Moderator Note: The topic of this thread is "Who is your favorite professional creationist?". The past several posts have gone FAR astray of the original topic. Please return to topic or start a new thread.

Thanks.

Today @ 05:51 AM post located here
rthearle:



You did. Don't worry about it.

Roy

Boy do I feel like a dunce.:dunce: Your post was actually meant to be a compliment ,but because of my cynical attitude I mis - read your post as an attack against me.

I then proceded to take up arms and defend myself against the percieved attack

Dr GH brought to my attention the idea that perhaps your post was actually a complimentory one .

So I read your post over again and realized that I was wrong.

So with sincere regret and humility I offer you my apologies .

I will try to be less defensive and quick to judge in the future.


Russ

Socrates: I note that Fedmahn Kassad had no answer to the latter.

Actually I do. It was just late, I was tired, and I forgot to address it. You seem to have a different view of what qualifies as an authority than I do. By your criteria, I would be an authority in biochemistry since I have had some graduate level classes in biochemistry. However, I consider an authority to generally be along the lines of:

1. Someone who has performed research (real research) and published on a subject.
2. Someone who teaches a subject at the university level.
3. Someone who specializes in a subject.

I am sure there are other examples that would qualify as well. But to put Sarfati up as an authority on the eye because he has studied spectroscopy is ludicrous. Give me an anatomist who published a dissertation on the inner workings of the eye. I would agree, though, that the ophthalmologist that you mentioned should be qualified to speak authoritatively on the eye.

Socrates: I don't know where you took chemistry, but in the Antipodes, before people are admitted to a Ph.D. program in any branch of chemistry, they must already have obtained qualifications in a wide range of chemical fields. And abiogenesis impinges directly on physical chemistry because reaction thermodynamics and kinetics are most relevant. Physical chemists also study rates of synthesis and destruction by radiation. See also the Origin of Life thread.

I took chemistry at a top 20 graduate school in the U.S. We also received a good background in all of the branches of chemistry. But if my specialty happened to be physical chemistry, this would hardly make me an authority in organic chemistry, for example. Abiogenesis impinges only superficially on physical chemistry, and it covers a number of different disciplines. I will grant you that kinetics is relevant. But abiogenesis is primarily concerned with reaction mechanisms and biochemistry. As I said, by your standards, I can claim to be an authority on the subject, as can anyone who has expertise in several different areas. But it would be quite pretentious to do so when there are active researchers working and publishing in the field.

That’s one of my gripes with AIG. They love to argue from authority, but their authority is too often misplaced. The general public might not realize that a physical chemist writing about the eye is writing well outside his area of expertise, or that a plant pathologist is not necessarily an authority on biological information, but scientifically literate people do know this. Of course there is nothing wrong with Sarfati writing on any subject he chooses, as long as doesn’t try to present himself as an authority on every subject that might superficially impinge on physical chemistry. After all, there are numerous specialties within physical chemistry as well. I don’t know too many physical chemists who would put themselves forward as authorities on everything from thermo to quantum mechanics to kinetics.

FK

Soc,

Do you know where I could get the audio clip of Gish vs. Doolittle, at Liberty Univ., in 1981? I was born in 1974 and I grew up in San Diego (home of ICR). Gish was one of the prime defenders of creation science and my parents introduced me to him long ago. Incidentally, I attended Liberty Seminary, so I have a few connections to these things (not to mention I debate evolutionists).

My favorite creation scientist . . . . hmmm. Well, some great ones were already mentioned. Ken Ham and Sarfati head up a large, quality institution - AIG. I recommend Ken Ham's book called, "Why Won't They Listen?" After hearing Ken Ham speak, I bought it from the Steeling the Mind Conference, in Colorado Springs (last summer), and read it in about 12 hours.

I also recommend "The Answers Book." Sarfati, Weiland and Ham converge on this dynamic defense of biblical creation. It's a great read and reference book.

Did somebody say Kent Hovind? You mean Dr. Kent Hovind (of course)! My wife has all of his videos and now we actually have his DVDs. Very funny and interesting stuff. It's amazing how much atheists hate him . . . he must be doing something right. Any atheist who has ever visited an organized forum of atheists has surely talked about him or seen people talking about him . . . and I'm certain that "any press is good press" and he is very happy that his name is tossed around - even if they try and debunk him and bring out all of the negatives of his life, ministry, Dinosaur Adventureland, etc.

BTW - If you're in or near Southern California, come and hear the MAC Bible Conference in August! MAC stands for Missions, Apologetics and Creation. Pastor Howard Everett is speaking on Missions, I'm speaking on Apologetics and Kent Hovind is speaking on Creation. You can read about it here: http://macsd.org

God bless,
Jason G

Honestly, I don't think that even other creationist organizations respect Hovind's arguments. He hasn't come up with anything new or not falsified in a few decades. It seems that his hectic travel schedule exempts him from little details like the validity of his arguments.

