... to League of Nerds and Realistic Opportunist on Hovind (part 1)

1) ... to League of Nerds and Realistic Opportunist on Hovind (part 1) · 2) ... continuing a Real Oldie For you! · 3) ... continuing with Shane Wilson : very short overview of Dating Methods + Flaws

video commented on (beginning of it)

#007- Kent Hovind- The League of Nerds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-lk7ZhZjXA

I

05:23 "But he must know he is so very wrong" ... He knows he is "so very wrong" in your yes, you are in his (and mine).

II

05:48 "can only synthesise up to iron, but after that where does it come from? God did that" plus your reaction "we know about stars that exploded, ow do you think Californium was discovered?"

My main point here: where does he get it from that stars can even synthesise UP TO iron all the way from H and He?

Californium has presumably sth to do with heavy elements kicking around particles from state of neutron to state of proton by loss of electron. But between He and Fe you do not get any radioactive elements, or perhaps just Radium (not sure where it is*).

If you have a complete list of elements forming in a neat chain from H and He to Fe and U, and how it is done, feel free to share the page.** Or create a wiki about it.

As to the other clearly improbable alternative, see my blog post on Thomism (be back in a moment).

Link as promised in lines you have to click to look at:

New blog on the kid : Proximate causes are not always secondary
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2013/12/proximate-causes-are-not-always.html

* Not sure where Radium is in the Periodic Table that is.

** Not meaning the Periodoc table, that is why I added words "and how it is done". I mean a page about each type of fusion. And preferrably what observed star light seems to indicate it is going on within the star.

III

Did he anywhere say the oxygen was higher in percentage as opposed to nitrogen or can he have meant the oxygen level per volume was greater?

If that would not have had same biological effect, I have another theory about waters above the heavens: hydrogen. It could be called either nothing or air or water in precemic language, and some of it combined with atmosperic oxygen to form he waters of the flood, meaning oxygen levels would in that case have been higher before oxygen was used up for making water with same hydrogen.

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Moses, Church Fathers, Oxygen and Hydrogen (featuring Kent Hovind and Hugh Ross, separate videos)
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2013/09/on-moses-church-fathers-oxygen-and.html

realisticoppurtunist

If there was that much hydrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere the first spark or bolt of lightning would have lit everything on fire. Like, literally everything. Not to mention the vastly increased air pressure that would exist if you had that much extra gas in the atmosphere. And how would it have just combined? Divine magic?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

+realisticoppurtunist In my scenario:

• a) H2 would be above O2 and separated until the Flood (remember, H2 is lighter)
• b) the combining spark would not light anything or anything much since high up in the atmosphere, except the H2+O2 mixture itself, probably, and what would come down from it would not be fire but water
• c) Higher airpressure before the flood was one of Hovinds points about why people and animals lived longer and grew bigger. And had less diseases.

Whether the combination was an act directly of God or of angels serving him, it was an act of spirit ruling matter. Which is, on a Christian philosophic view, the most basic law of nature. Next to God ruling all creatures, material or spiritual.

[again] : Proximate causes are not always secondary causes as above

IV

Telomeres may have been shortened after Flood.

But actually he has a point: speed of telomere deletion may be linked to oxygen level, it is not like someone actually tried living in hyperbaric pressure and pure oxygen for years.

[remember, in my scenario some O2 was not so much released upward as used up to form Ocean Water - before that more of it was in the atmosphere, but Ni was not similarily used up, if my guess is right. So it would have been closer to living in pure oxygen.]

realisticoppurtunist

That makes no sense whatsoever. Telomere deletion has to do with the end replication problem and free radicals within the cell, not molecular O2 levels in the cell.

Hans-Georg Lundahl (modified for spelling correction)

+realisticoppurtunist I know very well the telomere deletion has to do with end replication problem. That is my argument against the PZMyers' scenario for centromere duplication and then split in the area between duplicated centromeres as "chromosome fission".

MY point - not Hovinds - is that God may have made the replication problems worse after the Flood, and that is why we live shorter lives.

As for HIS point, I am not sure you are right in presuming O2 levels have no counteraction against free radicals. I am pretty sure he may be right that increased exposure to cosmic radiation may increase free radicals too. Unless it hastens replication problems more directly.

realisticoppurtunist

"God may have made the replication problems worse"... the end-replication problem isn't some sort of divine mechanism. It will be the same so long as DNA is replicated in the same way. Hate to break it to you, but DNA Polymerase hasn't really changed all that much in the past couple of thousand years.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

+realisticoppurtunist Ah, you were around testing it five thousand years ago?

Seriously, I gave two or three different suggestions:

• 1) God made the telomeres simply shorter - less telomerase as to quantity - for the starting point
  
  
• 2) God changed its susceptibility to the shortening processes: shortening is in principle the same before Flood and now, but concretely simply faster now than then
  
  
• 3) God added to the shortening processes or detacted from such as delay shortening, like more X-rays and less O2 / Nitrogen and less air pressure.

