Hello,
As DrDino’s (Kent Hovind) “evidence” seems to come up often, I thought I would do a write up about his work and how he presents it. First to start off with, a couple links of people who have already done this.
First, are some basic answers by Dave E. Matson of infidels:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...e_matson/young earth/specific_arguments/index.shtml (also matsons arguments can be found here,
http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/proofs.html)
The second, so that I stay balanced, is from AIG a creationist website:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...q/dont_use.asp
Now lets take a look at his article, which can be found here:
http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=2
(The quotes from the articles are in Blue).
The general theory of evolution is based on several faulty assumptions... _...The following assumptions of evolutionary theory are easy to prove false: 1. the universe is billions of years old,
Although thats what science says, evolution says nothing about the age of the universe. Mr. Hovind is confusing the definition of evolution.
2. life spontaneously arose from nonliving minerals,
Evolution does not say this either. I believe it is currently called Abiogenesis. Ironically this supposed false assumption is very similar to what the bible says, “Gen 2:7: And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”
”3. mutations create or improve a species, “
Even creationists concede that mutations and adaptation can improve an animal. Even Mr. Hovind himself says so in FAQ# 29 (
http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=faq&specific=29) in it he says, “Many animals have adapted to the slow increase in salinity over the last 4400 years. We now have fresh water crocodiles and salt water crocodiles that are different species but probably had a common ancestor”
”4. natural selection has creative power. “
Natural selection doesn’t truly create, it adapts.
Mr. Hovind obviously doesn't quite understand evolution or himself. For a basic overview of evolution, please see:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution ”In children’s fairy tales, we are told:
frog + magic spell (usually a kiss) = prince
In modern "science" textbooks we are told:
frog + time = prince”
This is a common trick. Try to make the other sides claim sound too unbelievable to be true. Interesting enough he gets it wrong. Science says that an ancestor of the frog is also an ancestor of man. However, we may have to go way back to find this link.
”but the new magic potion cited is time. When the theory of evolution is discussed, time is the panacea for all the thousands of problems that arise.”
Hovind is trying to say that scientist use Time as a stupid excuse for things we don’t understand. However, he shoots himself in the foot by then stating:
”Time is the evolutionists’ god”
So if evolutionists are using time as a stupid excuse, then he says time = god then isn’t that the same thing as saying god is a stupid excuse for stuff we don't know?
Not only that but time Does Not equal god, as time can be measured, God cant.
But let’s remove time from the above equation. There would be the following three results:
I would assume the first result would be that everything would stop moving, including Gods ability to do anything in the universe, as even god needed time to create.
1. Evolution becomes obviously impossible.
And so does gods ability to create, less we forget 7 days is a measure of time.
2. Evolutionists will scream like a baby whose pacifier has been pulled out because they know that if time is removed, their religion (evolution is religion, not science) is silly.
Nothing like a cheap shot at the other side. However, remember when he equated time with god.
3. Creation becomes the only reasonable alternative explanation for the existence of this complex universe.
A big assumption based on no evidence given. Mr. Hovind however expects people to swallow it without asking any questions.
Now we get on to his big list of bad evidence:
1)
The shrinking sun limits the earth-sun relationship to less than "billions of years." The sun is losing both mass and diameter. Changing the mass would upset the fine gravitational balance that keeps the earth at just the right distance for life to survive.
Ok, lets think about this. If the changing mass would upset the fine gravitational balance and the sun is constantly shrinking, then this constant change of mass would have upset that balance along time ago.
This is based off of a misunderstanding of data. That if the sun shrank at one point, then it must always be shrinking.
2)
The 0.5 inch layer of cosmic dust on the moon indicates the moon has not been accumulating dust for billions of years.
This information is based on old equations and data that have been proven to be false. There were misunderstandings in the past and they have been corrected. To continue to use this false information as fact is very misleading.
Even other creationist sites have agreed this is bad information.
3)
The existence of short-period comets indicates the universe is less than billions of years old.
I don't understand why this would prove the universe is less than a billion years old, without further information. However, its expected that we will take the statement as truth. For more information about the larger version of this question, see the Infidels like at the top of the page.
4)
”The moon is receding a few inches each year. Billions of years ago the moon would have been so close that the tides would have been much higher, eroding away the continents.”
Well, the moon isn't receding a few inches each year. Currently it is thought to be receding 3.8 centimeters a year.
This assumes that since the moon is currently receding that it has always been receding at the same amount.
”The moon contains considerable quantities of U-236 and Th-230, both short lived isotopes that would have been long gone if the moon were billions of years old. “
Th-230 is an intermediate decay product of U-238 which has a half life of around 4.468 billion years. U-238 is a naturally occurring isotope. So new Th-230 can be created. U-236 is also a rare naturally occurring isotope. So both could still be around for a long time to come.
”Saturn’s rings are still unstable, indicating they are not billions of years old.”
Who is assuming that the rings formed at the same time everything else did? It is believed that they formed much later. So this argument holds no water.
"The decaying magnetic field limits earth’s age to less than billions. "
What decaying magnetic field? The magnetic field does increase and decrease in strength and it does flip flop (north becomes south and south becomes north). But it isn't decaying. We have a record of this flip flopping. The sea flood has a record. The sea floor spreads and as it spreads the molten rock orients itself to the earths magnetic field as it cools. Once it cools its magnetic orientation is set, and it slowly spreads from the middle to the edges of the ocean. By looking at this orientation we have found that the earths magnetic field has flip flopped a number of times.
”The erosion rate of the continents is such that they would erode to sea level in less than 14,000,000 years, destroying all old fossils.”
This is assuming that the continents just sit there, and that the erosion rate for all material is around the same.
The continents don't just sit there but move and form mountains, etc. Some rocks a lot longer to erode away than others. Slowing down the erosion process.
"Topsoil formation rates indicate only a few thousand years of formation."
Of course, no one said that the topsoil is never disturbed by anything, and should be able to accumulate over time. So this argument has nothing to do with how old the earth is.
"Niagara Falls’ erosion rate (four to five feet per year) indicates an age of less than 10,000 years. Don’t forget Noah’s Flood could have eroded half of the seven-mile-long Niagara River gorge in a few hours as the flood waters raced through the soft sediments.)"
Again, no one said Niagara falls has been here since the earth formed, so its erosion rates don't matter. Its interesting that Mr. Hovind adds an assumption to his information to try and get it to better fit to his own views.
"The size of the Mississippi River delta, divided by the rate mud is being deposited, gives an age of less than 30,000 years. (The Flood in Noah’s day could have washed out 80% of the mud there in a few hours or days, so 4400 years is a reasonable age for the delta.)"
Again, no one (except for Mr. Hovind it seems) claims the Mississippi River is as old as the rest of the earth. And again, we see he makes an assumption to try and force the evidence into his ideas.
...
(continued in next post, as the forum lies when it says messages can be 12000 characters long.)
Linear Mode
