Dr. Dino (Hovind) exposed?

The Mammoth claim you make is news to me. As for C-14 he states C-14 can not be used for long age dating as the half life is too short; Hovind knows this, if it is as you say on his website point it out to him he will thank you & have the problem fixed. I hope you do not see this textual problem as a proof of Evolution, do you ?

The article points out that it *was* brought to his attention and he has failed to correct his error.

And what about the rest of the errors described by AIG? Do you think AIG is simply wrong about the falsification of these arguments? Can you defend Hovind's insistence opon continuing to use them without even explaining the doubts about them?

Um...Hovind isn't what I'd call credible at all. Aside from the inaccuracies he has yet to retract from his website, that Vance and other's have pointed out, he's also a one world government conspiracy theorist.

IIRC he believes that the Federal Government blew up the Oklahoma City building, and not Timothy Mcvay.

Also, check out this:

"I believe the real purpose of the environmental propaganda is to fulfill the first plank of the Communist Manifesto;: the abolishment of private property. While there is no question man has abused the environment, there is a hidden agenda behind the modern hype. (See Facts Not Fear for information on environment.)"

Taken from: http://www.drdino.com/?pg=faq&specific=33

:rolleyes:

Check this site out: http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/
For a full analysis.

Hovind isn't operating with a full deck.

__________________
If we are going to teach 'creation science' as an alternative to evolution, then we should also teach the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction. ~Judith Hayes, In God We Trust: But Which One?

"Be happy noble heart... And now the God of vengeance yields to me his power."

Just remember, you are unique, just like everybody else.

This is not the "Bash Hovind" forum, is it? So, why are you doing it? Did someone cite Hovind as an authority to back up some statement? Does Creationism rise or fall on the accuracy of some of Hovind's statements? Are Evolutionists free from error? Or, is Evolution such an embarrassingly bankrupt theory that attacking people and other fits of illogic are a necessary central strategy of Evolutionists?

Vance, how come mainstream school textbooks are so full of errors? These things are peer reviewed ad nauseam and they're frequently updated with new additions. Yet, so many errors remain? Why is that?

Even worse, why are the textbooks so full of lies, especially whenever they touch on Evolution? Even the newest additions of biology texts contain information on Evolution that is known to be false or misrepresented. Why don't any biology text I've ever seen pointed out that those peppered photographed on tree bark were artificially placed there? Or, that the variation of peppered moths does not represent any new information that could lead to transformation of species?

You should notice that Creationists don't feel a need to resort to combing through Evolutionist material looking for little errors. Nor do Creationists feel a need to continually point out what commies, socialists, and atheists most of the vocal evolutionist advocates are.

The patheticness of Evolutionists doesn't end here. Why Hovind? He's pretty much a one-man operation without the resources to be as rigorous as groups like the AiG or ICR. You might as well be combing over my posts for typos. (Of course, the AiG and ICR don't have the resources of taxpayer fed Evolutionists practicing the State religion.)

Wait, Evolutionists are more pathetic yet! The times I have gone to the trouble to research these alleged errors pointed out by volutionists, such as those you linked to, I sometimes find the charges are false or misleading. That's right, not only do Evolutionists spend time looking for trivial errors, they sometimes make them up.

And, it is pathetic of Evolutionists in these forums to depend on links to do their talking for them (are you unqualified to speak yourself?) If I want to show why Hovind is right, you are not the one I should be replying to, but the person you linked to.

Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic, pathetic, pathetic, pathetic, pathetic...

Hey Vance, I have an idea, how about you stick to applying logic and reason to the evidence and the issues rather than showing us your skills in illogic and desperation?

Phil, weren't you just warned not to be making personal attacks?

Anyway, getting back to the point, the reason for the post was that Hovind has been used as a source here by YEC's.

You said:
"You should notice that Creationists don't feel a need to resort to combing through Evolutionist material looking for little errors. "

Are you joking? That is almost all they do! If you look at any YEC source, you will find about 95% of it is made up of attempts to find errors in the scientific findings.

Kent? Could it be?

What are you talking about? Here we have a post pointing to some alleged mistakes by Hovind vs. what? Provide an example of what you're talking about.

Look at Hovind, AIG and ICR. They spend most of their time trying to poke holes in the theory of evolution and the idea of an old earth. They spot what they deem to be errors and write articles on them or, in Hovind's case, make simple conclusory statements about them. They attack the dating techniques and point to dozens of "problems" with the positions they are against.

A long list of their attempts to poke holes is listed here:

http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/guide/list.html

(which, btw, has a refutation of each attempted "poke"). This list is the very definition of "combing through the material looking for little errors".

By comparison, they have done very little in presenting convincing analysis of the whole of the evidence in favor of the Creationist concept. They are better at finding flaws that providing scientifically sound theories, which is what they are all claiming to be attempting.

Vance, those aren't examples of Creationists trying to find petty mistakes made by individaul Evolutionists. That's just a list of Creationist arguments about evidence. It appears to me that you are conflating the concept of typos with claims about evidence. I hope that's just a petty mistake on your part.

Phil, the link in the OP isn't about typos. It's about Hovind misrepresenting parts of several different animals as one in order to discredit carbon dating methods.

If it's all a mistake and Hovind is honest, then he was unable to read and understand the paper he used as the basis for his refutation.

Either way, Hovind's conclusions can't be trusted.

__________________


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"To avoid criticism do nothing, say nothing, be nothing."~Elbert Hubbard
_______________________

"Between impulse and action there is a realm of good taste begging for your acquaintance."~Voyager's Holographic Doctor
_______________________

"I do not understand their humor, either."~Lt. Commander Worf
_______________________

Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam, K'Ehleyr!