Moon recession and unjustified extrapolation

[Jorge]

The Gish Gallop combined with unmitigatedly stupid whoppers constitute a ponderous enemy in an hour "debate" with a credulous ignorant audience.

BTW, El Buffo Supremo, debate is not the proper way to test scientific hypotheses.

K54

Thanks for once again showing your total lack of integrity. What I mean is that
if it had been the other way around -- if Hovind had been embarrassed to the
same degree as he embarrassed the Evolutionists with "real PhDs" -- it would
have been front page headlines just about everywhere. Instead, Hovind made
these people look like such jackasses-on-dope that these debates were quickly
shelved. It's the stuff that one has to see to believe. Bwahahahahaha

But I've got a whole bunch of them on video tape - over 50 hours worth of HARD EVIDENCE.
I KNOW what I'm talking about, Santa Klaus!

Jorge

[klaus54]

Thanks for once again showing your total lack of integrity. What I mean is that
if it had been the other way around -- if Hovind had been embarrassed to the
same degree as he embarrassed the Evolutionists with "real PhDs" -- it would
have been front page headlines just about everywhere. Instead, Hovind made
these people look like such jackasses-on-dope that these debates were quickly
shelved. It's the stuff that one has to see to believe. Bwahahahahaha

But I've got a whole bunch of them on video tape - over 50 hours worth of HARD EVIDENCE.
I KNOW what I'm talking about, Santa Klaus!

Jorge

Baloney. I anticipate great drollery were to present this "hard evidence".

Quote some for us...

Put up or shut up, you bloviating gasbag.

K54

P.S. I see you ignored my Uniformitarianism and Credential comments. Oh, but that's right -- you'd agree with Satan himself were he correct.

[Jorge]

Then how's come Jorgian YECs bring up the credentials of their apologists whenever it's expedient?

Can you spell H - Y - P - O - C - R - I - S - Y ??

You can't spell YeC without it.

K54

P.S. That applies mutatis mutandis to Uniformitarianism.

There is no "e" in hypocrisy (which you note) - still ...

I cannot and will not speak for others.

I can certainly speak for myself. FIRST: certain (idiot) people don't even begin to listen unless the person that is speaking is "credentialed". SECOND: when I ask someone for their "credentials" what I really want is their background so that true communication may take place. But as far as the credentials themselves - I could not care less.

Some of the truly smartest (and wisest) people that I've known have had no credentials (no degrees from an accredited university). Similarly, some of the dumbest, stupidest most idiotic people that I have ever known had a PhD from a "prestigious" university. It is a myth, swallowed by most, that "credentials = smart".

BTW, as an aside, there is a similar myth regarding money. Most people think that if a person is rich then that person must be smart: "rich = smart". Nothing could be further from the truth.

Jorge

[Kbertsche]

Thanks for once again showing your total lack of integrity. What I mean is that
if it had been the other way around -- if Hovind had been embarrassed to the
same degree as he embarrassed the Evolutionists with "real PhDs" -- it would
have been front page headlines just about everywhere. Instead, Hovind made
these people look like such jackasses-on-dope that these debates were quickly
shelved. It's the stuff that one has to see to believe. Bwahahahahaha

But I've got a whole bunch of them on video tape - over 50 hours worth of HARD EVIDENCE.
I KNOW what I'm talking about, Santa Klaus!

Jorge

Have you seen his debate with Hugh Ross, where Hovind was clearly outgunned and lost badly?

[klaus54]

There is no "e" in hypocrisy (which you note) - still ...

I cannot and will not speak for others.

I can certainly speak for myself. FIRST: certain (idiot) people don't even begin to listen unless the person that is speaking is "credentialed". SECOND: when I ask someone for their "credentials" what I really want is their background so that true communication may take place. But as far as the credentials themselves - I could not care less.

Some of the truly smartest (and wisest) people that I've known have had no credentials (no degrees from an accredited university). Similarly, some of the dumbest, stupidest most idiotic people that I have ever known had a PhD from a "prestigious" university. It is a myth, swallowed by most, that "credentials = smart".

BTW, as an aside, there is a similar myth regarding money. Most people think that if a person is rich then that person must be smart: "rich = smart". Nothing could be further from the truth.

Jorge

Uniformitarianism and Credentials when Expedient, Morton's Demon when evaluating evidence, Debate vis-a-vis Scientific Method, an Audience stacked with Credulous Scientific Illiterates,...

Show us some of Kent "Jailbird" Hovind's "hard evidence". I dare ya...

Oh, and in my YeC crack, the Y and C are necessary but NOT sufficient. An expert on formal logic like you should have understood that. Use "hypocritical prevarication" if you need all the letters.

Hard evidence. Where be it???

Yes - and, Kbertsche's comment on Hugh Ross.

K54

[klaus54]

...
I can certainly speak for myself. FIRST: certain (idiot) people don't even begin to listen unless the person that is speaking is "credentialed". SECOND: when I ask someone for their "credentials" what I really want is their background so that true communication may take place. But as far as the credentials themselves - I could not care less.

....

Jorge

What's the difference between "background" and "credentials"?

Why would you need to know either?

You're really flailing around here.

Yikes!!

K54

[Omniskeptical]

All this effort wasted on a peeon.

[klaus54]

All this effort wasted on a peeon.

That's kind of a funny faux pas when you think about it.

K54

[HMS_Beagle]

I see Jorge has been allowed to ruin yet another thread with his poo flinging and insults.

What happened to this?

Point taken gentleman.

I'll be happy to turn flame knob way down if you guys start deleting all the content free drive-by insults from a certain TWebber. It would be great if this was just a science forum again.

Deal?

Report him if you see it. Rogue and I will be glad to deal with it.

[Roy]

Another Creationist boneheaded extrapolation I still see occasionally is the rate of sedimentation deposit in the oceans. The argument takes two forms

1. Rivers deposit sediment into the oceans at a rate of 20 billion tons/year. If the Earth was 4.5 billion years old the continents would have all eroded away 100x over by now.

This one is particularly dumb since it assumes that when the continents started eroding they were the size they are now, after they've been eroded.

Roy

[klaus54]

This one is particularly dumb since it assumes that when the continents started eroding they were the size they are now, after they've been eroded.

Roy

More Uniformitarianism when expedient and agreeing with Satan when he's right, and all that jazz...

K54

[Cow Poke]

Kent Kent Hovind Hovind

Thank you Thank you

[rogue06]

The Gish Gallop combined with unmitigatedly stupid whoppers constitute a ponderous enemy in an hour "debate" with a credulous ignorant audience.

And nearly all YECs flee from written debates were their many whoppers can be checked and exposed for the utter nonsense they are.

[rogue06]

Here's the truly sad part : given Hovind's credentials and alma mater, the scores of people that debated him with "real PhDs from real institutions" should have mopped the floor with him. Instead, the exact opposite was typically the case.

One such incident in 1998 that I recall with laughter -- against Dr. Bartelt -- was especially embarrassing for the Evolutionists. She was receiving such a wicked thrashing from Kent that right in the middle of the debate she brought out Kent's views about taxes - that he should "pay his taxes" - something that had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the debate but she had to save face somehow. I have that entire debate on video tape as well as 19 other debates in which Kent totally humiliates the "real PhDs". At times Kent made them look like they served as janitors at Patriot University. Who knows, maybe they did.

So, Rogue06, if I were you -- and thank God Almighty that I'm not -- I wouldn't keep bringing up the credential schtick. I mean, if your people are getting whipped like a bad horse by people attending "Patriot University", then what does that tell you about the intellectual abilities of your heroes?

Bwahahahahahahahahaha !!!

Jorge

I thought going off on tangents was one of Hovind's favorite tricks.

If the debate was about evolution he often started blathering on about the Big Bang and the origin of life.

[rogue06]

There is no "e" in hypocrisy (which you note) - still ...

I cannot and will not speak for others.

I can certainly speak for myself. FIRST: certain (idiot) people don't even begin to listen unless the person that is speaking is "credentialed". SECOND: when I ask someone for their "credentials" what I really want is their background so that true communication may take place. But as far as the credentials themselves - I could not care less.

Some of the truly smartest (and wisest) people that I've known have had no credentials (no degrees from an accredited university). Similarly, some of the dumbest, stupidest most idiotic people that I have ever known had a PhD from a "prestigious" university. It is a myth, swallowed by most, that "credentials = smart".

BTW, as an aside, there is a similar myth regarding money. Most people think that if a person is rich then that person must be smart: "rich = smart". Nothing could be further from the truth.

Jorge

Then why do YECs who write articles for various organizations prominently display any credentials that they may or may not have even when the article they are writing on is way outside their area of expertise?