Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::Kent Hovind on tape

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: July 02 2008,09:52

easy Lou he is not real. he's not real. he's not real. he's not real. shhhhhhhh. no he is not real.

(pssssst hey lcd, if you are real you better come up with some facts real soon or my friend here might sacrifice you to Darwin, or at the altar of Karl Marx!!!!!)

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Gunthernacus

Posts: 235
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: July 02 2008,10:36

Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,14:16)

Here's a shock for you.

I have no problem confirming that ID is part of Creationism.

No shock at all, I was pointing it out to you and contrasting it with your statement that ID is not religious.

Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,14:16)

What I don't agree with though is that without the Bible, ID would fall apart.

I feel just the opposite. Imagine a world where God unknown and Jesus hadn't saved anyone. A truly terrible place. I could see real scientists looking for better ways to kill other people for their evil governments and looking into bio warfare.

So war and violence are things of the past in your world? Just for fun, why don't you make a list of the top 5 industrialized nations where Christianity is the dominant religion and then a list of the top 5 nations with the largest nuclear/biological weapons stockpiles.

Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,14:16)

The goal is to "build a better bug". The scientists start and some of them notice the unmistakable signs of design in these microbes. Their conclusion is that someone already designed them. Perhaps that is what can help them discover God and all of His Glory.

So ID can lead people back to God and His Word as well as His Word leading people to ID and His Creation.

You didn't answer my questions about the meaning that ID offers in contrast to, what you called, meaningless evolution - yet you provide an excellent example for why I ask. "Build a better bug" - the bugs already exist. Nasty diseases, fatal diseases caused by horrible bugs with the "unmistakable signs of design". How do the unmistakable signs of design in these horrible bugs suggest to the scientists that they shouldn't build a better one? Why should they think killing people is wrong when there are so many clever and efficient ways of killing people unmistakably designed into the environment? (To clarify: I don't think it is okay to kill people or build bio weapons, nor do I think that atheists in general think those things. I am asking you about these things to contrast your concepts of "meaningful ID" vs. "meaningless evolution".)

ETA: Erasmus is probably right. I'll wager it is FtK, itself, that a) is cleverly turning the tables on the den of sockpuppets and b) okay, it's not so clever, but it just can't stay away.

--------------
Given that we are all descended from Adam and Eve...genetic defects as a result of intra-family marriage would not begin to crop up until after the first few dozen generations. - Dr. Hugh Ross

GCT

Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: July 02 2008,19:51

If e coli gained the ability to metabolize citrate via a mutation, how is this a loss of information? How much information was lost? How did a loss of information lead to a new ability?

Knowing that we have 2 fewer chromosome pairs than apes, and that we can trace this to a mutation that led to a fusion event, would you say that our genome carries less information than the genome of apes?

Getting back to the OP, is Kent Hovind a "True Xian"?

Wolfhound

Posts: 468
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink)

Posted: July 02 2008,22:25

Quote (GCT @ July 02 2008,19:51)

Getting back to the OP, is Kent Hovind a "True Xian"?

Obviously not! He wasn't "rendering unto Caesar" like he was 'sposed to.

--------------
I've found my personality to be an effective form of birth control.

jeffox

Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: July 03 2008,00:11

No offense, but I think Hovind's actual convictions came about on money laundering and conspiracy to launder money, but the underlying reason was his lack of desire to pay taxes on his museum's profits. One of the interesting things involved in this case is the fact that all Hovind had to do was fill out the proper paperwork, and he would have been off the hook. He was told that by qualified lawyers and chose not to take their advice.

Anyway, my 2c.

BWE

Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: July 03 2008,02:14

Quote (Lou FCD @ July 01 2008,15:29)

lcd,

Dude, I'm telling you. Skip the Chinese communists.

They're just not as sexy as Nazis.

Go with the Nazis.

I don't know about that Lou. I mean, who's hotter, blonds or brunettes? What about Chinese women? Huh?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

Jim_Wynne

Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: July 03 2008,07:16

Quote (jeffox @ July 03 2008,00:11)

No offense, but I think Hovind's actual convictions came about on money laundering and conspiracy to launder money, but the underlying reason was his lack of desire to pay taxes on his museum's profits. One of the interesting things involved in this case is the fact that all Hovind had to do was fill out the proper paperwork, and he would have been off the hook. He was told that by qualified lawyers and chose not to take their advice.

Anyway, my 2c.

Hovind's convictions were for failure to pay income and FICA taxes on behalf of his employees and "structuring" withdrawals from banks in order to avoid reporting requirements (cash transactions > $10,000 have to be reported to the IRS). There were no money-laundering or conspiracy charges afaik.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

Lou FCD

Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: July 03 2008,10:08

Quote (BWE @ July 03 2008,03:14)

Quote (Lou FCD @ July 01 2008,15:29)

lcd,

Dude, I'm telling you. Skip the Chinese communists.

They're just not as sexy as Nazis.

Go with the Nazis.

I don't know about that Lou. I mean, who's hotter, blonds or brunettes? What about Chinese women? Huh?

I love 'em all, so long as they got brains.

--------------
â€œWhy do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linkyâ€œ. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Louis

Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: July 03 2008,11:16

Quote (Lou FCD @ July 03 2008,16:08)

Quote (BWE @ July 03 2008,03:14)

Quote (Lou FCD @ July 01 2008,15:29)

lcd,

Dude, I'm telling you. Skip the Chinese communists.

They're just not as sexy as Nazis.

Go with the Nazis.

I don't know about that Lou. I mean, who's hotter, blonds or brunettes? What about Chinese women? Huh?

I love 'em all, so long as they got brains.

As it will upset DaveTard, I have to confess I love me some Eskimo Wimmin.....well in theory I suppose, I've never actually met any.

Louis

P.S. Just remember that you are in no way allowed to rationally answer that question. And if anyone says different, misquote them, have a huff and storm out.

--------------
Bye.

Erasmus, FCD

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: July 03 2008,11:58

ahhhh the after-tard of skeptic. good stuff.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

lcd

Posts: 137
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink)

Posted: July 03 2008,16:55

Okay all you Nazi Evolutionists*

(* is this better Lou?)

Don't bait those that are trying to just get me mad.

Check

Okay, I need to deliver up a "Theory of Information".

So I say that there is Information in DNA. I am also saying that this Information can be destroyed but idea that useful info can come about over random processes is not possible.

Now what type of Information is there in DNA? I doubt that the analogy that it is a Document while easy to understand is a very accurate statement. After all we really haven't mapped out the human DNA yet, right? So it will be tough to accually see what's going on.

But we can still do this:

1: My Theory is that DNA has Information that can be destroyed.

2: IT also includes that DNA has Information that is front loaded in the DNA. These parts become active when other parts become de-activated.

3: The prediction that I will state for now, yes I'll do more but I have to learn the terminology better and I'll have to do more studying, is that when you change DNA the function it controls is lost.

As I said, more later but the family is home.

Happy 4th everyone.

Dr.GH

Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink)

Posted: July 03 2008,17:08

LCD, You haven't got a theory yet. "1: My Theory is that DNA has Information that can be destroyed." is not a theory. A theory is an organized set of statements which describe and predict the behavior of a system, or group of observations. A theory must make predictions that are novel.

You have not even defined "information" or shown that it can be "destroyed" or that it can be carried or represented by DNA.

See, "My Theory" for a short distraction on the nature of theory.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

Lou FCD

Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: July 03 2008,17:18

Quote (lcd @ July 03 2008,17:55)

Okay all you Nazi Evolutionists*

(* is this better Lou?)

A little better, it has a more finished feel to it.

Quote (lcd @ July 03 2008,17:55)

Okay, I need to deliver up a "Theory of Information".

Theory is such a strong word. Perhaps you might look up what it means to a scientist, and get off on a better footing.

Quote (lcd @ July 03 2008,17:55)

So I say that there is Information in DNA. I am also saying that this Information can be destroyed but idea that useful info can come about over random processes is not possible.

Now what type of Information is there in DNA? I doubt that the analogy that it is a Document while easy to understand is a very accurate statement. After all we really haven't mapped out the human DNA yet, right? So it will be tough to accually see what's going on.

But we can still do this:

1: My Theory is that DNA has Information that can be destroyed.

2: IT also includes that DNA has Information that is front loaded in the DNA. These parts become active when other parts become de-activated.