Today @ 04:02 PM post located here
Jason G:
Did somebody say Kent Hovind? You mean Dr. Kent Hovind (of course)!

No, we mean 'Kent Hovind'.

His PhD "thesis", sorry to say, is not worth the paper it's written on.

http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/...t/pucampus.jpg

Especially if he got a PhD from such a renowned world class scholarly institution like Patriot University:

http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/...t/pucampus.jpg

Even AiG thinks he's a little too far out there:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...q/dont_use.asp

Many of Carl Baugh’s creation ‘evidences’. Sorry to say, AiG thinks that he’s well meaning but that he unfortunately uses a lot of material that is not sound scientifically. So we advise against relying on any ‘evidence’ he provides, unless supported by creationist organisations with reputations for Biblical and scientific rigour. Unfortunately, there are talented creationist speakers with reasonably orthodox understandings of Genesis (e.g. Kent Hovind) who continue to promote some of the Wyatt and Baugh ‘evidences’ despite being approached on the matter.

Kent is not exactly the most intellectually credible creation advocate out there, to put it very mildly.

Also, I'd have to differ with Socrates who claims that Gish was 'unbeatable' during debates. Here's a transcript of the Saladin/Gish debate. Having read it, I think Gish clearly lost this one. Saladin writes:

Following the debate I was surrounded by well-wishers and chagrined creationist students...
...The creationists at my table seemed as disappointed with Gish's performance as Democrats reviewing the last Bush-Dukakis debate. The student organizer seemed almost grudgingly to present me with the check for my expenses and honorarium.

Hmmmm. Let's see. We have an atheist telling me they don't like Kent Hovind . . . and providing some atheist web sites that say more of the same. The point in my last post has been proven (and quite speedily, I might add).

Anyhow, since this thread is about your favorite creation scientist, who is yours, Korihor? And do you have a thesis for us to read and a picture of your university? This isn't it . . . is it?

http://members.aol.com/jcsaves3/toilet.jpg

JG

Today @ 01:31 AM post located here
Jason G:

Hmmmm. Let's see. We have an atheist telling me they don't like Kent Hovind . . . and providing some atheist web sites that say more of the same. The point in my last post has been proven (and quite speedily, I might add).

JG

So AIG is an "atheist web site"? Wow, I've heard it all.

To stay on topic, my favorite Creationist is Kurt Wise. I do believe he is a stand up guy. I have a long list of least favorites, but I guess that's for another thread.

FK

Today @ 07:44 AM post located here
Socrates:

Borrowing and putting in one's own words a small portion of an article would be well within "fair use" provisions of copyright law . Also, it seems to fall within the principle of AiG's permission on the inside cover of Creation magazine for people "who broadly share our ministry aims" to share material "for non-commercial Christian educational purposes."

Actually it is not fair use because you did not cite your source. Furthermore, by academic standards it is still plagiarism and inheriently dishonest to pass someone else's words off as your own.

I've read AIG's statement about Hovind. It is hardly condemning. I'm glad they posted what they think about him and some of his arguments. However, it is clear that they are "on the same side", but they have some differences in opinions and some differences in handling sensitive issues.

I wasn't talking about AIG's sites, though. I was referring to the atheist ones.

JG

Korihor,

Thank you for providing the great link to Hovind's "PhD" thesis. Too bad it can't be reproduced, although on second thought, who needs more toilet paper.

Thanks again,

Minn.

Today @ 06:31 PM post located here
Jason G:

Hmmmm. Let's see. We have an atheist telling me they don't like Kent Hovind . . . and providing some atheist web sites that say more of the same. The point in my last post has been proven (and quite speedily, I might add).

As Fedmahn noted, AiG's not exactly an atheist website, unless there was a miraculous deconversion in their ministry recently.

Anyhow, since this thread is about your favorite creation scientist, who is yours, Korihor?

Check post #2 in this thread to see who, and read why.

By the way, I checked out your website. I lurked in your forum a few times. I also enjoyed your webcast interview/debate with Barker. Do you plan on doing a similar thing some day with an evolutionary biologist? Perhaps try Denis Lamoureux or Glenn Morton (Glenn's actually a geologist). (Neither of them are atheists, by the way).

Just as a point of information, the link describes the US system for awarding PhDs...

There is only one committee member, a Dr. Wayne Knight. Normally, a thesis must pass muster with 3-5 committee members, all of whom make suggestions and ultimately "sign off" on the thesis. Even the undergraduate honors theses at my institution require the signatures of two faculty members.

...but systems differ from country to country. UK PhD vivas, for instance, tend to have just an internal and external examiner, rather than a panel, and it will be the external (an academic from another university) who takes the lead in the examination. The home institution shouldn't have let it get that far if they didn't think it was up to snuff.

I'll be honest - I really don't care whether someone has a PhD or not. I know some fine scholars who don't have one and some complete doofuses who do (and I do mean from high standard universities). I've always thought that one thing a PhD gave you was the tendency not to be impressed by the qualification.

Fedmahn Kassad:

• I am sure there are other examples that would qualify as well. But to put Sarfati up as an authority on the eye because he has studied spectroscopy is ludicrous.

Nonsense -- if people want to whinge about allegedly faulty light detection and processing, it makes perfect sense for someone with great familiarity with artificial light detection and processing devices. Certainly better than an animal behavior specialist like Dawkins or a cell biologist like Miller who just have no idea what they are talking about.

Fedmahn Kassad:

• Give me an anatomist who published a dissertation on the inner workings of the eye. I would agree, though, that the ophthalmologist that you mentioned should be qualified to speak authoritatively on the eye.

That's generous of you, for sure. The combination seemed ideal to me. The opthalmologist can explain the deep workings of the eye, and the spectroscopist can comment on how the light is detected and processed compared to man's puny efforts.

Fedmahn Kassad:

• I took chemistry at a top 20 graduate school in the U.S. We also received a good background in all of the branches of chemistry. But if my specialty happened to be physical chemistry, this would hardly make me an authority in organic chemistry, for example. Abiogenesis impinges only superficially on physical chemistry, and it covers a number of different disciplines. I will grant you that kinetics is relevant. But abiogenesis is primarily concerned with reaction mechanisms and biochemistry.

Actually, the organic chemistry involved is not that difficult for any Ph.D. physical chemist. And the latter is well qualified to discuss the many problems in reaction mechanisms, kinetics as well as noting the cross-reaction problem. Side reactions are the bane of even undergraduate organic synthesis, as is the common need to use protecting groups to prevent these as much as possible. Contamination is also a problem.

Fedmahn Kassad:

• As I said, by your standards, I can claim to be an authority on the subject, as can anyone who has expertise in several different areas.

Then why not contribute to the thread. This issue should be decided by the chemical evidence.

Fedmahn Kassad:

• But it would be quite pretentious to do so when there are active researchers working and publishing in the field.

Indeed, and each branch pokes holes in rival branches. The only thing that they agree upon is their materialistic FAITH.

Fedmahn Kassad:

• That’s one of my gripes with AIG. They love to argue from authority, but their authority is too often misplaced.

Come off it -- where do they commit the argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy? I have seen NOTHING to parallel even remotely the evolutionary propagandists mantra "We should teach evolution because most scientists believe it," or Plimer the mining geologist saying "As a scientist ..." before pontificating about the RNA world. I don't see many evolutionist protesting against this sort of thing.

Fedmahn Kassad:

• The general public might not realize that a physical chemist writing about the eye is writing well outside his area of expertise,

A spectroscopist commenting on the light detection properties of the eye and comparing them with artificial devices is not.

Fedmahn Kassad:

• ... or that a plant pathologist is not necessarily an authority on biological information, but scientifically literate people do know this.

If you mean Dr Batten, he relies on people who ARE experts in information theory such as Dr-Ing Werner Gitt.

Today @ 01:50 AM post located here
Jason G:

I've read AIG's statement about Hovind. It is hardly condemning. I'm glad they posted what they think about him and some of his arguments. However, it is clear that they are "on the same side", but they have some differences in opinions and some differences in handling sensitive issues.

I wasn't talking about AIG's sites, though. I was referring to the atheist ones.

JG

Maybe you should make yourself more clear. You said "We have an atheist telling me they don't like Kent Hovind . . . and providing some atheist web sites that say more of the same."

There were two sites linked to that had something to say about Hovind. One was AIG. Clearly your reference to the plural "atheistic sites" would include AIG.

FK

Korihor:

• Also, I'd have to differ with Socrates who claims that Gish was 'unbeatable' during debates. Here's a transcript of the Saladin/Gish debate. Having read it, I think Gish clearly lost this one. Saladin writes:

Oh, naturally Saladin would claim that he won. But then look at the notes where Saladin claims: "in theistic trigonometry pi = 3.0 (see 1 Kings 7:23)." That boring old canard is almost enough by itself to write off Saladin as a charlatan -- but that's typical of the bozos who associate with the Internet Infudgels.