Thurisaz Posted June 4, 2005 Share Posted June 4, 2005 Heya, trying to kill some time at work today while a 20 gig server images was being processed, I listened to one of hoovers "seminar audio files" today... for fun. Now we all know that he can't have more than ten working brain cells max, but what I think I heard in his part 4A really blew my mind If I heard that right (I'm currently re-listening to that file to verify), he says there: ...Darwin said that perhaps the Ash, the Elm, the Wheat and the Cornflower and all the other plants have a common ancestor. I bet you're right Charlie, and this ancestor was a plant!... Did he or did he not confess right there that he, in his own words, believes in evolution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Posted June 5, 2005 Share Posted June 5, 2005 Heya, trying to kill some time at work today while a 20 gig server images was being processed, I listened to one of hoovers "seminar audio files" today... for fun. Now we all know that he can't have more than ten working brain cells max, but what I think I heard in his part 4A really blew my mind If I heard that right (I'm currently re-listening to that file to verify), he says there: ...Darwin said that perhaps the Ash, the Elm, the Wheat and the Cornflower and all the other plants have a common ancestor. I bet you're right Charlie, and this ancestor was a plant!... Did he or did he not confess right there that he, in his own words, believes in evolution? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hovind should better qualify his statements. He should've said "...and this ancestor was the original plant "kind" species". If not, he could give his audience the misleading impression that he believed that plants descended from an ancestoral stock through adaptive radiations. Matthew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted June 5, 2005 Share Posted June 5, 2005 Did he or did he not confess right there that he, in his own words, believes in evolution? Oh, it gets even better than that. Since Hovind doesn't believe in positive mutations, but yet apparently thinks that all plants come from one ancestoral plant, then all plants at one time probably bore fruit that had characteristics of all fruit, including those that are poisonous! My goodness, what did they eat in the Garden of Eden!? Oh wait... probably the vegetables, since this magical ancestoral plant probably bore both fruit from it's branches and vegetables below the ground simultaneously. I'm floored that Hovind apparently has so very little understanding of botany that he seems to believe that a plant is just a plant and that given enough breeding, you can get an entire kingdom of life out of one ancestor without some kind of evolution going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted June 5, 2005 Author Share Posted June 5, 2005 Yup, hoover is a (sickly fascinating) joke. I'm listening to his part 4b right now, after having successfully verified that the quote from my original posting is indeed correct... and I'm still torn between laughing my arse off and banging my head against the wall for three hours to get all the stupidity out that entered through my ears. I've seen hoover been described (somewhere within Buddika's "300 creationist lies") as "amateur biologist, amateur geologist, amateur physicist, amateur ..., amateur ... and a professional liar." Very well put. Just one of the very few things that made me go aaaaaargh was his list of all the revolutions that took place in what he calls the "late 1700s". Alrighty, I'm not a history expert. As far as I know, the US revolt against the Brits took place then, the French revolution too, some other that he lists may be correct too... but just how many seconds do you need to verify that the German revolution took place in 1848?! (And I just hear him babble about how Darwin "then went on to explain for many pages how it could have happened anyway, but still, he admitted that the eye can't have evolved"... if johnny the cretinist is simply ignorant of Darwin's page-long explanation about stages of eye evolution, that's one thing, but if you blatantly say something like that, you should be shot on sight) Granted that some few of his claims could just have been his kind of humor (a problem I saw with reading through Buddika's list mentioned above - you can't readily tell if you just read about his "seminars"), but even if you assume that half of his idiocy is just a heap of joke, the remaining half is enough to... well, never mind. After first reading Buddika's stuff and then listening to those seminar mp3s, I was able to dismiss some few pieces of idiocy for the sake of fairness, but I'll be damned if this is more than 10 % max. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted June 5, 2005 Share Posted June 5, 2005 That's another thing he does that really burns my ass. He and Gastrich and half a million other creationists. Even Manata does it. They attack Darwin, as though Darwin's "Origin of Species" is the secular Bible. Granted, it's a publication of significant scientific importance, but only in terms of historical importance. The same way Newton's theory of gravity is of historical importance. We've passed up both Newton and Darwin significantly since these men have lived. The creationists really have no idea how damaging the molecular evidence for evolution is to their arguments. Even I had no idea how strong it was until the last year or so. Oh my goodness, Hovind's "common designer" argument is so easy to beat, it's not even funny. ...well, actually it is quite funny. Darwin didn't even know about genetics, and yet the creatos spend all their time attacking Darwin. I can't believe how astonishingly little they know about molecular biology. Hovind especially. He knows nothing. Nothing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Benson Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 I can't believe how astonishingly little they know about molecular biology. Hovind especially. He knows nothing. Nothing! Therefore he is perfectly suited for bashing evolution. The more he knows about evolution, the more difficult it is for him to bash it because it is so scientifically sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormwarden Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 http://www.kent-hovind.com The above website (if it is still there) provides some very nice dissections of Hovind's arguments, and his detractors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted June 7, 2005 Author Share Posted June 7, 2005 http://www.kent-hovind.com The above website (if it is still there) provides some very nice dissections of Hovind's arguments, and his detractors. You'll never guess what I've been reading through for several times In fact, somewhere on that site (I think) I found the link that finally brought me to Buddika's 300 cretinist lies (all found in hoovie's seminars). I started to actually download and listen through hoovie's nonsense because I wanted to know just how many of B.'s claims might be false. So far, I've found it all confirmed - only that some of the examples of hoovie babble seem to me more humor to me than anything else. You know, it's hard to tell with a fundie whether he's honest or just trying to make fun of something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts