Can Kent Hovind be shown to be decietful

[Mugnuts]

Now the title may be cutting it close to being defamatory, but it's the most affable way I could put it down and still adhere to the reason for the topic.

Recently I made a few comments on a Kent Hovind Video on youtube (the actual video is not important). The comments turned to Hovind's troubles with the law and prisons sentences, justification for the prosecution and so on. What it comes down to now is a challenge to prove that Hovind is a liar. There are a few other things I would like to address from the statement and I honestly don't think that the "requestor" will actually come here, but in that event I'd still like to present a case for it anyway without being defamatory and backing up the question with links, sources and a few humorous moments as well.

From the Comment of said video _ (I won't yet put a link to the said video or use this person's name unless I have his/her permission)

This topic is utterly retarded and the discussion is purely based on opinion. You want to call him a liar. Outright prove it. Don't try to use his prison sentence for that. The only thing that this whole kent situation made me realize was just how far gone the USA justice system is. You hammer on the guy due to bias against the work he has done. Sadly what you don't realize is that his work actually, to some extent, forces scientists to be more accurate and truthful in their own work. But you won't see that.

All I see are atheists that support sending a man to prison. A man that stands against what they believe and actually fights for the truth. And yes. The only people I've seen support this whole "Kent in Prison" situation are Atheists. Funny hey

You guys call him a liar. Funny thing is he has done more work on these fields than any of you have. Regardless of what your opinion is on the work he has done that is a fact. You guys sit back in arrogance due to the work and ideas of others. If you truly believe in your Atheistic "world view" then a man like Kent Hovind should not bother you guys. Yet you seem to be quite angry about the guy. Guess he threatens your beliefs or something. Oh wait , Sorry, Atheism is the act of non belief. Which is just a bullshit way of saying you believe the negative of a topic. Why else would you people have such strong negative feelings towards him.

I'll just leave this open for a bit for this person to see if they are willing to come and be a part of this or not. Now I know that this isn't the first time that Hovind has been taken to task as his claims and stories are as easy to debunk as shooting fish in a barrel, and the fish are also sharks, but I'm not particularly busy so...

 

[Francois]

How do you prove someone is a liar?

If he believes everything he says, He's not lying. If the information someone gives you is not correct but they believe it to be correct, They are not lying to you. Merely misguided. I'm not saying that Hovind is misguided or that his information is not correct. That's a different topic.

Do you have any proof that makes him out to be willingly deceitful or a liar?

 

[Francois]

Sorry was testing the posts with this one

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Now the title may be cutting it close to being defamatory, but it's the most affable way I could put it down and still adhere to the reason for the topic.

Recently I made a few comments on a Kent Hovind Video on youtube (the actual video is not important). The comments turned to Hovind's troubles with the law and prisons sentences, justification for the prosecution and so on. What it comes down to now is a challenge to prove that Hovind is a liar. There are a few other things I would like to address from the statement and I honestly don't think that the "requestor" will actually come here, but in that event I'd still like to present a case for it anyway without being defamatory and backing up the question with links, sources and a few humorous moments as well.

From the Comment of said video _ (I won't yet put a link to the said video or use this person's name unless I have his/her permission)

This topic is utterly retarded and the discussion is purely based on opinion. You want to call him a liar. Outright prove it. Don't try to use his prison sentence for that. The only thing that this whole kent situation made me realize was just how far gone the USA justice system is. You hammer on the guy due to bias against the work he has done. Sadly what you don't realize is that his work actually, to some extent, forces scientists to be more accurate and truthful in their own work. But you won't see that.

All I see are atheists that support sending a man to prison. A man that stands against what they believe and actually fights for the truth. And yes. The only people I've seen support this whole "Kent in Prison" situation are Atheists. Funny hey

You guys call him a liar. Funny thing is he has done more work on these fields than any of you have. Regardless of what your opinion is on the work he has done that is a fact. You guys sit back in arrogance due to the work and ideas of others. If you truly believe in your Atheistic "world view" then a man like Kent Hovind should not bother you guys. Yet you seem to be quite angry about the guy. Guess he threatens your beliefs or something. Oh wait , Sorry, Atheism is the act of non belief. Which is just a bullshit way of saying you believe the negative of a topic. Why else would you people have such strong negative feelings towards him.

I'll just leave this open for a bit for this person to see if they are willing to come and be a part of this or not. Now I know that this isn't the first time that Hovind has been taken to task as his claims and stories are as easy to debunk as shooting fish in a barrel, and the fish are also sharks, but I'm not particularly busy so...

Hey Mugnuts,

I do think it is wrong to attack him about him going to prison instead of his theories and even though I disagree with Kent Hovind he is a brother in Christ.I agree with him on most things and he is not wrong about everything he believes and teaches.I do believe he is sincere to teach and preach the truth I just disagree with him about a young earth and despite his good intentions a lot of his teaching makes God's word wrong from a scientific perspective when it is not necessary.

Say what you will about Kent Hovind but he held his on in debates with evolutionists and he is partly the reason I started realizing how weak the evidence for evolution really is because if it was true the evolutionists he debated would just present the evidence to prove or demonstrate life evolves to prove him wrong and they never did,they just pretty much preached evolution was true and told about all of the evidence for evolution.

 

[Mugnuts]

How do you prove someone is a liar?

If he believes everything he says, He's not lying. If the information someone gives you is not correct but they believe it to be correct, They are not lying to you. Merely misguided. I'm not saying that Hovind is misguided or that his information is not correct. That's a different topic.

Do you have any proof that makes him out to be willingly deceitful or a liar?

I'm just going to start simple here. These videos are fairly old but are pretty much the example of Mr. Hovind being deliberately deceitful.






There are valid points raised to Mr. Hovind's criticism towards carbon dating in which he cites his information with real sources. However after scrutiny of Hovind's claims and actually reading the papers, you can find when and where only parts of the information presented from the citations fit with Hovinds explanations, but do not represent the accuracy of said papers and studies.



The second part of the video hones in on the specific claim and the actual correction to Mr. Hovind's presentation of the facts. It is explained out clearly where Hovind is being inaccurate. However when Hovind after the correction repeats the same original story regarding the papers, it cannot be merely a misinformed presentation of facts, it is intent to present the facts incorrectly on purpose to reach the same original goal.

I'm not sure if you have ever been part of a trial or watched a real one? It is something of a rarity when a lawyer attempts to do something like this, but some do and it is priceless to witness how the judge reacts.



So that's just one example. Are you familiar with where Mr.Hovind acquired his PHD?

 

[Francois]

I think this is an exaggeration of the wrong topic. The mollusk shells example and all the other examples are there to show you how far off and inconsistent the tests could be. With or without outside forces.
Now with the mollusk shells the article says what the reason there for is. Same goes for the seal. The point is it is effected by outside forces. In his seminar he says that for people to assume the test is accurate they have to assume that the rate at which the carbon 14, or any other ( potassium argon etc), decays has to be constant and that they don't always know the outside forces etc. He is arguing that the tests are inaccurate and he uses articles that show inaccuracies. Yeah maybe he should mention the reasons but in the end it still supports his argument.
If you apply this argument to a test that is considered accurate the same questions apply. Was the decay rate always the same over the "billions" of years and was there any outside forces. Was the amount of c14 in the atmosphere the same as it is now etc. It's impossible to know and they assume these questions to be true or false. He actually says this in the one seminar.

I don't think he is being deceitful. The second video shows that he wants his work to be accurate. The video hammers on the fact that he can't remember the person he quoted. Uhm have you watched his seminars? The amount of information this guy goes through over the 20 or more hours of videos is quite a lot. He forgets one name and now he is being deceitful? That's a bit of an overreaction don't you think?
Lucy. Uhm page numbers? really? He got page numbers wrong. Yeah so? I'm a computer programmer. Do you know how easy it is for people to make mistakes? The information was still there. Just on a different page.

He makes silly little mistakes and you want to call him a liar etc. I don't agree with your observation on this and I feel that you are making this out to be a lot worse than it really is.

Books, especially science books, have different revisions etc. The reason for that is because they fix errors found in the books or remove information that is found to be inaccurate etc. This guy has been in prison for how many years now. So when should he revise his work?

I'm pretty sure that people don't go and say that scientists are liars when they make small mistakes like these in articles or textbooks. They revise them etc. I remember sitting in classrooms and having to draw lines through some pages because the authors notified the schools that certain parts were wrong etc. Unfortunately Kent is in Prison. So he can't do that. It would be unfair to judge him before allowing him to revise his work.

That second video actually shows that he wants to be accurate in his work. But the only thing that is seen is the fact that at that point he couldn't remember a name and must be deceitful because of it. How is this logical?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Do you have any proof that makes him out to be willingly deceitful or a liar?

Well, there is the claim that he is defining evolution, and goes on to give erroneous definitions that have nothing to do with evolution. Hovind claims to have researched this topic for years, yet is unable to accurately define evolution. He is either lying about his research or lying about evolution. There is also the claim that he taught science in high school for X amount of years. He also used a textbook/chapter about the origin of our solar system, yet tried to make it appear as if it were talking about the origin of our universe. He also called himself a doctor for years, while not earning a PhD or MD from any accredited university. Those are just a few examples I can think of off the top of my head.

Now with the mollusk shells the article says what the reason there for is. Same goes for the seal. The point is it is effected by outside forces. In his seminar he says that for people to assume the test is accurate they have to assume that the rate at which the carbon 14, or any other ( potassium argon etc), decays has to be constant and that they don't always know the outside forces etc. He is arguing that the tests are inaccurate and he uses articles that show inaccuracies. Yeah maybe he should mention the reasons but in the end it still supports his argument.

Affected by outside forces? That is not what the papers say. Can I venture a guess that you learned this from Hovind as well? Neither of those papers talked about the decay rate of carbon-14 being affected by outside forces. What they talk about is how mollusks are detritus feeders, so the carbon they are taking in is already old. Thus, the results of their decay rates are not accurate. The same goes for the seal since it lives in the ocean and is high on the food chain. Radiocarbon dating is most accurate in plants, since they directly take up the carbon from their environment. The further away one moves from plants, the less accurate the dating method is. This limitation of radiocarbon dating has been known for decades, thus this does not support his argument. It only shows that he is willing to twist the limits of a tool to support his preconceived notions and deceive his audience. Again, Hovind should know this since he supposedly studied this subject for years. This is taught in Geology 101 across the world (some high school textbooks cover this point as well; tis not a hard concept to grasp).

If you apply this argument to a test that is considered accurate the same questions apply. Was the decay rate always the same over the "billions" of years and was there any outside forces. Was the amount of c14 in the atmosphere the same as it is now etc. It's impossible to know and they assume these questions to be true or false. He actually says this in the one seminar.

Radiocarbon dating has its limits, and Hovind is exploiting those limits in order to deceive his audience into believing that all radiometric dating methods are flawed from the start. Furthermore, radiometric dating is not the only absolute dating method used in order to establish deep time. There are several that are used and they all cross confirm each other.

I'm pretty sure that people don't go and say that scientists are liars when they make small mistakes like these in articles or textbooks. They revise them etc. I remember sitting in classrooms and having to draw lines through some pages because the authors notified the schools that certain parts were wrong etc. Unfortunately Kent is in Prison. So he can't do that. It would be unfair to judge him before allowing him to revise his work.

If I am not mistaken, does not Kent Hovind have a seminar entitled something along the lines of “Lies in your Textbooks”? If not Kent, I know of several other creationists who have done so. Thus, this does happen, and I am not saying that science proponents do not do this as well, but please do not act as if Hovind and his ilk are above the fray.

 

[Rumraket]

How do you prove someone is a liar?

If he believes everything he says, He's not lying. If the information someone gives you is not correct but they believe it to be correct, They are not lying to you. Merely misguided. I'm not saying that Hovind is misguided or that his information is not correct. That's a different topic.

Do you have any proof that makes him out to be willingly deceitful or a liar?

I agree, we can't prove that Hovind is being deliberately deceitful. Personally I think he's crazy. As in slightly mentally ill. And I think the fact that he holds his religious beliefs so fundamentally and literally as he does, and is so manifestly impervious to change, evidence and rational argumentation, is evidence of this.

Simply put, Hovind has been arguing with many well-educated, well-meaning and intelligent people who have informed him time and again about the facts. But none of this has managed to have any bearing on Hovind's beliefs or his output. Given that the cases against his beliefs are overwhelming, the most sensible and non-cynical explanation is that he's simply deluded. Crazy. Mentally ill. Use whatever term that applies to describe the phenomenon of refusing to change your mind in the face of overwhelming evidence. Batshit is fitting too.

A cynic would say he's a charlatan and is deliberately lying about the whole thing to try and cheat people out of their money. I don't think so, I think true charlatans like that are relatively rare. Most religious fundamentalists are sincere in their beliefs, it's just that their beliefs make them nuts. I think Kent Hovind is nuts.

 

[Francois]

Well, there is the claim that he is defining evolution, and goes on to give erroneous definitions that have nothing to do with evolution. Hovind claims to have researched this topic for years, yet is unable to accurately define evolution. He is either lying about his research or lying about evolution. There is also the claim that he taught science in high school for X amount of years. He also used a textbook/chapter about the origin of our solar system, yet tried to make it appear as if it were talking about the origin of our universe. He also called himself a doctor for years, while not earning a PhD or MD from any accredited university. Those are just a few examples I can think of off the top of my head.

The discussion is about the message and if he is lying within that message. Not the messengers background. I'm not bothered by the non accredited christian college he got his PhD from. I take and analyze what he says. He also states in his one video that if people don't want to recognize his PhD then they should call him whatever they want and get back to the actual issue.

Affected by outside forces? That is not what the papers say. Can I venture a guess that you learned this from Hovind as well? Neither of those papers talked about the decay rate of carbon-14 being affected by outside forces. What they talk about is how mollusks are detritus feeders, so the carbon they are taking in is already old. Thus, the results of their decay rates are not accurate. The same goes for the seal since it lives in the ocean and is high on the food chain. Radiocarbon dating is most accurate in plants, since they directly take up the carbon from their environment. The further away one moves from plants, the less accurate the dating method is. This limitation of radiocarbon dating has been known for decades, thus this does not support his argument. It only shows that he is willing to twist the limits of a tool to support his preconceived notions and deceive his audience. Again, Hovind should know this since he supposedly studied this subject for years. This is taught in Geology 101 across the world (some high school textbooks cover this point as well; tis not a hard concept to grasp).

so the carbon they are taking in is already old

is what I mean by "outside forces". So whatever you want to call it.

Radiocarbon dating has its limits, and Hovind is exploiting those limits in order to deceive his audience into believing that all radiometric dating methods are flawed from the start. Furthermore, radiometric dating is not the only absolute dating method used in order to establish deep time. There are several that are used and they all cross confirm each other.

No they don't. But that's not what the topic is.

If I am not mistaken, does not Kent Hovind have a seminar entitled something along the lines of “Lies in your Textbooks”? If not Kent, I know of several other creationists who have done so. Thus, this does happen, and I am not saying that science proponents do not do this as well, but please do not act as if Hovind and his ilk are above the fray.

Yes he calls it "lies in the textbooks". He does not point fingers at anyone unless it directly relates to evidence that is either false, fabricated or assumed. My point in regards to Kent being called a liar is that you have to prove that he does actually knowingly give information that he knows is False, but gives it as true information. if he gives information that he believes is true, yet it might be false or is false, then that does not make him a liar.

 

[Francois]

I agree, we can't prove that Hovind is being deliberately deceitful. Personally I think he's crazy. As in slightly mentally ill. And I think the fact that he holds his religious beliefs so fundamentally and literally as he does, and is so manifestly impervious to change, evidence and rational argumentation, is evidence of this.

Simply put, Hovind has been arguing with many well-educated, well-meaning and intelligent people who have informed him time and again about the facts. But none of this has managed to have any bearing on Hovind's beliefs or his output. Given that the cases against his beliefs are overwhelming, the most sensible and non-cynical explanation is that he's simply deluded. Crazy. Mentally ill. Use whatever term that applies to describe the phenomenon of refusing to change your mind in the face of overwhelming evidence. Batshit is fitting too.

A cynic would say he's a charlatan and is deliberately lying about the whole thing to try and cheat people out of their money. I don't think so, I think true charlatans like that are relatively rare. Most religious fundamentalists are sincere in their beliefs, it's just that their beliefs make them nuts. I think Kent Hovind is nuts.

I might not agree with you and that will purely be due to what I believe. But that is your opinion and I can respect you for having one.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Well, there is the claim that he is defining evolution, and goes on to give erroneous definitions that have nothing to do with evolution. Hovind claims to have researched this topic for years, yet is unable to accurately define evolution. He is either lying about his research or lying about evolution. There is also the claim that he taught science in high school for X amount of years. He also used a textbook/chapter about the origin of our solar system, yet tried to make it appear as if it were talking about the origin of our universe. He also called himself a doctor for years, while not earning a PhD or MD from any accredited university. Those are just a few examples I can think of off the top of my head.

The discussion is about the message and if he is lying within that message. Not the messengers background. I'm not bothered by the non accredited christian college he got his PhD from. I take and analyze what he says. He also states in his one video that if people don't want to recognize his PhD then they should call him whatever they want and get back to the actual issue.

I am discussing the message, and part of that message is that Hovind would pass himself off as a doctor while not holding an accredited degree. That is deceitful. Furthermore, that was the last thing I listed, thus am I to assume you agree with all the other examples I pointed out?

so the carbon they are taking in is already old

is what I mean by "outside forces". So whatever you want to call it.

Well, once again, that would not be an outside force acting on the carbon-14. It is still going through normal decay; it is just being taken into an organism at a different time. Furthermore, this limitation of radiocarbon dating is not a limitation of other radiometric dating methods.

Radiocarbon dating has its limits, and Hovind is exploiting those limits in order to deceive his audience into believing that all radiometric dating methods are flawed from the start. Furthermore, radiometric dating is not the only absolute dating method used in order to establish deep time. There are several that are used and they all cross confirm each other.

No they don't. But that's not what the topic is.

Yes, they do (I would also suggest reading that whole page).

If I am not mistaken, does not Kent Hovind have a seminar entitled something along the lines of “Lies in your Textbooks”? If not Kent, I know of several other creationists who have done so. Thus, this does happen, and I am not saying that science proponents do not do this as well, but please do not act as if Hovind and his ilk are above the fray.

Yes he calls it "lies in the textbooks". He does not point fingers at anyone unless it directly relates to evidence that is either false, fabricated or assumed. My point in regards to Kent being called a liar is that you have to prove that he does actually knowingly give information that he knows is False, but gives it as true information. if he gives information that he believes is true, yet it might be false or is false, then that does not make him a liar.

Well again, the examples I gave at the beginning seem adequate to prove that he has lied (i.e. him actually knowingly giving information that he knew was false), even excluding the example you disagreed with.

 

[Francois]

I am discussing the message, and part of that message is that Hovind would pass himself off as a doctor while not holding an accredited degree. That is deceitful. Furthermore, that was the last thing I listed, thus am I to assume you agree with all the other examples I pointed out?

He defines evolution in regards to categories. Micro, Macro, Chemical, Cosmic and Organic If I can remember correctly. If you look up these words then they describe various fields of study in science. Although some words, like cosmic, tends to have different names. ie. Stellar evolution etc.

He mentions Micro evolution as variations within kinds of animals. Examples being different dogs, cats, finches, etc.
He mentions Darwinian evolution when he talks about Macro evolution. One Species changing into another. And by species I mean like from dog to cat or like some biology text books would show, From cow to Whale. Not one type of finch to another type of finch which is more micro than macro (if you use the terms he specifies)

Macro evolution - http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_47
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution


He defines it quite clearly and its easy to understand what the categories are. Although there are different names for these in mainstream science, if you read up on these names then you will find actual universities and science websites that acknowledge these names or categories as well.

When he talks about evolution in regards to those categories mentioned he is not referring to Neo Darwinism. Only in a sub category does he do that. Some people seem to forget that the word "evolution" is not unique to Darwinism.

Regardless of any of this. You say he gives erroneous definitions. Please elaborate on this?

How does he not accurately define evolution? I did biology and part time zoology due to interest and I had no issue understanding the terms or definitions he gives.

As for him teaching science in high school. He got his PhD from a Bible college that is recognized by many bible schools etc.

A Patriot Bible University degree is recognized by many churches and ministry organizations. It will demonstrate to employers a higher level of study through the attainment of a degree. We have trained thousands of students during the last 30 years.

PBU's accreditation with this agency is a religious non-governmental accreditation, rather than secular - voluntary, rather than mandatory. The laws of Colorado give us the authority to grant religious degrees. The authority to grant degrees comes from the individual State, not the school's accrediting agency.

This non-recognition may have some implications that include, but are not limited to:

1. Patriot Bible University is not eligible to participate in the Federal Student Loan/Financial Aid program.
2. Patriot Bible University is not authorized to accept the GI Bill.
3. Patriot Bible University is unable to guarantee acceptance of its degrees in other postsecondary institutions, except those also accredited by ACI
4. Corporations are not required to recognize degrees from Patriot Bible University.

So that's about the limitations there of. If non accredited is an issue for you then that's your issue. I don't have an issue with it because I'm not bothered by his background. I try to listen to what he has to say. You see it as deceitful but nowhere does it say that only people who have accredited degrees can be seen as doctors or what have you.
Point is, you are avoiding the true topic. He is a religious man who has served almost his entire life in ministries and Christian schools. If you look at his resume it will reflect that he did in fact teach kids in Christian schools etc.

So he did not teach in public schools and he did not go to an accredited university. I still don't have an issue with this seeing as I'm not interested in his life but what he has to say about various topics. Please keep in mind that I have the ability to analyze and judge information in my own capacity. I don't need an accredited "doctor" to tell me something just so that I can figure out if it makes sense or not. You can make up your own mind regarding the information he gives. Given the Religious context, I find that there is logic in a lot of the things he says. Just because I can see it as logical does not mean that I believe it to be true. He also does not state that any of his hypotheses are fact or that people should believe him. He merely gives you his message on what he believes and then moves on to give hypotheses with the bible and a 6 day creation being the context there of. If you are open minded enough to just imagine a 6 day creation and a flood then a lot of what he says seems logical. A lot of the evidence that supports Darwinism also supports his ideas.

If you look into other ideas like Dr. Russell Humphreys cosmology in regards to a 6 day creation etc. Then you will see that creationists are actually arguing from a logical stand point. The only point that is considered to be irrational is the "super natural" part of God. But theoretical physics have hypotheses regarding eternal matter. So is it really such an irrational thought?

Mainstream science rejects anything that is supernatural. However in science there is no true theory for "the beginning". There are Hypothesis for a beginning, examples being multiverses, eternal matter and even aliens (Richard Dawkins). In Young earth creationism God is the beginning and that creates the context from which creationists work. A lot of their work based on that context is logical. Sometimes it even makes more logical sense than issues in Darwinian evolution or the Big bang. The pioneer anomaly being one of them etc.

You are not discussing his message. You are discussing him. He gives a brief background of who and what he is and then proceeds to talk about issues in regards to evolution etc. People are offended by him due to his nature of calling Darwinism stupid as well as a lot of the evidence that supposedly supports it.

Well, once again, that would not be an outside force acting on the carbon-14. It is still going through normal decay; it is just being taken into an organism at a different time. Furthermore, this limitation of radiocarbon dating is not a limitation of other radiometric dating methods.

So you at least understand what I mean by an outside force. I did not say that it does not go through normal decay. The decay is not the issue. The issue comes in with the assumptions made surrounding the decay. I've read up quite a lot on this because I find it to be an interesting study. I've had discussions with family members who are geologists and I have to say, There are many issues surrounding these dating methods. They are good ideas yes but they rely on assumptions and anything that has an assumption in it tends to raise doubt in me. Also false positives and the inconsistency tends to make me suspicious. Keep in mind that I'm an accredited Senior Software developer. I tend to be very analytically inclined and I look for errors in just about everything I work with or study. It's a requirement in the profession. Not that it makes my logic superior or anything. Just how my mind works.

There are several that are used and they all cross confirm each other.

Please enlighten me as to which "several" you are referring to? I've seen various comparisons of dating methods and many of them are inconsistent with each other.

Yes, they do (I would also suggest reading that whole page).

Which page you referring to exactly?

Well again, the examples I gave at the beginning seem adequate to prove that he has lied (i.e. him actually knowingly giving information that he knew was false), even excluding the example you disagreed with.

No they seem adequate for you to assume that he lied. It's merely your opinion based on the examples that you find sufficient. Our perspectives obviously differ. But at the end of the day that's not really a revelation when you look back at everything that's been said.

I find your views on this to be rather narrow. Look at it from as many angles or perspectives as possible. If all of those give you the same view on this then you should maybe consider that you are not as open minded as you thought. Not that you ever said anything about how open minded you are or not. I mean no offense with this but I believe that there are always two or more sides to a story. When it comes to the "story" of how we got here. Historical science and creationism all have their own views and ideas. I find Darwinism to be more of an "historical science' than an actual observational one. I am fairly open minded to the idea but so far I'm not a firm believer in Neo Darwinism being fact. This is my own opinion based on what I've seen and read. Richard Dawkins will say that I'm ignorant, stupid or wicked etc. But then again he went and actually said that he is more agnostic than atheist. Basically he said that he is agnostic leaning towards atheist. So even he has doubts seeing as no one knows.

Same goes for Kent Hovind being called a liar. I've known many religious people in my life and I grew up in a religious house hold. The general stereotype regarding Christians are not good. But in my experience with them I find them to be good and generally honest people. Some are narrow minded yes. In some areas I would consider myself to be fairly narrow minded as well. But that's more about me having had experiences in regards to certain topics to now be able to make a choice. Given this context I believe Kent to be an honest man. It's a sad situation he got himself into but I believe that stubbornness and being naive had a big role to play in that outcome. That's what I believe though. I try to keep an open mind regarding it.

on a side note. Not that I'm a big conspiracy theorist or anything like that. But if this whole "New world Order" and Illuminati crap is true then you might have a different reason for him being in jail... But I'm not really going to give that concept a lot of thought because I don't really want to give conspiracies too much time. They can tend to waste a lot of it.

 

[Francois]

Just to give an idea as to why I mentioned Dr. Russell Humphreys...

In an article publish in CRS Quarterly in December 1984, Humphreys used the known magnetic fields of the Earth, Sun, Moon and Mercury to explain a model for planetary magnetic fields. According to the model, God created the planets with the atomic nuclei spinning in the same orientation. This spin would have initiated a large electric current, resulting in a sustained magnetic field. As part of his model he made predictions about the magnetic fields of Mercury, Mars, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. [4]

In 1990 Humphreys published a follow up to his predictions as Voyager II had now measured Uranus and Neptune's Magnetic Fields. [5] The measured values where within the bounds of his predictions, while dynamo theories had been incorrect about Uranus' field. He also explains why Dynamo theories have trouble explaining the extreme tilt of both Uranus and Neptune's magnetic fields compared to their rotational axis, while his creation model does not. [6]

The creation model's predictions were again verified when probes in 2008[7] and 2011 flew past Mercury and measured the magnetic field and found that the decay was in line with that predicted by Humphreys' model, but far faster then that expected by Dynamo theories

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Humphreys

You can also look for "Starlight and time". Its a book and dvd that revolves around his cosmology.

 

[Collecemall]

The problem with Hovind's education is that his degree is from a diploma mill. His "dissertation" is readily available online. It's work that would be laughed at by any freshman university level teacher (if not high school). No matter the subject. Getting a degree like this and presenting it as an equivalent to someone who spent real time and effort getting an education is dishonest. Period.

To put it in perspective. It's not just that he claims a PhD. He claims another 2-3 masters. And since his incarceration has picked up another PhD just for good measure. http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2013/07/05/kent-hovinds-new-dissertation/



You're right that his ideas stand and fall on their own merit. I think these guys can do a much better job of showing you why they fail than I can so I'll leave that to them. Some of them actually have the education Hovind portrays himself to hold.

 

[ldmitruk]

I find your views on this to be rather narrow. Look at it from as many angles or perspectives as possible. If all of those give you the same view on this then you should maybe consider that you are not as open minded as you thought. Not that you ever said anything about how open minded you are or not. I mean no offense with this but I believe that there are always two or more sides to a story. When it comes to the "story" of how we got here. Historical science and creationism all have their own views and ideas. I find Darwinism to be more of an "historical science' than an actual observational one. I am fairly open minded to the idea but so far I'm not a firm believer in Neo Darwinism being fact. This is my own opinion based on what I've seen and read. Richard Dawkins will say that I'm ignorant, stupid or wicked etc. But then again he went and actually said that he is more agnostic than atheist. Basically he said that he is agnostic leaning towards atheist. So even he has doubts seeing as no one knows.

I going to have to all you out on historical vs. observational science. It sounds like you are using them in a creationist sense. Evolution has been observed, both directly and indirectly, and no matter how hard creationists say it hasn't this fact will not go way. I would hardly call evolution a story especially when compared to the drivel the likes of Hovind spew out in their writings and videos.

 

[Francois]

I going to have to all you out on historical vs. observational science. It sounds like you are using them in a creationist sense. Evolution has been observed, both directly and indirectly, and no matter how hard creationists say it hasn't this fact will not go way. I would hardly call evolution a story especially when compared to the drivel the likes of Hovind spew out in their writings and videos.

The fruit flies? Bacteria? Finches? Insects with resistance to pesticides?

Which observation you referring to now? Because if you referring to any of those then you should understand that creationists don't see it as good enough evidence to claim
that a cow or some primitive carnivore from 50 million years ago evolved into a whale.

If you don't see the assumption in that then I can't help you.

Also please notice the quotation marks on both ends of the word story.

 

[Rumraket]

I going to have to all you out on historical vs. observational science. It sounds like you are using them in a creationist sense. Evolution has been observed, both directly and indirectly, and no matter how hard creationists say it hasn't this fact will not go way. I would hardly call evolution a story especially when compared to the drivel the likes of Hovind spew out in their writings and videos.

The fruit flies? Bacteria? Finches? Insects with resistance to pesticides?

Which observation you referring to now? Because if you referring to any of those then you should understand that creationists don't see it as good enough evidence to claim that a cow or some primitive carnivore from 50 million years ago evolved into a whale.

It is true that a bacterium or insect evolving resistance to an antibiotic or pesticide isn't evidence that whales evolved from terrestrial mammalian ancestors.

Each of those things are evidence that the process of imperfect reproduction leads to organismal change over generations of reproduction. As in the observed cases of microevolution is evidence that the evolutionary process takes place. It is a fact that there is such a thing as evolutionary change. And that the mechanisms responsible for this are mutation, genetic drift and natural selection.

The evidence for macroevolutionary change (of which the transition from terrestrial mammals to whales is just one example) is found in the multiple nested hierarchies from phylogenetics, comparative anatomy, embryology and the fossil record.

The evidence that macroevolutionary change is the result of the observed mechanisms of the evolutionary process (mutation, genetic drift and natural selection) is found in comparative genetics.

 

[Rumraket]

Just to give an idea as to why I mentioned Dr. Russell Humphreys...

In an article publish in CRS Quarterly in December 1984, Humphreys used the known magnetic fields of the Earth, Sun, Moon and Mercury to explain a model for planetary magnetic fields. According to the model, God created the planets with the atomic nuclei spinning in the same orientation. This spin would have initiated a large electric current, resulting in a sustained magnetic field. As part of his model he made predictions about the magnetic fields of Mercury, Mars, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. [4]

In 1990 Humphreys published a follow up to his predictions as Voyager II had now measured Uranus and Neptune's Magnetic Fields. [5] The measured values where within the bounds of his predictions, while dynamo theories had been incorrect about Uranus' field. He also explains why Dynamo theories have trouble explaining the extreme tilt of both Uranus and Neptune's magnetic fields compared to their rotational axis, while his creation model does not. [6]

The creation model's predictions were again verified when probes in 2008[7] and 2011 flew past Mercury and measured the magnetic field and found that the decay was in line with that predicted by Humphreys' model, but far faster then that expected by Dynamo theories

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Humphreys

You can also look for "Starlight and time". Its a book and dvd that revolves around his cosmology.

Creationists have not solved the starlight problem. They can't.

http://lamp-of-diogenes.blogspot.dk/2014/09/happy-jason-lisle-day-celebrating.html

Read that link.

 

[Francois]

if you want to give me examples then at least look at the ones I give. if you are going to respond and say something that I've already given an example to then why should I bother?

 

[Rumraket]

if you want to give me examples then at least look at the ones I give.

Examples of what?