Then Canada and Japan have something in common, bad engrish (da dum dum tssssh just kidding
)... I think you're getting heated over a word that obviously does have more than one meaning. I love my girlfriend... I love my dog... I love Bertie from next door, kinda well not really... I love God... God loves me... I love Kent Hovind's tapes. You see? There is a difference. I love his tapes, but I love my girlfriend more.
And love is not necessarily an absolute statement either. Just because I say I love someone or something, doesn't mean I completely love them or that thing or love them/that thing all the time. Or agree with everything they/that thing say.
The tapes are a series of lectures. I don't know where you went to University, but at mine when you see a lecture, and then afterwards say you loved it, found it very interesting and with a lot of new information, that generally means you agreed with what was said. Whether or not you love your girlfriend is irrelevant, when you say you love a lecture series, it generally means you agree unless you caveat it with something along the lines of, "because I enjoy laughing at how ridiculous his arguments are. Man could he be any MORE wrong?"
Thank goodness we all have sin, but tax evasion is definately from Dick Cheney I mean the devil. I wonder though why people like Wesley Snipes got off easier than sir Hovind did.
Because celebrities usually do?
For specifics you should try and find a copy of Extant Dodos work on debunking his series. Hovind's studio has tried to get their videos taken down for copyright violation despite:
a) There not being copyright on the videos
b) Hovind willingly waving any implied copyright in the video
c) Even if there WAS copyright, it falls under fair use
Further, debunking every falsehood and inaccuracy would take most of today, and quite a bit longer. But for a few examples here and there. Let's start with his non-recognition of what evolution is. His big line is "lightning hitting a mud muddle" (later to be adopted by Ben Stein in his horrid little film that is also woefully inaccurate). Leaving aside that few abiogenesists would make that argument for the origin of life, that's not evolution, that's abiogenesis. Evolution purely deals with the diversification of life, not the origin of it. Secondly he doesn't understand the concept of a transitional fossil nor about the nature of nested hierarchies. He even asks the idiotic question of "If humans came from apes, why aren't apes giving birth to humans now?!?!??!?" Beyond the simple, "They are. My mother was an ape, and a human. I'm an ape, and a human. Every single human is, by definition, an ape", he ignores that there was a point of divergence in the past between an ape ancestor and a human ancestor. Even then it wasn't a sudden POOF you have a modern human with a chimp mother; it was a gradual process of the human ancestral line splitting off and changing compared to their brethren.
Wrong on the history of the theory. Not only does he not understand about Darwin's own theological beliefs, but he continues to insist that to believe in evolution is to not believe in God; which has been thoroughly disproven. He also doesn't know that evolution has long been understood by the scientific community (the Catholic church recently released work by Aquinas which related observations that animals changed over generations, though he could provide no reason).
Basic mistakes in maths. I'll stick with my answer on the ice asteroid. Alternatively, take his "ice canopy" that either would block all light from reaching a pre-flood earth, and/or destroy all life when it collapsed down onto it by changes in pressure and temperature.
For chemistry, I'm sure there's a concrete example, but I'm going by memory of a while back. I do believe he made the argument later adopted by a certain youtube user that lies a lot and nearly got into major perjury trouble for filing false DMCA claims. Basically, the argument is that nothing could have produced higher elements, and thus something must have created them in place. Ignoring of course, the bloody big fuser of atoms that resides in our solar system about 8 light minutes away.
For physics I'll use the same examples as the maths example.
That does sound a bit fishy, like Chuck Norris jokes.
It does sound fishy, it could not have possibly happened. Yet he continues to claim it did as a desperate attempt to save flood mythology as the literal truth.
Hey come on be civil man. You don't hear Kent Hovind calling you a rat, liar or ignorant although I may be wrong.
I'm not trying to be uncivil, I'm trying to give accurate descriptors of the man. He's a rat (amongst other things, he commits felonies), he's a liar (continues to claim the title "Dr." despite the fact that he got his "diploma" at a notorious degree mill where you too can get your diploma... for 99.95 plus shipping and handling), and he's ignorant (willingly or unwillingly).
Ice canopies and astroids, and now Kent Hovind is retarded. Well maybe he is, but maybe you are too.
Hmm, sadly I have science on my side for accuracy. And nice to know you enjoy insulting fellow posters.
Seri-os-ly though... some of the main reason I and others liked listening to Kent Hovind's lectures was because we found his material funny, interesting and new.
And yet you claim you don't think he's right?
I don't agree with everything the man says, but certainly give a few nods to his C14 observations. And I mean some of the things he says about the geologic colum and fossils is plain funny. 69837 gabazillion years ago before the semi-quasi-paleolithic era when dinosporangia bacteria roamed the chemical sludge soup of doom. Where do they come up with this stuff. Some dude carbon dates his uncles foot to like 5000 babillion years ago... I mean seriously. Scientists are still using this... And the geologic colum. Come on. Way too much artistic interpretation.
Which are also utterly wrong and I direct you to Gluadys' video, the work of Aron Ra on youtube for his series on the falsehoods of creationism, the work of DonExodus2, Extant Dodos, and/or Thunderf00t on youtube (all of home do fantastic deconstructions of Hovind and other idiots). Finally if you want a funny, interesting, and new presenter that actually has scientific data and evidence on his side, find any of the lectures done by Kenneth Miller.