• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Darwin and the Hovind

sago

New Blood
S
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
8
So I was talking to a friend about the Darwin (the unit of evolutionary change - the change in the logarithm of a measurement per million years). I happened to mention Hovind, and my friend said "what does the Hovind measure"?

So let us hereby define the Hovind as the canonical quantitative measure of crappy science...

Where internationally respected scientists should expect to have scientific output of around 0 Hv, and Hovind himself (if he weren't behind bars) might be running at some very large number (c. infinity, perhaps).

Anyone want to suggest the mathematical definition of the Hovind?

Ian.
 
I thought a Hovind was that new sex toy in the prison system :D

Mathamatically this can be shown as Hovind = 69-1
 
Last edited:
sago said:
So I was talking to a friend about the Darwin (the unit of evolutionary change - the change in the logarithm of a measurement per million years). I happened to mention Hovind, and my friend said "what does the Hovind measure"?

So let us hereby define the Hovind as the canonical quantitative measure of crappy science...

Where internationally respected scientists should expect to have scientific output of around 0 Hv, and Hovind himself (if he weren't behind bars) might be running at some very large number (c. infinity, perhaps).

Anyone want to suggest the mathematical definition of the Hovind?

Ian.
Click to expand...


1 Hovind = FPMITAP^2
 
1 Hovind = 10 "scientists" who agree with you but are afraid of going public for fear of retribution
= 5 claims repeatedly debunked yet repeated as if they weren't
= 12 arguments by personal incredulity
= 2 appeals to "free exchange of ideas" while simultaneously suppressing those that you disagree with
= 15 appeals to "teach the controversy" where none, in fact, exists.
= 20 willful misrepresentations of the opposing, well supported, theory
= 47 quotes by actual scientists taken out of context
= 13 complaints that the opposing, well supported, theory doesn't answer questions it was never intended to
= 15 "peer reviewed" publications that weren't reviewed, let alone by peers
= 10 years in prison for tax evasion
 
tsg said:
1 Hovind = 10 "scientists" who agree with you but are afraid of going public for fear of retribution
= 5 claims repeatedly debunked yet repeated as if they weren't
= 12 arguments by personal incredulity
= 2 appeals to "free exchange of ideas" while simultaneously suppressing those that you disagree with
= 15 appeals to "teach the controversy" where none, in fact, exists.
= 20 willful misrepresentations of the opposing, well supported, theory
= 47 quotes by actual scientists taken out of context
= 13 complaints that the opposing, well supported, theory doesn't answer questions it was never intended to
= 15 "peer reviewed" publications that weren't reviewed, let alone by peers
= 10 years in prison for tax evasion
Click to expand...

And a partridge in a pear tree.
 
tsg said:
1 Hovind = 10 "scientists" who agree with you but are afraid of going public for fear of retribution
= 5 claims repeatedly debunked yet repeated as if they weren't
= 12 arguments by personal incredulity
= 2 appeals to "free exchange of ideas" while simultaneously suppressing those that you disagree with
= 15 appeals to "teach the controversy" where none, in fact, exists.
= 20 willful misrepresentations of the opposing, well supported, theory
= 47 quotes by actual scientists taken out of context
= 13 complaints that the opposing, well supported, theory doesn't answer questions it was never intended to
= 15 "peer reviewed" publications that weren't reviewed, let alone by peers
= 10 years in prison for tax evasion
Click to expand...
I think most of that only adds up to about a quarter Hovind.
 
Wowbagger said:
I think most of that only adds up to about a quarter Hovind.
Click to expand...

If that's the case, then we're going to have to make the milliHovind the standard unit in order to be in any way useful.
 
The unit for the rate of creationism should obviously be the Gish, where 1 Gish = 0.1 mHv / sec (or, to put it another way, a lie every ten seconds).
 
Last edited:
How about the number of bits of 'science' output as direct appeals to the public divided by the number of bits of science published in reputable journals? Where zero in both cases is defined to give 1.

So your average scientist might have zero output. Popular science writers like Dawkins might end up with 1 some years.

And, of course, most actual pseudo-scientists come out at infinity.

---

Having said that it would be soooo cute to be able to quantify mHv/s ... :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom