's that cut and dried, why bother? Disagreement I get, but the seething contempt has always puzzled me.

creationist science ideas are nonexistent not just weak. The problem is this nonsense is taught in the American public school system despite the fact that it illegal and it’s inaccurate . Scientists are getting the word out that this is problematic because we don’t really want to relive the Dark Ages due to the next generation being taught pseudoscience instead of science

 

[HitchSlap]

What has always puzzled me is why you guys even care about creationism.

When you stop trying give creationism equal time because ToE is 'only a theory,' is when us guys will quit caring. Creationism is literally making the US dumb & dumber.

ETA: Is this not cringe worthy?

"so you tell me...did the river flow uphill for millions of years... derp derp"

 

[pitabread]

What has always puzzled me is why you guys even care about creationism.

Because creationists have a history of trying to screw up science education.

 

[Brightmoon]

When you stop trying give creationism equal time because ToE is 'only a theory,' is when us guys will quit caring. Creationism is literally making the US dumb & dumber.

ETA: Is this not cringe worthy?

"so you tell me...did the river flow uphill for millions of years... derp derp"

. Whyyyyy did I watch that ? I feel stupider already!

 

[HitchSlap]

. Whyyyyy did I watch that ? I feel stupider already!

Lest we forget...

 

[Subduction Zone]

. Whyyyyy did I watch that ? I feel stupider already!

Actually it is quite useful. Eric Hovind simply repackages his father's arguments. He is nowhere near as smooth or as charismatic as his father is so the fallacies are eminently obvious. I don't think Eric has one original argument when it comes to creationism. But at least he seems to be able to follow the law better. I guess that may be the cause of friction between the two of them. Or perhaps it was Kent's divorcing of his mother and remarrying. At the very least according to their beliefs Kent is now an adulterer, if he was not one before the divorce.

 

[HitchSlap]

Actually it is quite useful. Eric Hovind simply repackages his father's arguments. He is nowhere near as smooth or as charismatic as his father is so the fallacies are eminently obvious. I don't think Eric has one original argument when it comes to creationism. But at least he seems to be able to follow the law better. I guess that may be the cause of friction between the two of them. Or perhaps it was Kent's divorcing of his mother and remarrying. At the very least according to their beliefs Kent is now an adulterer, if he was not one before the divorce.

Yeah, I personally believe Eric doesn't believe the poop he peddles, but is just a means to an ends. Kent, OTOH, believes this stuff wholeheartedly.

 

[mark kennedy]

creationist science ideas are nonexistent not just weak. The problem is this nonsense is taught in the American public school system despite the fact that it illegal and it’s inaccurate . Scientists are getting the word out that this is problematic because we don’t really want to relive the Dark Ages due to the next generation being taught pseudoscience instead of science

That was just one of the elements of the culture war, after the Dover case the matter was decided as a matter of Federal Law, not that it was ever a serious question. Intelligent design was religious since it invoked God as cause, therefore it's out. The discussions here started to fizzle and the frenzy everyone was in faded away. Creationism is all but nonexistent now, all I'm seeing on here is some superficial personal taunts, which is a big relief after the zombie horde I faced when I started posting here. Ok maybe you know something about biology, not that that has much to do with it. What you don't know is that creation, not creationism, is a Christian doctrine that transcends from Genesis 1 to Revelations 22. By implication the incarnation, the resurrection and being born again is dismissed along with the doctrine of creation since, if God didn't create life then the promise of eternal life is rendered rhetorical and figurative along with it.

Think what you like, I took an evidencial approach to this early and often. Paleontology and genomics are the key lines of evidence and that gets buried in these discussions early. Your arguing against a strawman and these discussions are riddled with logical fallacies big enough to drive a truck through. If what you are saying were true, I don't think you would bother with the subject matter. But deep down I think you realize there are more creationists out there then there are atheistic materialists and Darwinisms. The current culture of academic and scientific elitists find that unacceptable, except culture wars never really stop, the just change venue.

 

[mark kennedy]

When you stop trying give creationism equal time because ToE is 'only a theory,' is when us guys will quit caring. Creationism is literally making the US dumb & dumber.

ETA: Is this not cringe worthy?

"so you tell me...did the river flow uphill for millions of years... derp derp"

That's pointless, creationism was never taken that seriously as science. I don't bother with geology and cosmology since it's irrelevant to the doctrine of creation. The Big Bang model is perfectly compatible with a Christian worldview if you realize, when the universe was created is given no specific timeline in Genesis 1, it just says in the beginning. I don't care about the Grand Canyon, genetics is the prize.

 

[HitchSlap]

That's pointless, creationism was never taken that seriously as science.

Now you're just trolling Mark. C'mon, you're better than this.

| NCSE

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's pointless, creationism was never taken that seriously as science. I don't bother with geology and cosmology since it's irrelevant to the doctrine of creation. The Big Bang model is perfectly compatible with a Christian worldview if you realize, when the universe was created is given no specific timeline in Genesis 1, it just says in the beginning. I don't care about the Grand Canyon, genetics is the prize.

Yet there are creationists that try to get that nonsense taught in our schools.