3: The prediction that I will state for now, yes I'll do more but I have to learn the terminology better and I'll have to do more studying, is that when you change DNA the function it controls is lost.

Have you tested this idea? How would you go about that? How would you measure the information and what units of measurement would you use?

Has anyone ever even attempted to do this measurement, or defined the units? If so, could you provide a link to the papers? (I prefer .pdfs myself.)

Tell me how you can tell if this information is front-loaded. What test would conclusively determine that the information is in fact front-loaded? What result would disprove your idea? How long ago was it front-loaded, and how did you determine that?

Assuming you can confirm the information is real, that it has some meaning, that it can be measured, and that it is conclusively shown with evidence that it is front-loaded, who front-loaded it, and how would you go about testing that? Was it Yahweh? How do you know it wasn't Zeus or Odin, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or JanieBelle or purple octopus aliens from 55 Cancri?

Quote (lcd @ July 03 2008,17:55)

As I said, more later but the family is home.

Happy 4th everyone.

Enjoy. You have much work to do upon your return before you can bandy about the term "theory" in this context. So relax and enjoy the beer and hotdogs, it may be a very long time before you get out of the lab again.

--------------
â€œWhy do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linkyâ€œ. ~ Steve Story, Legend

bystander

Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: July 03 2008,17:37

Quote (lcd @ July 04 2008,04:55)

Okay all you Nazi Evolutionists*

(* is this better Lou?)

Don't bait those that are trying to just get me mad.

Check

Okay, I need to deliver up a "Theory of Information".

So I say that there is Information in DNA. I am also saying that this Information can be destroyed but idea that useful info can come about over random processes is not possible.

Now what type of Information is there in DNA? I doubt that the analogy that it is a Document while easy to understand is a very accurate statement. After all we really haven't mapped out the human DNA yet, right? So it will be tough to accually see what's going on.

But we can still do this:

1: My Theory is that DNA has Information that can be destroyed.

2: IT also includes that DNA has Information that is front loaded in the DNA. These parts become active when other parts become de-activated.

3: The prediction that I will state for now, yes I'll do more but I have to learn the terminology better and I'll have to do more studying, is that when you change DNA the function it controls is lost.

As I said, more later but the family is home.

Happy 4th everyone.

This is where the Dembskis of the world are actually evil. For people like lcd it is not a matter of learning new stuff, it is a matter of unlearning the wrong things. Saying "Information cannot be created" doesn't make sense at any level and Dembski and co are still trying to find a definition of information for which this is true.

Whats wrong with the following:

1. A mutation happens which changes DNA
2. The mutation gives an advantage to an individual.
3. The individual survives to have more offspring.
4. The mutation gets fixed in the population

I know that for the experts I've left out a lot of detail but lcd needs to show why this is wrong.

stevestory

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: July 03 2008,19:19

The prima facie absurd things you are saying suggests to me you aren't sincere, lcd, but just a guy having fun provoking people. We've seen that type before. Ghost of Paley is an example. In the event that you actually believe the things you're saying, check out this link, where you can learn why the things you say are trivially wrong:

Index to Creationist Claims

Badger3k

Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink)

Posted: July 03 2008,21:12

Quote (bystander @ July 03 2008,17:37)

Quote (lcd @ July 04 2008,04:55)

Okay all you Nazi Evolutionists*

(* is this better Lou?)

Don't bait those that are trying to just get me mad.

Check

Okay, I need to deliver up a "Theory of Information".

So I say that there is Information in DNA. I am also saying that this Information can be destroyed but idea that useful info can come about over random processes is not possible.

Now what type of Information is there in DNA? I doubt that the analogy that it is a Document while easy to understand is a very accurate statement. After all we really haven't mapped out the human DNA yet, right? So it will be tough to accually see what's going on.

But we can still do this:

1: My Theory is that DNA has Information that can be destroyed.

2: IT also includes that DNA has Information that is front loaded in the DNA. These parts become active when other parts become de-activated.

3: The prediction that I will state for now, yes I'll do more but I have to learn the terminology better and I'll have to do more studying, is that when you change DNA the function it controls is lost.

As I said, more later but the family is home.

Happy 4th everyone.

