15 Jul 06
Originally posted by no1marauderNo; but it might mean that Einstein received one.
How is that he cheats on his taxes (IF he cheats on his taxes) a "blow" to YECs? Surely the correctness of their ideas has no relation to their personal conduct. If Einstein cheated on his wife, would that mean Relativity would have received a "blow"?
15 Jul 06
Originally posted by no1marauderTrue, but KH is one of these guys foremost "authorities" on why evolution cannot be correct. The thing about regular science is that it is built up from the work of many. When your single source gets sued for fraud, it should make you stop and wonder about the validity of the source, no?
Sorry, I fail to see how it's a blow to YECs in general. That Hovind may be a tax cheat or a scam artist has no bearing on others who hold YEC's beliefs. As a non-YECs, I don't consider it a "blow" when some geologist or biologist who doesn't believe such nonsense gets a speeding ticket or shoplifts a bagel or eats his children.
16 Jul 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzNo it doesn't when it is totally unrelated to YEC.
True, but KH is one of these guys foremost "authorities" on why evolution cannot be correct. The thing about regular science is that it is built up from the work of many. When your single source gets sued for fraud, it should make you stop and wonder about the validity of the source, no?
16 Jul 06
Originally posted by telerionHe has a point, though. Misbehaviour of a representative of a theory shouldn't be used as an argument against the theory. On the other hand, if Hovind has done what he is accused of, that doesn't seem quite in line with the bible. As his theory has the bible as its main source, one would expect that he would rely on the bible and behave accordingly. If he shows with his behaviour that he doesn't take the bible seriously, he kind of discredits his main source (unless he states somewhere that only parts of the bible are trustworthy).
I didn't realize you'd gone to the dark side no1.
16 Jul 06
Originally posted by NordlysNordy, we're all liars. 'Doesn't make the things we believe any less (or more) true.
He has a point, though. Misbehaviour of a representative of a theory shouldn't be used as an argument against the theory. On the other hand, if Hovind has done what he is accused of, that doesn't seem quite in line with the bible. As his theory has the bible as its main source, one would expect that he would rely on the bible and behave accordingly. If he sh ...[text shortened]... ts his main source (unless he states somewhere that only parts of the bible are trustworthy).
16 Jul 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHTrue. But if a main representative of a theory doesn't believe in the theory or its main source himself, the theory must be rather unconvincing. Of course a theory could be true even if nobody believed it to be true, but usually at least those who defend it believe it to be true.
Nordy, we're all liars. 'Doesn't make the things we believe any less (or more) true.
16 Jul 06
Originally posted by NordlysWe are our own worst enemies, don't you think?
True. But if a main representative of a theory doesn't believe in the theory or its main source himself, the theory must be rather unconvincing. Of course a theory could be true even if nobody believed it to be true, but usually at least those who defend it believe it to be true.
16 Jul 06
Originally posted by no1marauderHow do you get a rec for this?
No it doesn't when it is totally unrelated to YEC.
So, you see no difference in the reliability of witnesses, based upon their past actions? The man is understood to be, shall we say, questionable on the telling the truth front. I'm not saying that every, or indeed, any scientist is completely pure of heart and deed, but we don't claim to be.
Perhaps you routinely trust con-men to represent you and your viewpoints to the world, but I do not.