God does not need any of these things to be "divine mechanisms" to be able to do that. The basic law of nature is "creature cannot oppose its Creator". Or in other words "I believe in God Father ALMIGHTY" etc.

V

Your point about quack is like a bit selfserving. As for scientific, science is pretty much guess work anyway, is guesses are as scientific as yours, since they are not completely without back up.

Yours are without back up ultimately insofar as they contradict the Holy Writ. Which he is careful not to do.

realisticoppurtunist

"science is pretty much guess work anyway". That is simply not true. We observe what the natural world does, there's no guessing involved. Hovind is not being scientific at all ever. He blindly assumes the bible to be literally true and then force-fits anything and everything that he can into that view, and ignores everything else.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

+realisticoppurtunist Remember I have heard him, and that is not the impression I get. But I am not a fanatic science believer, though I have a scientific outlook through linguistics and private interest in, among other things, creationism. Forcefitting is not his fault, probably more like yours.

"We observe what the natural world does, there's no guessing involved."

On the accounts where he polemises against you, and where I polemise against you, there is no direct observation and plenty of guesswork on your side.

There is inference from observed to non-observed. That means guessing what parts of the reality we observe are parallelled in the parts we do not observe.

Note that on our view there is not this need to guess about non-observed when it comes to either outer space or beginning of earth and mankind. We believe there was always God observing His own creation.

The League of Nerds

+Hans-Georg Lundahl We amount evidence and form a theory we then test that theory with experimentation. Quacks get a theory then attempt to convince others of it so that they can make money, even when experimentation shows their theory to be flawed or just plain made up. It is true that there are things we can't not directly observe but that is why experimentation is important (among other reasons) by testing the theory we can directly compare it to nature.

Your statement that you believe God is always there is the same as saying that you 'Guess that God is always'.

I disagree with Hovind and you that we suffer from force-fitting, science starts from the position of what is the universe truly like and seeks evidence based on testing ideas, we discard those which fail to be testable or are test and shown to be wrong. Creationist start from we have the answer what can we find to support it and more importantly what do we have to try and disprove to protect it.

Further you're 'idea' regarding H2 would be wrong, H2 would just bleed off as hydrogen and helium do currently. Without constant miracles keeping this canopy in place the whole system would collapse and already have cooked the entire planet off. If you want to believe that there was a canopy kept aloft by God great, but do not try and rationalise it with science. A rule of thumb I'd use if it requires a miracle to work it's not science.

I think the point about everything catching fire is not to do with the O2 in the canopy but the increased pressure such a thing would cause, in much the same way a diesel engine works increasing the pressure would mean that combustion would happen more easily.

I've tried to be polite as possible in this post as you have yourself and I'd ask others reading this and your comments to continue to do so. -James

Hans-Georg Lundahl

+The league of Nerds "we discard those which fail to be testable or are test and shown to be wrong."

Creationists, we claim that honour for us, and consider those words in YOUR mouth bragging. Exposing that is what Hovind is about and what the Creationist movement in general is about.

As for politeness, seeing I am snarky myself - deservedly so - I can hardly apply for it. But I do not resent it either.

+The league of Nerds "Your statement that you believe God is always there is the same as saying that you 'Guess that God is always'."

Not quite, since God has proven himself quite a Historic entity. From talking to Adam and Eve to latest miracle in Lourdes.

+The league of Nerds "Further you're 'idea' regarding H2 would be wrong, H2 would just bleed off as hydrogen and helium do currently."

Here I take refuge in the magnetic field.

+The league of Nerds "I think the point about everything catching fire is not to do with the O2 in the canopy but the increased pressure such a thing would cause, in much the same way a diesel engine works increasing the pressure would mean that combustion would happen more easily. "

Since that did not appear from your pal's words - assuming realisticopportunist is such - I think you are polite to him. More than to me in this point.

OK, fires happened more easily before the flood, if such was the case, but does not mean everything got lost in fire.

I could have been wrong too, but I am so far not feeling forced to admit it.

What is the level of oxygen pressure at which everything would burn too easily?

Besides, some critters from back then seemed to enjoy coastlines and swamps. Like where water would be easily available if the wood caught fire.

+The league of Nerds "It is true that there are things we can't not directly observe but that is why experimentation is important (among other reasons) by testing the theory we can directly compare it to nature."

Millions of years are not testable as experiment. Millions of tons of stellar or planetary matter are not available either as lab equipment.

If it is far away or far back in time - supposedly before any observer (according to Atheists) - it is not testable. It is once again a guess which experiments are most relevant.

+The league of Nerds "A rule of thumb I'd use if it requires a miracle to work it's not science."

If it requires a miracle without a God to perform it, it is certainly no science. If it goes to the point where the secondary cause has for its own proximate cause not another secondary cause but God, it can be and often is science.

[Corrections on html as well as links to ocntinuation in 2016/HGL]