+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 32

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    724

    Dawkins vs. Hovind

    Of the countless Big Lies repeated endlessly by the godless left, few are more pervasive, or for that matter, less pervasive, than the rigorous defense of their own. Take Richard Dawkins, please.

    I write a critique of Richard Dawkins, citing passages from one of his many books fraught with errors and condescension, and the godless leftists come out of the woodwork to defend Dawkins and try to change the subject away from the title of the thread.

    Meanwhile, they claim not to be a leftist. The Big Lie is this: Dawkins defenders pretend to be other than what they clearly are.

    Meanwhile those spreading Big Lies cite Hovind and attach him to all who do not march in Darwinian lockstep.

    Nobody but nobody rushes to the defense of the Hovinds or the liars who promote lies. Nobody. This does not stop the godless left from smearing Christians as if we did, however.

    How is it that Christians are smeared with Hovind even when we never bring him up, but the godless left can vigorously defend Dawkins, or simply try to deflect criticism from him, and then try to escape Dawkins' label?

    How is it that the godless left thinks it can get away with yet another double standard?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,784

    Re: Dawkins vs. Hovind

    Dude, how about instead of yelling what you think are insults you start focusing on discussion.

    to all who do not march in Darwinian lockstep.
    Or to all those who do not believe in science.

    Dude, this train is gone. Unless somebody can produce another brand new theory and submit it for peer review, all you can do is to muddy the waters.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    724

    Re: Dawkins vs. Hovind

    Quote Originally Posted by BorisZ View Post
    Dude, how about instead of yelling what you think are insults you start focusing on discussion.
    You write as if you are stoned. Are you? I studiously quote what appears to be nonsense and misrepresentation and then discuss why it is nonsense and misrepresentation. That you call my discussion "yelling" is utter nonsense.


    Or to all those who do not believe in science.
    That some people do not subscribe to all the outrageous claims of Darwinism is hardly the same as not "believing in science."
    Nobody but nobody rejects science, as your side's Big Lie claims so often.

    Dude, this train is gone. Unless somebody can produce another brand new theory and submit it for peer review, all you can do is to muddy the waters.
    There you go with the juvenile/druggie dialogue again. When is the last time you cited a peer review anywhere in scam.com? And why is "another brand new theory" so urgently needed?
    It is not incumbent on any scientific principles that explanations are necessary. We do what we can with the information we discover and interpret. Some scientists get so foolish that they fabricate cockamamey "brand new theories" that are utterly laughable. "Multiverses" and "brane theory" are two such pseudoscientific Big Lies.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,784

    Re: Dawkins vs. Hovind

    Quote Originally Posted by BarackZero View Post

    That some people do not subscribe to all the outrageous claims of Darwinism is hardly the same as not "believing in science."
    Nobody but nobody rejects science, as your side's Big Lie claims so often.

    "Multiverses" and "brane theory" are two such pseudoscientific Big Lies.
    People who do not trust theory of evolution still live in 18th century. And they subscribe to another theories: conspiracy theories.

    If scientists will be able to find antimatter than a lot of those theories will be proved. And because you are not educated enough to understand scientific theory, does not mean that theory is not valid. What do you want, that every scientific theory could be simple enough for people with basic college education. Science would not move anywhere if it has to wait for you to catch up.
    Last edited by BorisZ; 06-24-2009 at 06:05 AM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,324

    Re: Dawkins vs. Hovind

    Quote Originally Posted by BarackZero View Post
    It is not incumbent on any scientific principles that explanations are necessary. We do what we can with the information we discover and interpret. Some scientists get so foolish that they fabricate cockamamey "brand new theories" that are utterly laughable. "Multiverses" and "brane theory" are two such pseudoscientific Big Lies.
    Lol. This is great, I'm starting to see a pattern here. I think maybe BarackZero grew up as a child wanting to be a scientist, but lacked the brains to make it. Now he lashes out at theories he doesn't understand as "pseudoscientific Big Lies".

    Yep, that's right folks, there's a world-wide conspiracy of physicists lying about M-theory in order to push their environmentalist, socialist agend... oh, wait, no, that's the environmental scientists. I guess it's just that all scientists are of the evil/mad variety. Well, in any case, those scientists that produce theories that disagree with BarackZero's expert opinion on theoretical physics and evolutionary biology are godless liberals.

