Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 13380

I want you to notice throughout this discussion today, Mr. Powers has referred a few times to Genesis being simpler. I think there is a subtle connotation in here like; if you believe that you are dumb, scientists know… they know better. You know, it is kinda an I'm smart, you are dumb philosophy and any philosopher should know that just not good logic. Ok. And to say that Genesis is simpler, here you are saying that you know… I believe it is pretty simple, it is written and I believe that's exactly the way that it happened. And I don't believe you have to be stupid to believe that, I have an IQ of about 160, I taught science for about fifteen years, I used to debate on this topic all the time. There simply is no evidence for evolution.

Kent Hovind, UWF Website 55 Comments [7/29/2006 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 8
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3
Nicole

Ah, yeah the quote is completely different now. Oh well.

7/29/2006 9:09:41 PM

Vyoma

That's a metric IQ, of course. In American units, it works out to about 80.

7/29/2006 9:55:52 PM

Ice

a) 160? Oh, no you don't!

b) Science? When? Where?

c) And what about those other 30 or whatnot kids of Adam&Eve? Believe in them too?

7/29/2006 9:58:34 PM

skepticguy

Hey, is it possible that we could have had a FSTDT quote found in the comment section of FSTDT itself?? If so, \"you might be a fundy atheist if....#62734\" might be the one!

7/29/2006 10:08:31 PM

Alex W.

Whenever I read a quote from him I always think of him reading it in his really annoying voice.

7/29/2006 11:37:14 PM

JohnRaptor

skepticguy: It's been done before. I say go ahead and submit it.

7/29/2006 11:46:23 PM

Ice

@you might be a fundy atheist if....

For crying out loud, I'd suggest at least some reading in philosophy of science. You won't sprout shit like that again.

7/30/2006 12:49:43 AM

Dr. Major

Its a meta fundies! There is a fundie qoute in the comments about fundies!

7/30/2006 2:35:37 AM

Darth Wang

Also, there's no such things as a 'fundamentalist atheist' as atheists have no fundamental beliefs.

7/30/2006 5:25:52 AM

Odimas Pistaferan

The poster (or, some may argue, troll) using the moniker \"you might be a fundy atheist if....\" has likely spent much time huffing and puffing his faith at actual atheists. Unfortunately, he finds that atheists have built their beliefs upon a solid brick foundation of evidence. Unable to blow it down, he resorts to huffing and puffing at caricatures of atheists' ideas; these straw figures can be blown down easier.

7/30/2006 5:59:24 AM

Anna Ghislaine

1. Concerning the origins of life, you feel that though the chances of life forming without an intelligent creator are small it DID indeed happen that way. And yet you don't believe me when a rock, coming from my direction, hits you in the back of the head and I tell you, \"I didn't throw it. There was a sudden shift in the earth's gravitational pull and the rock levitated into your head...Sure the chances are small but it DID happen that way.\"
The second scenario is impossible (and even if there was such a shift in gravity, everything else would have moved proportionately), but the first one isn't. It is merely unlikely (or so some would say).

2. When you're shown that your view of origins is silly, you can only respond, \"Well...at least it's better than believing in some invisible SKY DADDY!\"
I have yet to be shown that the scientific view of origins is silly.

3. When a Christian points out the impossibility of a biological system (or feature) forming by pure chance you accuse them of invoking a \"God of the gaps\". YET, when you are asked how a particular feature could come about solely by chance you invoke \"Evolution of the gaps\" (i.e., we don't know HOW but we do know that Evolution MUST have done it!)
Indeed, there are no systems that could have formed by pure chance. Evolution is not a chance-based theory. There are no known biological features or systems that cannot have formed by evolution by natural selection. I challenge you to name any. Please don't trot out eyes or bombardier beetles - those have been done to death and shown to be evolvable. (Even if they didn't actually evolve and were created intelligently, it is still true that they could have evolved.)

4. You claim antibiotic-resistant bacteria is proof protozoa evolved into a person.
No. Nobody sensible claims this. You are building straw men.

5. You insist that science is completely partial to all ideas, is not dogmatic and researches all possibilities -- except creationism and/or intelligent design.
It is open to all scientific possibilities. Creationism and ID are not scientific hypotheses because they are not falsifiable. They are not valuable explanations because as soon as you say 'God did it', you are back at square one because you then have to explain how God originated.

6. You claim Creationists don't research on evolution websites before debating against it. Luckily you caught this useful weapon against Christians at the evolution site you learned all about creation doctrine from.
'Cos they don't.

7. You think that every scientist who believes in Creationism and doesn't mindlessly accept evolution as a fact is a \"kook,\" but you believe that Francis Crick (Nobel Prize winning co-discoverer of DNA), who reached into his nether regions and pulled out the \"theory\" of Directed Panspermia (which states with absolutely no support that aliens seeded the earth with life - see the movie \"Mission to Mars\"), is a great evolutionist scientist.
This is ad hominem. Crick was indeed a great scientist (it was actually Mendel who discovered DNA - Crick, Watson, Wilkins and Franklin found out what it was made of and named it) for his work on DNA. Anything else he believed did not detract from this. Newton believed in alchemy, and Einstein introduced an appalling piece of science into his early calculations called the cosmological constant. We should not therefore dismiss their works on gravity.
As an aside, panspermia does not explain the absolute origin of life (because it raises the question of how the alien life started), but this does not mean that life on this planet could not have started that way.

9. When a creationist points out problems with the evolutionist model you claim that the whole point of science is to answer problems like these. But if you can point out even one problem in the creationist model it should instantly be abandoned as absurd.
What problems with the evolution model? And if there are holes in a model with no evidence backing it up, it should indeed be abandoned.

10. You are a person who absolutely believes that life came from nonlife, yet absolutely deny the possibility of anyone rising from the dead.
These are not the same. Life came from nonlife, not from dead life. The first life was also not complex beings like us. When we die we undergo brain death and many other changes that make resurrection unfeasible.

11. You won't bet $10 on the football game because a 50/50 chance isn't good enough, but you have no problem gambling with your life on the nearly impossible odds of a cell randomly generating from nothing.
Cells do not randomly generate. They generate at specific times and according to specific needs (when they don't, we call it cancer). Nor do they generate from nothing - the cell duplicates its chromosomes, which 'swim' to opposite ends of the cell. The cell then splits in the middle, and the two new cells grow to the size of the old one. Also, what does this have to do with evolution?

12. Engaging the \"slippery slope\" fallacy, you think you can invalidate the whole bible by discrediting Genesis, since 'the whole bible either stands together or falls apart'. However, when a Creationist tries to invalidate the whole doctrine of naturalistic evolution by exposing the sheer improbability and lack of evidence of abiogenesis, you note this point as 'irrelevant'.
Go on then, expose this improbability and lack of evidence. Evolution is the most hated theory in existence, so if it didn't have any evidence going for it it would have been torn to shreds decades ago. Even if the origin of life without a divine creator were impossible, this would not rule out the subsequent evolution by natural selection.

7/30/2006 1:02:14 PM

JohnRaptor

\"You Might Be a Fundy Atheist\" Response

(On LiveJournal)

7/31/2006 2:30:08 AM

Crosis

<<< I have an IQ of about 160 >>>

*KABLAM!*

My bullshit detector just overloaded and left a small crater in the floor.

I might give Hovind credit for an IQ of 100 ... in binary.

7/31/2006 4:21:19 AM

Maronan

Originally posted by Anna Ghislaine

Originally posted by Fundie Twit

11. You won't bet $10 on the football game because a 50/50 chance isn't good enough, but you have no problem gambling with your life on the nearly impossible odds of a cell randomly generating from nothing.

Cells do not randomly generate. They generate at specific times and according to specific needs (when they don't, we call it cancer). Nor do they generate from nothing - the cell duplicates its chromosomes, which 'swim' to opposite ends of the cell. The cell then splits in the middle, and the two new cells grow to the size of the old one. Also, what does this have to do with evolution?


Good point, but you forgot to ask two questions.

1. Why are the odds on a football game automatically 50/50?
2. How are you \"betting your life\" on abiogenesis being correct?

7/31/2006 8:57:12 AM

Julian

Nice to see he's learnt his lesson after being arrested and surrendering his passport and STOPPED LYING!!!

DELUDED FUCK!

7/31/2006 1:54:25 PM

NonHomogenized

Enough about Kent Hovind's mental deficiencies, great though they be.

I want to address this: \"I taught science for about fifteen years\"

Can actual science teachers sue kent for slander for saying crap like this?

7/31/2006 2:56:17 PM

miri_rose

Oh, come on! If you're going to lie about your IQ, why not go all the way and claim to be a genius?

7/31/2006 4:22:22 PM

McCulloch

Kent Hovind has an ID of about 160. He hides it well. We won't tell anyone else, his secret is safe. No one will suspect.

7/31/2006 4:48:29 PM

tracer

2. How are you \"betting your life\" on abiogenesis being correct?

Because if Abiogenesis is incorrect, that obviously means that Creationism is correct (since there certainly no other alternatives than those two!), and if Creationism as described in the Old Testament is correct then that obviously means that the New Testament pronouncements about heaven and hell in the afterlife must be correct too.

8/1/2006 11:06:59 PM

tracer

When we die we undergo brain death and many other changes that make resurrection unfeasible.

Unless you go through the Paladin quest chain at level 12. Then resurrection is feasible. (It does cost an awful lot of mana, though.)

8/1/2006 11:07:58 PM

Redhunter

\"I have an IQ of about 160\"

So why does your post sound like it was transcribed by gibbon?

8/14/2006 8:13:31 AM

Kisare

the fail is st--..oh wait, its the tax evader. Neeevermiiiind

1/28/2010 7:29:27 AM

Swede

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell

It seems our "dear" friend Hovind is pretty sure of himself... But, he wouldn't be the first stupid genius. It's not the amount that's important, it's what you DO with it.

Btw, "science" is a pretty wide spectrum. Which kind of science did you teach? Almost everything can be simmered down into science. The most scientific way to clean a bathroom, perhaps? Or the science of selling more hamburgers than all the others? There IS a Hamburger University, after all...

1/28/2010 7:51:07 AM

Anon-e-moose

"I want you to notice throughout this discussion today, Mr. Powers"

I think all that bumming Bubba's been giving in the shower/cell/etc had finally gotten to ol' Kentypoos. He now thinks he's Basil Exposition!

Oh, behave!

@Swede

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell"

Or to paraphrase the good Mr. Russell:

'The trouble with the world is that the intelligent are doubtsure and the stupid are full of cock'

Oh, behave II!

X3

1/28/2010 7:58:08 AM

JohnTheAtheist

There is no way that Hovind's IQ is 160. I read his "dissertation".

Besides, Genesis isn't simple, it is simplistic, ya fucking idiot.

1/28/2010 8:11:24 AM
1 2 3