I just sat through a Hovind lecture. It's great sci-fi. The religious explanation is even more complex than the scientific explanation. Including under-ground reservoirs of flood water and a layer of water above the sky.


Have a laugh here:
http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php

This stupidity you encounter when speaking to ANY creationist is astounding.

it seems like that some christians need to make sure that the precious few seats in heaven are reserved for them, and need to outchristianize others, and how do they do that? by having a "believe in the most bizarre and dated bits of the bible" contest. genesis is a primitive text even compared to the rest of the old testament.

Upvote for not having any f***ing carbon.

"There's no fucking carbon in it", or as it's known in chemistry: fuk.

There's no such thing as a religious scientist, the two are mutually exclusive. Religiousness is belief, which is holding something to be true with no evidence to support the hypothesis (or in the face of overwhelming evidence against the hypothesis). Science is the exact opposite, only raising an idea to the level of theory if and only if verifiable, repeatable evidence supports the hypothesis.
Religious people love to deride scientific theory, intentionally improperly using the English definition for the word rather than the scientific definition to describe scientific "facts", but will not use the scientific definition, both because most of them probably don't understand it and because the ones who do understand the difference know that deriding "scientific theories" leads to deriding the "hypothesis of religion", which is unverifiable and (so far) untestable, leaving it far less likely and with far less credibility than any "theory". Anyone claiming to be a "religious scientist" is lying to you about what they are, and almost certainly about whatever hypothesis they are spouting. You can only be one or the other, not both (unless you are a multiple personality).
I have to guess that those claiming to be religious scientists must not be smart enough to realize that spouting their brand of nonsence is the same as bearing false witness (claiming something to be fact when it either obviously is not, or has the posibility of not being fact is bearing false witness), the bible doesn't specify "false witness against a person" or "false witness in court". That means these people are not only not scientists, they aren't good religious people either.

>> ^newtboy:
There's no such thing as a religious scientist, the two are mutually exclusive.

I disagree.

Science does tend to prevent a literal interpretation of the bible (or other religions texts), but science cannot disprove the existence of gods. If someone wants to believe in a higher power than thet is fine with me as long as they don't try to bend science in an attempt to "prove" their faith-based views.

For instance, there are people who believe that the bible is completely metaphor and that science is a wonderful attempt to describe the workings of "God's creation". They understand evidence vs faith and have no reason to question scientific claims without contradicting evidence. I know several people who think that the "Big Bang" was initiated by a higher being, which is a claim that science can't disprove.

As long as a person understands the difference between faith and evidence (unlike the nut in the video) then they are more than welcome to contribute to scientific knowledge, given that their claims are based on verifiable evidence.

I have good friends who leave their labs on Sunday's to go to mass.

Religiosity is a part of the human experience. Its as ubiquitous as language, and there are good reasons why.

"The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic." - C.D.

Religiosity is as ubiquitous as language

Language is universal, but many countries in Europe and East Asia have comparatively low rates of religiosity.

Fun and Awesome...
Cheers!
More Please!

OI! THERES NO FUCKING CARBON IN IT!

Classic!

OI! There's no fucking braincells in there!

THERE'S NO FUCKING CARBON IN IT! - added to my catchphrase pile.

Shame that Hovind will never watch this video, comment on it, or learn why he is mistaken. This is because he doesn't care that he is mistaken, he's just looking for quotes from genuine scientists that he can take out of context and use to further his anti-science agenda.

are you calling kent hovind a liar?

Kent Hovind is my KAAAHHN!

From hell's heart I stab at him.

If people believe in things in the face of evidence to the contrary (with no corroborating evidence) they are not scientists, at least not good ones with scientific mindsets. You can not have both theistic beliefs and the mindset of a scientist, if you believe in the unproveable as fact, you are not a scientist (no matter what your job may be, there are plenty of non scientific people working in the science field.). The closest a true scientist can be to a theist is agnostic, because there is NO evidence for the existence of God, and there is no evidence for the absence of God (there is never evidence of absence, only lack of evidence of existence, for anything. Can you PROVE there were never unicorns simply because they haven't been found? No. Can you prove there's no FSM? No. There is plenty of evidence for the fallibility of the bible, but the bible is not God...to most people.) If you believe in God, you are not a scientist. If you are CERTAIN there is NO God, you are also not following the mindset of a scientist. If you are fairly certain there's no God, but you leave open the small possibility that there is evidence that has yet to be found, you may be a scientist.

OY! Theres no fucking carbon in it! such a great line.

The problem with the whole Bible thing is that the Bible itself makes such far reaching claims and such black and white statements that while some of it could be taken for "metaphor" there is quite a bit more that even taken as metaphor would be totally barbaric and inhumane by todays standards. if it was a little more vague about what should or should not be done, you might make a better case for it, but for centuries its been one of those All or Nothing kind of things. to say, either this is the direct word of God, or its not. and if you believe in the former, you have to do everything you can to make sure it stays relevant and "true" or your entire faith system can and probably will collapse.

*promote

Invocations (promote) cannot be called by JiggaJonson because JiggaJonson is not privileged - sorry.

>> ^newtboy:
You can not have both theistic beliefs and the mindset of a scientist, if you believe in the unproveable as fact, you are not a scientist


What if someone believes in science as fact and a creator as faith?

Are you saying that person shouldn't be allowed to contribute to scientific knowledge? Their findings would still be peer-reviewed after all.

If a chemist developed a new chemical that protected the brain from Alzheimer would you reject that chemical if you found out the chemist also believes in God, or would you accept their scientific findings and just refuse to call them a scientist?

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Sunday, February 8th, 2009 5:13pm PST - promote requested by gwiz665.

>> ^BenjaminFranklin2u:
This stupidity you encounter when speaking to ANY creationist is astounding.

I have no doubt there are a great many stupid creationists, but if that's the only kind you've encountered, I would hope that you haven't spoken to many.

Hooray I always wondered how we know carbon dating was accurate. Cool Thanks!

Ohh and if there is a god Id like to say in my opinion he just might be the "Ultimate Scientist".

Psychologic- No, I am saying that anyone working in the science field who believes in God(s) is not applying the scientific method to (at least) that part of their thought process. That makes them non-scientific. It makes it more likely that they do not follow the scientific method in their work, and it makes them non-scientists (at least in their private life). Just as a non-engineer can design something useful (just look at the rotary engine, designed in a dream by a 16 year old), a non-scientist may contribute to science, but their contribution deserves more scrutiny and more extensive peer review than normal since they have shown a propensity for ignoring "facts" in favor of "belief". The scientific method requires you do the opposite, ignore "belief" in favor of "fact", and only someone with a split personality (or completely insane) could truly do both, therefore there are NO theistic scientists. Thinking as a scientist precludes you from being a theist, or a true athiest. Science can only say it's incredibly unlikely that there's a God, not conclusively that it doesn't exist (yet).
Pseudo-scientists, like the one in the video, cannot be good theists OR good scientists, since their "science" is based in obvious falsehoods. That means what they call "science" is not scientific, and their theistic standing is questionable since they knowingly offer false answers (bearing false witness)and outright lie to further their agenda.
NOVA made most of these points last night in a 2 hour special about the school board trying to introduce Intelligent Design into schools, "Darwin on trial" I think. Sadly, it repeatedly made mention of the non-scientific science teachers involved (on both sides of the issue) but also showed simply the difference between a scientist and a non-scientist working on science.