    So, BarackZero, why exactly are physicists lying about brane theory and exactly which part of it is a lie? Is this like how the sun is not a black body, a "big lie" you have propagated on this very site that you still refuse to address? You should stop pretending like you even understand what you are talking about. I've got 7 years of studying physics behind me and I don't understand the first thing about M-theory, yet you feel qualified to judge it?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,324

    Re: Dawkins vs. Hovind

    Oh, and BarackZero, I'm about to submit a paper on the probability of satellite transitions relative to the diagram transitions in the K alpha spectrum of the transition metals, and I was wondering if I could get your opinion on it. If you know enough about theoretical physics to criticise the theories of Stephen Hawking and Lisa Randall it shouldn't be any problem for you.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    724

    Re: Dawkins vs. Hovind

    Quote Originally Posted by BorisZ View Post
    People who do not trust theory of evolution still live in 18th century. And they subscribe to another (SIC) theories: conspiracy theories.

    If scientists will be able to find antimatter than (SIC) a lot of those theories will be proved. And because you are not educated enough to understand scientific theory, does not mean that theory is not valid. What do you want, that every scientific theory could be simple enough for people with basic college education. Science would not move anywhere if it has to wait for you to catch up.
    Boris, if you were honest, you would admit that scientists are not purely good and holy. But you are not honest.

    If you were honest, Boris, you would address the questions I have posed, but you have not begun to do so.

    So, with respect to "science" and "evolution," Boris, I repeat yet again:

    Explain the first synthesis of human hemoglobin, including intermediary polypeptides; not all of them, of course, just 1,000 or so of the more than 10 to the 300 of them.

    How were they used by whatever organism they developed inside?

    Be specific, and precise, as these are important considerations in science.

    The usual biology crap of "A>B>C>D" simply won't do.

    Oh, and do tell us why hemoglobin is said to be a molecule that breathes.

    Why does hemoglobin defy LeChatlier's Principle?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,784

    Re: Dawkins vs. Hovind

    Quote Originally Posted by BarackZero View Post
    Boris, if you were honest, you would admit that scientists are not purely good and holy. But you are not honest.
    So absolutely all scientist except those "working" for Discovery Institute are lairs and cheats? And they are all on the "evolution scam"? And all scientific reporters are on the "scam" too? You are one sad individual.

    You also want me to explain something I have no basic education on. Chances are that you do not have enough education to do explain it either. But you found conspiracy website that brainwashed your suspicious mind. And now you start copying "examples".

    Where do you get your "loopholes" from?

  9. #9
    Lord_jag's Avatar
    Lord_jag is offline I am God because I say I am. Prove me wrong. User Rank
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,796

    Re: Dawkins vs. Hovind

    Quote Originally Posted by kazza View Post
    Oh, and BarackZero, I'm about to submit a paper on the probability of satellite transitions relative to the diagram transitions in the K alpha spectrum of the transition metals, and I was wondering if I could get your opinion on it. If you know enough about theoretical physics to criticise the theories of Stephen Hawking and Lisa Randall it shouldn't be any problem for you.
    No response from HeBZero.... I guess he likes your paper?
    A real, honest, falsifiable claim made b.y Seer of dreams:(2011)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
    I believe there will be a nuclear war in October of this year.
    Oh Cnance.... Full of shit as always.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    724

    Re: Dawkins vs. Hovind

    Quote Originally Posted by BorisZ View Post
    So absolutely all scientist except those "working" for Discovery Institute are lairs (SIC) and cheats? And they are all on the "evolution scam"? And all scientific reporters are on the "scam" too? You are one sad individual.
    1. Those are your words, not mine.
    I have nothing to do with the institute you named. Zero. Why do godless leftists continue to bring up names and claims that are nothing but Big Lies, Boris? Why?
    2. Name one "scientific reporter."
    The press is overwhelmingly left-wing, from the New York Times to Newsweek to Time to USA Today. Incidentally, any time a Christian or "repug" as leftists call us so often, brings up something that is not "peer reviewed," it is quickly slapped down as being hopelessly inadequate. Try to be consistent, would you lefties?

    You also want me to explain something I have no basic education on.
    Q.E.D.

    Leftists are always spouting off as if they/you know it all. When the nitty meets the gritty, you finally confess.

    I applaud this rare speck of candor from the godless left.

    Chances are that you do not have enough education to do explain it either. But you found conspiracy website that brainwashed your suspicious mind. And now you start copying "examples".

    Where do you get your "loopholes" from?
    1. What "conspiracy website" would that be?
    2. "Multiplying up examples" is Richard Dawkins' phrase I took from one of his many hateful left-wing books. I can cite the precise page where it appears if you wish.
    3. To answer but one of my questions that have so far been studiously neglected by all screaming leftists, hemoglobin is said to "breathe" because in the process of adsorbing four molecules of oxygen, the hemoglobin molecule expands in size considerably. One might think this is reasonable except that four molecules of oxygen represent a mere 2% of the molecular weight of hemoglobin, while the increase is much greater than 2%.

  11. #11
    Lord_jag's Avatar
    Lord_jag is offline I am God because I say I am. Prove me wrong. User Rank
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,796

    Re: Dawkins vs. Hovind

    Quote Originally Posted by BarackZero View Post
    I applaud this rare speck of candor from the godless left.
    .
    Does anyone actually think that being called a godless "left" is a derogatory term?

    I'm actually happy to be godless. I don't feel there is some great evil overloard waiting to punish me if I slip up.

    And of all the schoolyard putdowns.... being called a left..... just doesn't matter.

    Why is it that you seem to take great joy in using this term? Are you still in school where you think you can dictate who is "cool" and who isn't by calling the people not in your circle meaningless names?
    A real, honest, falsifiable claim made b.y Seer of dreams:(2011)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
    I believe there will be a nuclear war in October of this year.
    Oh Cnance.... Full of shit as always.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    724

    Re: Dawkins vs. Hovind

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord_jag View Post
    Does anyone actually think that being called a godless "left" is a derogatory term?

    I'm actually happy to be godless. I don't feel there is some great evil overloard (SIC) waiting to punish me if I slip up.
    YOU, "slip up"? Mais non!

    And of all the schoolyard putdowns.... being called a left..... just doesn't matter.

    Why is it that you seem to take great joy in using this term? Are you still in school where you think you can dictate who is "cool" and who isn't by calling the people not in your circle meaningless names?
    Why is it you seem to take great joy in calling yourself "Lord"? Do you want to be worshiped?

    And when have you EVER challenged a fellow godless leftist for using a derogatory term such as "fundie" or "flat earther" or "stupid" or "ignorant"?

    Show the thread, if you have.

    Leftists easily outnumber those of us who you leftists take pleasure in speaking down to, while you pretend to be scientific icons of intellectualism.

    Finally this:

    Of all the folks who have perused this thread, one might think that SOMEBODY, who claims to be a Darwinist, might hazard a feeble attempt to answer why hemoglobin defies LeChatlier's Principle. Surely SOMEONE who pretends to be a purveyor of science could do that.

    Naming a thousand or even few hundred intermediaries of hemoglobin would take a little more doing.
    Last edited by BarackZero; 06-29-2009 at 02:26 PM.

  13. #13
    LogicallyYours's Avatar
    LogicallyYours is offline Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings. User Rank
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,352

    Re: Dawkins vs. Hovind

    While I don't have the answer to BackToZero's question as it is out of my realm of knowledge, what is clear is, he lives in the gaps...ignoring the established fact of Evolution and the factually supported explanation of that fact.

    When his question is answered and explained via natural causes, will he ignore that explanation and then hide behind another not yet fully explained issue?
    "Religion is a heavy suitcase: all you have to do is put it down."
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    "I have read the bible...more than once. I was not impressed nor was I so moved to give up my ability to think for myself and surrender my knowledge of facts for the unfounded belief in a mythical sky-fairy." - Me.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,324

    Re: Dawkins vs. Hovind

    Quote Originally Posted by BarackZero View Post
    Of all the folks who have perused this thread, one might think that SOMEBODY, who claims to be a Darwinist, might hazard a feeble attempt to answer why hemoglobin defies LeChatlier's Principle. Surely SOMEONE who pretends to be a purveyor of science could do that.
    Sorry, but there are is no LeChatlier's Principle.

    Now, if you were talking about LeChatelier's Principle then maybe I could give you an answer.



    Normally I wouldn't bother with such a stupid post, but for someone that takes so much joy in pointing out others' spelling errors, I would think that you would take more care yourself.

  15. #15
    Lord_jag's Avatar
    Lord_jag is offline I am God because I say I am. Prove me wrong. User Rank
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,796

    Re: Dawkins vs. Hovind

    Quote Originally Posted by BarackZero View Post
    YOU, "slip up"? Mais non!
    What.. you think me typing to the likes of you is worth me paying attention to grammer, spelling and typographic errors?

    You don't read half of what I type anyways
    Quote Originally Posted by BarackZero View Post
    Why is it you seem to take great joy in calling yourself "Lord"? Do you want to be worshiped?
    I don't call myslef lord. I am the lord. Prove I'm not.

    I'm just aboslutely perfect at acting like a normal person so you wouldn't suspect me of being omnipotent. You have to use faith.
    Quote Originally Posted by BarackZero View Post
    And when have you EVER challenged a fellow godless leftist for using a derogatory term such as "fundie" or "flat earther" or "stupid" or "ignorant"?
    Most godless people I know aren't intentionally denying knowledge(stupid) or ignoring facts(ignorant). Those are triats specific to believing in an imaginary being that lives in the sky and loves you but ignores you completely.

    As far as "flat earther", You'd have to beleive the earth was flat, which some people do. Not too many of those don't also believe in God.

    If you are into the fundamentals of the Religion, then you are a Fundamentalist or a Fundie.

    But what is being a LEFT? How am I left? What does "Left" have to do with anything? Is this your idea that I am being incorrect but you looked up in the dictionary the opposite of right and came up with "left" instead of "wrong"? Is this your idea of humor?
    Quote Originally Posted by BarackZero View Post
    Leftists easily outnumber those of us who you leftists take pleasure in speaking down to, while you pretend to be scientific icons of intellectualism.
    Well we can all thank "God" for that...

    Although, by definition, half the population has below average intelligence. I guess that's where you find the "non leftists" or christians.

    Quote Originally Posted by BarackZero View Post
    Of all the folks who have perused this thread, one might think that SOMEBODY, who claims to be a Darwinist, might hazard a feeble attempt to answer why hemoglobin defies LeChatlier's Principle. Surely SOMEONE who pretends to be a purveyor of science could do that.
    Hey lets all pick some idea on the remote edge of science to put the GOD DID IT into. I'm sure if we all try hard enough we can find some question to which science doesn't have an answer easy for a layperson(that's you) to understand so we can always say that God did it.
    Quote Originally Posted by BarackZero View Post
    Naming a thousand or even few hundred intermediaries of hemoglobin would take a little more doing.
    And.... yet you think that this is appropriate to be listed into a web page?

    And what if we did manage to find a organic chemist PHD to bring here who could explain the whole thing to you? Would you accept the answer? No.

    You'd go ahead and find some other remote edge of science to put God did it into.
    Last edited by Lord_jag; 06-29-2009 at 04:06 PM.
    A real, honest, falsifiable claim made b.y Seer of dreams:(2011)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
    I believe there will be a nuclear war in October of this year.
    Oh Cnance.... Full of shit as always.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    724

    Re: Dawkins vs. Hovind

    Quote Originally Posted by BarackZero View Post
    Of the countless Big Lies repeated endlessly by the godless left, few are more pervasive, or for that matter, less pervasive, than the rigorous defense of their own. Take Richard Dawkins, please.
    try to escape Dawkins' label?
    /

    How is it that the godless left thinks it can get away with yet another double standard?
    Big Lie #1: Darwinists proclaim themselves to be scientists, through and through.

    Corollary Big Lie #2: Anyone failing to submit completely to Darwinism is a "creationist" who "rejects science completely" .... etc.

    Boris, or Jag, tell us about Ka1 and Ka2 values of a hypothetical diprotic strong mineral acid. Which is larger? Why?

    If you wished to separate a racemic mixture into D and L solutions, how would you do so?

    What are the implications of chirality in polypeptide synthesis?

    I'll enjoy some cashews and cherry Coke while you try to wiggle your way out of these... without any success...
    Last edited by BarackZero; 07-01-2009 at 08:46 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. The Hovind Dissertation
    By Blue Crab of PAIN!!! in forum Science Scams
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-18-2019, 08:11 AM
  2. Richard Dawkins gets it right again...
    By LogicallyYours in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 143
    Last Post: 09-22-2012, 12:35 AM
  3. Richard Dawkins vs God(s)
    By aegist in forum Religious Scams
    Replies: 148
    Last Post: 07-23-2009, 08:10 PM
  4. Dawkins Disproves Himself
    By Ronald in forum Religious Scams
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-24-2007, 11:11 AM
  5. Kent Hovind 'Dr. Dino' sentenced to ten years
    By Phinnly Slash Buster in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-31-2007, 03:40 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •