Subject:
|
Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 Jan 2001 18:44:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
673 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Culberson writes:
>
> > Now, on to your request Dave:
> >
> > You state that you wish for citations within the "legitimate scientific
> > community" - I'm fairly sure before proceding any further that you will
> > debate the following sources to at least some degree based on that
> > premise - but IMO, the following sources/people DO in fact fit this
> > criteria (sorry if one of these is the same as Jon mentioned):
> >
> > (1) http://www.drdino.com
> > I have personally attended a 2-3 hour presentation by Dr. Kent Hovind as
> > well as viewed several of his seminar videos. Before questioning his
> > credability I urge you to see
> > http://www.drdino.com/Ministry/DrHovind.jsp
>
> What I see is that he "completed 60 credit hours toward a major in math
> and science", which means that he didn't get a degree. "He then transferred
> to Midwestern Baptist College to double major in Bible and education."
> Therefore he abandoned, for whatever reason, his pursuit of a science or
> math degree in favor of Bible and education. I don't criticize his choice,
> since it was indeed his choice to make, but to claim some expertise in
> "science" (by the way; what kind of science did he study? There's no mention
> of specifics) without clarifying his exact field of study is culpably
> misleading. In addition, while his lack of a degree does not itself
> preclude some knowledge of science (though he obviously has some
> misconceptions), his misleading offering of credentials--plus his
> fire-and-brimstone style of brow-beating and insulting those who do not
> share his views--makes him seem like a typical pulpit propaganda preacher.
> From my perusal of his website, he doesn't really qualify as part of the
> "legitimate scientific community."
Far more important than your perception of his credentials is his facts. Are
they correct? Get past the rhetoric and personal attack - his methods are
probably as distatesful as others on the other side - but that's not the
point.
Are the facts and conclusions credible?
I have a tough time saying they aren't.
Although, with such a far-reaching presentation, I'm certain there's some
fiction along the facts, but the conclusions do appear credible.
Get past the guy, and address the issues.
-Jon
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
78 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