This is where the Dembskis of the world are actually evil. For people like lcd it is not a matter of learning new stuff, it is a matter of unlearning the wrong things. Saying "Information cannot be created" doesn't make sense at any level and Dembski and co are still trying to find a definition of information for which this is true.

Whats wrong with the following:

1. A mutation happens which changes DNA
2. The mutation gives an advantage to an individual.
3. The individual survives to have more offspring.
4. The mutation gets fixed in the population

I know that for the experts I've left out a lot of detail but lcd needs to show why this is wrong.

Why do I think of Anne Elk (or is it Ann) ("This is my theory...").

Given that, to many creationists, there can be no beneficial mutations by definition, most of what you suggest is just not possible. If it is beneficial, it is either front-loaded, or else the signature of Teh Designer Which Is Not G-O-D.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

jeffox

Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: July 03 2008,21:56

@ Jim Wynn above:

Thank you for the clarification(s) of my post. While not technically correct, I'm pretty sure that making multiple under $10K bank transactions is one of the definitions of money laundering. The conspiracy charges arose because it wasn't just him but his family that were involved (primarily wife). But you are more right than I am. Again, thank you for clarifying; and I stand corrected!

cogzoid

Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: July 03 2008,22:04

lcd,

There was an attempt at providing an example of the fruitfulness of the Explanatory Filter. Despite this challenge being issued on a creationist forum, the host was unable to provide a single example of the Explanatory Filter. To his credit, he was very civil and honest about his attempt. If you've got the time you can read it here: http://thesciphishow.com/forums....c=114.0

I was BottomFeeder in that forum. I kept pushing for numbers to be used in the mathematical formula. It never happened. I'm curious to hear if you've ever seen an example of the Explanatory Filter in use. Perhaps you'd like to show us! If the math of this filter works, you can just show us. Numbers are hard to refute.

I'm going to guess that you haven't seen an example done. But, you've heard it's effective, and it helps to prove your side, so you believe it. But, I challenge you to be the most critical of your own theories. It's what good scientists do.

Reed

Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink)

Posted: July 03 2008,22:27

Quote (lcd @ July 03 2008,14:55)

Okay, I need to deliver up a "Theory of Information".

So I say that there is Information in DNA. I am also saying that this Information can be destroyed but idea that useful info can come about over random processes is not possible.

How about starting by defining what you mean by "information" ?

Wait. Before you do that, read the link stevestory provided.

All assuming you are actually interested in having a coherent discussion, and not just yanking chains... Poe can be a real SOB sometimes.

bystander

Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: July 04 2008,00:13

Quote (Badger3k @ July 04 2008,09:12)

Given that, to many creationists, there can be no beneficial mutations by definition, most of what you suggest is just not possible. If it is beneficial, it is either front-loaded, or else the signature of Teh Designer Which Is Not G-O-D.

It would be nice for them to prove it someday.

I feel another afdave thing happening. I wonder how many posts between beneficial mutations never happen to beneficial mutations rarely happen

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: July 04 2008,02:18

Quote (bystander @ July 03 2008,22:13)

Quote (Badger3k @ July 04 2008,09:12)

Given that, to many creationists, there can be no beneficial mutations by definition, most of what you suggest is just not possible. If it is beneficial, it is either front-loaded, or else the signature of Teh Designer Which Is Not G-O-D.

It would be nice for them to prove it someday.

I feel another afdave thing happening. I wonder how many posts between beneficial mutations never happen to beneficial mutations rarely happen

Here's the progression as I predict it:

beneficial mutations never happen
beneficial mutations rarely happen
beneficial mutations seldom happen
beneficial mutations happen, but they're not important

Sprinkle in random snarls about atheists and Darwinism being a religion.

(Unless LCD is Ghost of Paley, in which case it probably won't be this linear.)

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Louis

Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: July 04 2008,08:20

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 04 2008,08:18)

[SNIP]

(Unless LCD is Ghost of Paley, in which case it probably won't be this linear.)

But there will be more pictures of sweaty wrestler men and various bits of homophobia/racism. If we're lucky it will also involve geocentrism because that was so much fun (sarcasm!).

Louis

--------------
Bye.

lcd

Posts: 137
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink)

Posted: July 07 2008,10:28

To put your minds at ease, I am not the Ghost of Parly(?).

But to get back to the subject at hand.

From reading, thanks for all of those links, I've come to the conclusion that ID for Evolutionary Scientists would be placed under the heading of "Postulate". That is it is a proposal on how something works.

The next step is "Hypothesis", which the Postulate is used to make predictions.

The next step is to actually test the Hypothesis and if the predictions it makes turn out to be real and observed, the Hypothesis becomes a "Theory".

"Proofs" can only be applied to math theories as when one puts down 2+2=4, it will always remain the same.

I guess right now my best is an untested Hypothesis, and even then I think it would be rather thin. I'll need to work on it more. But hey, who was it that took 20 years in their last lab experiment? Also, I doubt if it took Newton just a few days or weeks to come up with Calculus. No, I have no illusions I am as smart as Newton. But then again I don't believe I'm as much of a miserable individual either.

The ID Hypothesis is that the Information contained in the Genetic Code can be found and measured. The thing is that the Information is not linear.

Information contain in a Strand of DNA is not continuous. Parts of the DNA affect other parts in ways we may not know yet.

Got to get back to work. I hope I'll find Scientists who do this for a living looking into this. Until later.

Albatrossity2

Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: July 07 2008,11:10

lcd

You might benefit from reading this thread at ISCID, and this topic here at AE. It might save you from making some of the mistakes that others have made in the past...

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
- Pattiann Rogers

Wesley R. Elsberry

Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink)

Posted: July 07 2008,11:17

Another link to the topic here, one that points to the single-page archive of the whole thread.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

UnMark

Posts: 97
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: July 07 2008,18:00

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 07 2008,11:17)

Another link to the topic here, one that points to the single-page archive of the whole thread.

I get a 404, Wes.

Wesley R. Elsberry

Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink)

Posted: July 07 2008,19:13

Interesting. I can't drop in the original URL, the board software mangles it. Trying a TinyURL link.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

GCT

Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: July 07 2008,21:02

Quote (lcd @ July 07 2008,11:28)

From reading, thanks for all of those links, I've come to the conclusion that ID for Evolutionary Scientists would be placed under the heading of "Postulate". That is it is a proposal on how something works.

I suggest you go back and try to understand what you read a little better and then learn a bit more about evolution before you pass judgement.

Quote

I guess right now my best is an untested Hypothesis, and even then I think it would be rather thin. I'll need to work on it more....The ID Hypothesis is that the Information contained in the Genetic Code can be found and measured. The thing is that the Information is not linear.

Again, you might want to study what you read a bit more. First off, ID does not have a hypothesis. Even if you come up with a defintion for information (still lacking from you) and show how it can apply to DNA, you are still lacking a link from ID to DNA having information. IOW, you're invoking a literal non sequitor.

Reed

Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink)

Posted: July 08 2008,01:19

Quote (lcd @ July 07 2008,08:28)

But hey, who was it that took 20 years in their last lab experiment?

Perhaps you are referring to Richard Lenski's E. coli experiment ?

FWIW, it isn't a single, 20 year long experiment. Rather, it's an ongoing study, which has produced many interesting results over that period. The most recent results were reported widely, including right here on PT.

These results (full text for many papers can be found on Lenski's site) may be directly relevant to your current attempt to state an ID hypothesis. In particular, you might want to consider how they relate to your ideas about information. He also has an interesting page of suggested reading on the history and philosophy of science, mostly focused on evolution and related conflicts.

If nothing else, the contrast between the output of a real evolutionary scientist and that of ID "researchers" may be instructive.

Erasmus, FCD

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: July 08 2008,08:25

lcd

the notion that 'information' may be measured implies that there is a standard scale for such measurements with meaningful (in terms of other phenomena) differences between units.

note that no such scale exists. in fact, it seems likely that no such scale could exist, given the caveat that there be meaningful differences between units.

what is the difference between 1 hovind of information and 10 hovinds?

if point nucleotide mutations or substitutions cause changes in the amino acids that result in new folds or structures of the resulting proteins, how can you compress these data into such a scale?

doesn't this seem to be ridiculous on it's face? even before you even look for a scientist doing this 'for a living' (please note that this caveat includes many of the hacks and swindlers that are bilking the faithful in the ID movement).

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

	Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution