NamelessFaceless wrote:Was he cooking crack at about :26?

Haha, nah I think he was melting sugar.

Oh. Phew.

Some crack might improve his performance.

Onyx8 wrote:Some crack might improve his performance.

Must ... not ... post ... obvious ... response ...

Rumraket wrote:I would like to have it pointed out where I have criticised Hovind's position on the basis of the use of the word fearful.

Since I did not say that you had criticised his position I can hardly point where you may have done so. I criticised the act of presuming a singular interpretation of meaning of a word, when viable and plausible alternatives were on hand. It would not be acceptable in a scientific paper; it should not be acceptable in a discourse on science.

Except, of course, numerous words in scientific papers co-opted from everyday language, are given different meanings from those seen in everyday usage, as a result of paying attention to detail and rigour when formulating concepts. Not something one sees occurring very often in the world of mythology, if ever, and something that is definitely never seen in creationist apologetics, where playing shell games with different word meanings is merely one of the discoursive offences committed thereby.

Ironically, as real biology takes us to ever more detailed and nuanced understandings about how totally natural designoid processes work to produce the wonderful bauplans that we see around us, this nincompoop is trying to poison children's minds with his toxic pseudo-science.

Rumraket wrote:In any case I would like to add that Eric's position on these matters is so intellectually subnormal as to be worthy of nothing more than mockery and instant dismissal. To afford it the attention of serious criticism is to waste more time on it than it deserves.

And that approach will work every time with those who are in the process of making up their minds? Perhaps you are indifferent to the educational potential of forums such as this.

JohnGalt wrote:

Rumraket wrote:In any case I would like to add that Eric's position on these matters is so intellectually subnormal as to be worthy of nothing more than mockery and instant dismissal. To afford it the attention of serious criticism is to waste more time on it than it deserves.

And that approach will work every time with those who are in the process of making up their minds? Perhaps you are indifferent to the educational potential of forums such as this.

I think you should take a look at my posting history.

Rumraket wrote:I think you should take a look at my posting history.

How would that change the conclusion one is compelled to reach from the single post I am commenting on?

Try the fact that a significant proportion of his 10,000+ posts have been devoted to the examination and dissection of creationist assertions. including the referencing of dozens of scientific papers in order to do so, and the exposition in detail of the contents of many of those papers. On the basis of this discoursive history, it's safe to assume he's done his homework on the subject.

Then this single post - the one I am addressing - does not convey that same message. Rumraket is able, readily, to see the deficiencies in Eric's position precisely because of his knowledge, research and training. If we wish to attract young people to science and move at least some adults who have anti-science beliefs away from ill considered opinions, then it is important that we not come across as elitist and patronising. Unfortunately describing someones views as being intellectually subnormal and worthy of nothing more than mockery and instant dismissal will be perceived as elitist by those not already convinced of the value and nature of science and who lack the background to understand the evaluation is valid.

I am surprised that a member with Rumraket's posting history would be dismissive of this point and that a member of the mod/admin team would seemingly support such a view.

(My own posting history on this forum is sufficiently short that I do not know if these points should have been raised elsewhere in the forum or perhaps not at all. I'll take your instruction on that point.)

I'm having trouble understanding why you seem to think it should be Rumraket's responsibility to address every incorrect assertion posted on this site, or even on this thread, regardless of how absurd it is. This thread is about Eric Hovind, who is not even a member here AFAICT and has not directly made a statement or asked a question here. And neither has anyone else. Who is Rumraket even supposed to be educating here? If you have a question, ask it and I'm sure it will be addressed. For now, though, this was just a point-and-laugh thread. Geez, give the dude a break already.

There are no claims of Eric Hovind's in this thread, there is just a video that advertises the chance to learn biology with him. There's nothing to debunk should I even bother. I can't debunk comedy.

NamelessFaceless wrote:I'm having trouble understanding why you seem to think it should be Rumraket's responsibility to address every incorrect assertion posted on this site, or even on this thread, regardless of how absurd it is.

I can understand your puzzlement. However, I have not said that Rumraket, or any other member should do so. I do maintain - very strongly - that if one is going to make a comment about incorrect assertions there are broadly two approaches:

1. Poke fun at it.
2. Correct it.

With an almost life long interest in education I find the former silly and counter productive, in most cases, while the latter is of value to all concerned.

^^ This is all very well.

Having an interest in education, lifelong or otherwise, is one thing, especially when those being educated actually want to be educated.

When they don't want to be educated, because they're children and don't know any better, that's another thing.

But when they don't want to be educated, on the grounds that they already have all the education they need, thank you very much, and in fact think that you should be getting your education from them (and that you'll go to hell if you decline), that's a thing of a very different kind.

It can seem a little patronising when the three are conflated.

Pinched from Blake's Tyger?

What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

Not that I've any idea why symmetry should be fearful.

TopCat wrote:^^ This is all very well.

Having an interest in education, lifelong or otherwise, is one thing, especially when those being educated actually want to be educated.

When they don't want to be educated, because they're children and don't know any better, that's another thing.

But when they don't want to be educated, on the grounds that they already have all the education they need, thank you very much, and in fact think that you should be getting your education from them (and that you'll go to hell if you decline), that's a thing of a very different kind.

It can seem a little patronising when the three are conflated.

I've done a third rate job of making my argument clear. I hold out little hope of persuading more than a very small fraction of long-term, dedicated YEC's that they are mistaken. My concern is for the significant number of people who are undecided, many of whom lurk on forums such as this, looking for guidance.

The patronising tones implicit in "poking fun" at what we consider a dumb idea is more likely than not to turn the lurker away from science and towards the YECs. I don't think that's desirable and am willing to forego a little humour to prevent it.

JohnGalt wrote:The patronising tones implicit in "poking fun" at what we consider a dumb idea is more likely than not to turn the lurker away from science and towards the YECs. I don't think that's desirable and am willing to forego a little humour to prevent it.

Yes, true, but a little light relief occasionally, from the grind of debunking it all (again) isn't unreasonable. And you'll notice that whenever they actually do engage, their claims are treated seriously enough to educate, if not in a way that legitimises them.

Have you actually watched any of Eric's videos? If not, I defy you to watch a couple, and not to giggle, at least a little.

Incidentally, I'm not convinced that the poking fun is necessarily patronising. Sometimes having one's ideas pointed out as ridiculous isn't a bad thing. And a genuine seeker of truth might then take a look at why.

TopCat wrote:

JohnGalt wrote:Have you actually watched any of Eric's videos? If not, I defy you to watch a couple, and not to giggle, at least a little.

I really wish I could laugh at them, but they generally enrage me. How can anyone be so damnably dumb? Worse, refusing to use their (allegedly) god-given intelligence to investigate the universe is an insult to their god. ..... Then I calm down and seek to reason with them.

TopCat wrote:

JohnGalt wrote:Incidentally, I'm not convinced that the poking fun is necessarily patronising. Sometimes having one's ideas pointed out as ridiculous isn't a bad thing. And a genuine seeker of truth might then take a look at why.

Different techniques work on different people at different times. If it is our intent to educate (and I appreciate that this may be of no interest to some) then we need to assess where our audience are currently at and what technique will work best on them. My general observation is that the ridicule approach works in only a minority of specific settings.