Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
Yes, if it was just a few typos or mistakes, that would be one thing, but Hovind's case is VERY different.
And the difference, generally, between the mistakes of secular science and "creation" science is very simply drawn. While there have been a few intentional hoaxes (Piltdown Man, etc), most of the errors are honest and readily acknowledged when pointed out. In fact, it is almost always the secular scientific community itself which points it out! Scientific study creates a growing body of knowledge and concepts and, as a general body, they recognize this growth as part of the process. Theories are expounded, attacked, tested and critiqued. Those which survive this grueling process over a period of time are given a certain degree of respect and, at some point, are deemed sound enough to build upon.
Creationists, however, tend to adopt arguments not based on their tenebility, but on whether they support their preconceived belief (ie, a young earth). They will then hold on to these LONG after they have been refuted beyond a reasonable doubt simply because they have too much invested in them. AIG finally came out with a list of arguments it will not use anymore when it became outright embarrasing. The list is still too short, of course, and they held on to them WAY too long, but it is a step in the right direction.
Hovind, in response to this very list, said he will continue with these arguments regardless of whether they have been proven false. At one point he actually makes reference to the fact that he has these arguments in his books, seminar materials and videos and asks AIG whether they expect him to trash all of these and redo them. The correct answer, of course, is yes, he should. But he won't.
As for the specific textbooks I have seen them myself & as said all but a couple to date have been proven frauds, others to follow. I do not have the time to dig out the specific texts. Why would we need a historical discusion of a fraud in a elementary school? Though you claim mainstrean sience nolonger uses proven frauds, you could not deny they have benefitted form them by molding public perception.
Not really. There is mounds and mounds of non-fraud evidence, and all you can point at is a handful of cases, only two of which are actually fraud. It's the mounds of real evidence that mould public perception.
By poiting then out Hovind is making a case for tghe pattern of deception of the Evolution supporters.
No pattern. The main pattern shown is that real science, evolutionary science, is pretty good at spotting and exposing frauds, as in Haeckel and Archaeoraptor, the only two real frauds on your list.
Sorry I saw a debate this year at Rutgers where the proffesor did use proven frauds as evidence. Hovind has other videos where other proffesors do likewise!
And what frauds would these be? You saw the video - what fraudulent evidence was the professor relying on?
GET THEM & SEE FOR SELF; then stop making this claim!
What claim? That frauds are occasionally perpetrated, and exposed invariably by the mainstream scientific community?
AIG is one ministry I do not trust; as for the man tracks they were dug out by a dozer while the scientists watched & they still denied what they saw. go figure!
Cite
AIG is an enigma in Christian circles for me.
Because it doesn't promote the exact line you want it to?
Hovind has an excelent wittness you are proff of that as you chaff at his wittness & call him names as well as attack his character. He clearly is doing a mighty work!
He is a liar. If that's your idea of mighty work, then I'm sure you know enough scripture to know who the mightiest worker must be. We know he's a liar; the link in the OP showed that Hovind's claim that parts of the same mammoth date to different dates IS A LIE
The public ( masses) are not moved by mounds of evidence, that is a laughable statement. Look at Bush molding public opioin in the media & shredding the Constitution in the same breath! I pointed out a couple which came to the top of my mind there are literally dozens plus more. And as said get some of Hovids debates with the proffesors you will have plenty of evidence to deal with; I do not need to dig the quotes sources he has done it for you. I said AIG is an enigma in MY CIRCLE. They attack other christians which is unscriptural itself at least in the way they do so. I think the former UNESCO leader Huxley's response to why Evolution became so poular is insightful, he said " because the idea of god interfered with our sexual morays." what candor & honesty here; it clearly aint science that promotes Evolution, but an ideology which desoises the God of the Bible. There are many other quotes by scientists which are quite revealing in this vein.
Hovind is such an embarrassment to "Creation Science" that I have often wondered if he was actually an atheist who realized the best way to destroy the Creation Science movement was to pretend to be one and then present the case just as Hovind does now (and make a good living in the mean time). If so, it is working. While he is convincing to those who want to hear what he is telling them, he is a joke to everyone else.
This means that:
1. He reaches no one new with the message of Creation Science.
2. He undermines (nay, destroys) the efforts of the rest of Creation Science to reach those who are skeptical.
The public ( masses) are not moved by mounds of evidence, that is a laughable statement. Look at Bush molding public opioin in the media & shredding the Constitution in the same breath! I pointed out a couple which came to the top of my mind there are literally dozens plus more.
Well, you'd better start telling us about them.
And as said get some of Hovids debates with the proffesors you will have plenty of evidence to deal with; I do not need to dig the quotes sources he has done it for you. I said AIG is an enigma in MY CIRCLE. They attack other christians which is unscriptural itself at least in the way they do so.
They don't. They point out daft arguments that bring creationism into disrepute.
I think the former UNESCO leader Huxley's response to why Evolution became so poular is insightful, he said " because the idea of god interfered with our sexual morays." what candor & honesty here; it clearly aint science that promotes Evolution, but an ideology which desoises the God of the Bible.
Really? Funny thing is, creationists keep using this quote but no-one can actually tell when or where he's alleged to have said it. There's a pattern here.
There are many other quotes by scientists which are quite revealing in this vein.
Do share them with us. Some of them might even be in context.
I guess this means all you have left is ad hominem attacks. Hovinds style & thoughtful lifstyle is a breath of fresh air the Church needs in these days of apostacy. He inspires me & all of those who are the Lords. You sir really should put aside your wrath & search for Truth.
I guess this means all you have left is ad hominem attacks. Hovinds style & thoughtful lifstyle is a breath of fresh air the Church needs in these days of apostacy. He inspires me & all of those who are the Lords. You sir really should put aside your wrath & search for Truth.
And I'll find it from the mouth of a liar? I don't think so. The truth about creation is written in the very creation itself - and it screams evolution loud and clear.
Anyone can talk; we must prove ALL things. I have followed Hovind for years & have found one error myself; he has since corrected it; he had a wrong name for one of his facts in his presentation. Was he lying, NO techbnicla errors are common when you are a very busy as he is.
Anyone can talk; we must prove ALL things. I have followed Hovind for years & have found one error myself; he has since corrected it; he had a wrong name for one of his facts in his presentation. Was he lying, NO techbnicla errors are common when you are a very busy as he is.
So why doesn't he correct the mammoth error?
Why on his website does it say that scientists use C14 for dates in the millions of years range?
What do *you* think of the list of arguments AIG admits can no longer honestly be presented? What about those arguments they have abandoned but which Hovind insists on retaining? Do you think AIG is simply wrong on all these points?
Linear Mode
