Well, I don't know Hovind....but if they are calling him a Dr...it's probably because he earned his PHd, regardless of how or where....he must have earned it.caravelair said:
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Polycarp1
Born-again Liberal Episcopalian
Sorry to call BS on you, friend, but an inordinate number of supposed "Doctors" are the recipients of (a) honorary doctorates given for quite other reasons than having earned it (including giving money or publicity to the college), or (b) legitimate earned doctorates in a quite different field than the one in which the "doctor" claims expertise. A good example is Dr. Laura, the Jewish lady who has been making a mint with a radio psychological advice show -- to be sure, she has an earned Ph.D. -- in physiology, from the Physical Education department of a college. Which qualifies her to speak with expertise on exercise, not on the workings of the human psyche.nyjbarnes said:
Harry Truman finished high school and went into business, eventually being named county (administrative) judge -- and from there, elected to the Senate, V.P., and President. He was awarded an honorary degree from Oxford (!) for his contributions to world peace -- but the only time in his life that he ever was officially related to a college was three years later, when Yale had him on campus as a visiting lecturer for a couple of weeks. So it has its good and bad points -- but don't take a degree as necessarily a mark of expertise.
Upvote
0
Nathan Poe
Well-Known Member
or bought it. Try looking up "Patriot University" (The school where Hovind got his degree) sometime.nyjbarnes said:
Upvote
0
Congrats on completly missing the point of my post.
Should this be where I point out that the greeks used science to show that the earth was spherical. Then a couple hundred years later a christian wrote a book about how the earth was flat because the bible said so, and anyone who didn't believe the earth was flat wasn't a true christian?
Or will that point be missed to?
Should this be where I point out that the greeks used science to show that the earth was spherical. Then a couple hundred years later a christian wrote a book about how the earth was flat because the bible said so, and anyone who didn't believe the earth was flat wasn't a true christian?
Or will that point be missed to?
nyjbarnes said:
Upvote
0
- Apr 14, 2003
- 7,489
- 1,319
- 72
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Polycarp in post #562:
<< Sorry to call BS on you, friend, but an inordinate number of supposed "Doctors" are the recipients of (a) honorary doctorates given for quite other reasons than having earned it (including giving money or publicity to the college), or (b) legitimate earned doctorates in a quite different field than the one in which the "doctor" claims expertise. >>
*
Imagine questioning "Dr." Laura...
Another example is L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology. For years he called himself Dr. and claimed to have a PhD from Sequoia University.
Nobody has ever figured out where Sequoia University is.
<< Sorry to call BS on you, friend, but an inordinate number of supposed "Doctors" are the recipients of (a) honorary doctorates given for quite other reasons than having earned it (including giving money or publicity to the college), or (b) legitimate earned doctorates in a quite different field than the one in which the "doctor" claims expertise. >>
*
Imagine questioning "Dr." Laura...
Another example is L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology. For years he called himself Dr. and claimed to have a PhD from Sequoia University.
Nobody has ever figured out where Sequoia University is.
Upvote
0
- Apr 14, 2003
- 7,489
- 1,319
- 72
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
nybarnes:
<< People used science (lack of understanding) to observe those theories. In fact, if you look out in the flats of kansas or colorado...the earth...she looka flat! >>
*
I don't see why you define science as "lack of understanding."
If the earth were really flat, from a sufficiently high point in North America, say, Mt. McKinley, you would be able to see Europe, Iraq, and Tibet. Looking South, you would be able to see Chile and Argentina.
*
<< What I still can't get through is why God is being called a deceiver. >>
*
Because Creationists say that in one way or another, the physical evidence has been faked. They used to say that the Devil planted dinosaur bones to fool people. Now they are saying that God created the stars only six to ten thousand years ago but created the light to make it look like they've been there for billions of years. Then the quasars never existed at all, God just made the light to make the universe look like galaxies had quasars at their centers in the early times that never happened.
*
Come to think of it, if we never reach the stars, maybe God didn't even bother to create them. Maybe he just created the light stars were supposed to produce as a decoration.
*
nybarnes in post #558:
<< Can you explain indirectly since we measure time based on how long it takes the earth to rotate?>>
We now have better ways to measure time. I believe that atomic clocks, based on radioactive decay, are the most accurate way to measure time at present.
<< People used science (lack of understanding) to observe those theories. In fact, if you look out in the flats of kansas or colorado...the earth...she looka flat! >>
*
I don't see why you define science as "lack of understanding."
If the earth were really flat, from a sufficiently high point in North America, say, Mt. McKinley, you would be able to see Europe, Iraq, and Tibet. Looking South, you would be able to see Chile and Argentina.
*
<< What I still can't get through is why God is being called a deceiver. >>
*
Because Creationists say that in one way or another, the physical evidence has been faked. They used to say that the Devil planted dinosaur bones to fool people. Now they are saying that God created the stars only six to ten thousand years ago but created the light to make it look like they've been there for billions of years. Then the quasars never existed at all, God just made the light to make the universe look like galaxies had quasars at their centers in the early times that never happened.
*
Come to think of it, if we never reach the stars, maybe God didn't even bother to create them. Maybe he just created the light stars were supposed to produce as a decoration.
*
nybarnes in post #558:
<< Can you explain indirectly since we measure time based on how long it takes the earth to rotate?>>
We now have better ways to measure time. I believe that atomic clocks, based on radioactive decay, are the most accurate way to measure time at present.
Upvote
0
What they said. Hovind recieved his degree from a Diploma mill. PU is an unaccredited "college" where you send them money and they send you study and test material. From what I have seen, this material is very easy. You then send it back and as long as you have paid up, they send you a diploma. It's about as valid as if you printed one out on your computer.
Hovind recieved his diploma in "christian education" and parts of his thesis can be read here,
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/bartelt_dissertation_on_hovind_thesis.htm
As long as you had the money and a small amount of time, you could be a Dr. just like Hovind.
Hovind recieved his diploma in "christian education" and parts of his thesis can be read here,
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/bartelt_dissertation_on_hovind_thesis.htm
As long as you had the money and a small amount of time, you could be a Dr. just like Hovind.
Upvote
0
I
Illogical
Guest
Electromagnetic radiation that usually has a wavelength in the range from about 4,000 to about 7,700 angstroms and may be perceived by the normal unaided human eye, but it can be any wavelength.
Upvote
0
Polycarp1
Born-again Liberal Episcopalian
I think it's important to be clear that the definition of c is not the useful colloquial "speed of light" but rather "the speed of electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength and frequency in a vacuum." The speed of light through glass, quartz, water, or even air is significantly slower than c -- this is why active nuclear piles emit Cherenkov radiation: the highly energetic photons emitted by the pile are travelling faster than the speed of light in the moderator substance. It would be equally accurate to define it as "the speed of radio waves" or "the speed of X-rays" or "the speed of microwaves" in a vacuum. And relativity states that it is the one constant that is true from every frame of reference -- and rather subtle experiments have proven this out.Illogical said:
Upvote
0
A very minor correction (special) relativity doesn't say that the speed of light (in a vacuum) is constant in every frame of reference, only inertial frames. I mention this only because it's an interseting example of how much of the general theory is suggested by the special theory. If you consider accelarted frames of refernce in SR you find that they can be modelled by introducing a different metric i.e. you can mdoel accelerated frames of refernce in the special theory of relativity by 'pretending' spacetime is curved.
Upvote
0
I said, regardless of how or where. I gave no indication that he had a right to speak with literacy on any subject. Even your examples show someone who earned degree's, just not in the conventional sense. I think you're reading into my post. I meant what I said, and I stand by it.Polycarp1 said:
Upvote
0
Again, with the 'how and where' of my post. I stated that I don't know hovind....Nathan Poe said:
Upvote
0
Except, (and I'd bet next weeks lunch money on this one) you're not.Arikay said:
Again, if you choose to debase him because of how he attained his degree, its your choice. However, if he reasoning for arguements and merits of his arguments are enough why are you digging for more?
Again, I don't know hovind. I have no idea what he stands for except C'ism and that you guys trash him all the time.
Upvote
0
T
The Bellman
Guest
That's the point. His reasoning and arguments aren't enough - they're atrocious. He's a blatant liar who knows nothing about the subjects he attempts to discuss.nyjbarnes said:
Upvote
0
I wasn't arguing the mans credibilty...I DON"T KNOW HIM!The Bellman said:
I was arguing the fact that he is a Dr. regardless of HOW or WHERE he got his degree.
I think what Arikay was doing would qualify as an Ad hom,
would it not?
Upvote
0
T
The Bellman
Guest
If you want to equate a meaningless degree bought from a diploma mill with an actual doctorate worked for, then yes, call him a Doctor. It is, however, misleading (in that he has not done the work required for that title) and an insult to all of those who HAVE done the work.nyjbarnes said:
No, it wouldn't. It is perfectly valid to question the credentials of someone who pretends to be an expert.nyjbarnes said:I think what Arikay was doing would qualify as an Ad hom,
Upvote
0
Similar threads
