Creation stands

[armed2010]

If anyone missed it,

The prestigious patriot university!

Wow, thats actually better than how I first imagined it

 

[MissFirerose]

Holy ****. Look what I just found.


http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=homeschool

Text books by Kent Hovind.

D:

*brain implodes*

 

[USincognito]

Well, it appears to be gone now, but there was a great website that listed Christian degree mills called "Name it and Frame it." There's plenty of other information on a Patriot degree being as worthless as the heredity titles you can purchase over the internet on the web.

But while poking fun at good old P.U. is elicits a chuckle, you cannot really belly laugh until you read this critique of Hovind's dissertation. It's a lengthy read but even if you're familiar with how duplicitous and full of offal he is it's well worth seeing the depths of intellectual dishonesty he's willing to stoop to.

Christians, I don't often use this cliche'd witticism, but if Kent Hovind makes it to heaven, it's not a place I want to be.

 

[Jet Black]

I'd really love to see Hovind's homeschooling lessons on science, knowing how bad his science it.

 

[Josh1]

This will probally be my last response to this nonsense, but I need to get a couple of things straight.

1. I did not come to argue like Lorentzha claims, so no emotion is getting involved here. I was only asking questions and evos never can stop with the ad-hominems.

2. Most of these are strawmen, you are trying to discredit his science by discrediting him, doesn't work. I am not taking up for Dr.hovind for he is very able to take care of himself.

3. Claiming the audience is ignorant is a copout and all of you know it. When faced with a real scientist (Your going to love this) evos fall short everytime. By the way, I don't know where you came from but homeschoolers normally have a higher grade average where I am (as bad as it hurts).


I didn't come in to start an "argument", I came to ask a few questions to see where most evos stand.I did some answers as far as that but most were littered with personal insults which I find very immature and pathetic. Well, got to head to work.



Josh

 

[ForeRunner]

That's ok, we fully expected you to put your fingers in your ears and go "lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala". You are a hovindite after all, so don't worry about it.

 

[Jet Black]

2. Most of these are strawmen, you are trying to discredit his science by discrediting him, doesn't work. I am not taking up for Dr.hovind for he is very able to take care of himself.

We don't need to discredit his science; his science discredits itself. Take for example something really simple like conservation of angular momentum, he gets that completely wrong. You will notice that in one of his seminars, he thinks that bacteria procuce sexually (as part of his strawman of abiogenesis), they don't. He thinks that the hyrax and the hyracotherium are the same thing, they aren't. He makes elementary mistake after elementary mistake, and what is more, these are not little slips either, they are actually prepared mistakes that he repeats time and again.

 

[Josh1]

Couldn't help posting here one more time and I just want to say thank you Jet Black for dealing with what we call science. If you think he has scientific problems than deal with them in science. At least I know you probally went to school somewhere and got a good education.


As far as "forerunner", I would be suprised if you ever saw a schoolhouse. This is exactly what i'm talking about, your statement is ridiclous and immature (are you five?). Well, this will be my last post dealing with immature post such as that.


Josh

 

[Meatros]

This will probally be my last response to this nonsense, but I need to get a couple of things straight.

1. I did not come to argue like Lorentzha claims, so no emotion is getting involved here. I was only asking questions and evos never can stop with the ad-hominems.

This isn't actually true, the problem is you are advancing Hovind's ideas, which I'll explain in a minute.

2. Most of these are strawmen, you are trying to discredit his science by discrediting him, doesn't work. I am not taking up for Dr.hovind for he is very able to take care of himself.

Here's the problem. Practically no one takes Hovind seriously anymore-that includes fellow creationists. He's a bad joke and has been thoroughly refuted to death here and other places.

So when you come here and argue for Hovind, bear in mind that some of us view it the same way we would view someone coming here and arguing for a flat earth.

3. Claiming the audience is ignorant is a copout and all of you know it. When faced with a real scientist (Your going to love this) evos fall short everytime. By the way, I don't know where you came from but homeschoolers normally have a higher grade average where I am (as bad as it hurts).

Evolutionists are real scientists, in fact, I'm sure there are a few real scientists on this board.

As for grade point average-I'm out of college so whatever.

I didn't come in to start an "argument", I came to ask a few questions to see where most evos stand.I did some answers as far as that but most were littered with personal insults which I find very immature and pathetic. Well, got to head to work.

I fail to believe that you didn't come here for an argument.

 

[LorentzHA]

Hovind claims he received his doctorate (in education) from Patriot University. The whole truth is that the degree is actually a Doctor of Ministry in Christian Education. Furthermore, Patriot University offers only correspondence courses. The "campus" is reputed (and widely ridiculed) to be a split-level house in suburban Colorado.

By the way Josh, you might as well surrender now that Ishmael Borg is here. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

OH my. LOL. Do they compete in NCAA Division I Football???

 

[LorentzHA]

1. I did not come to argue like Lorentzha claims, so no emotion is getting involved here. I was only asking questions and evos never can stop with the ad-hominems.

Where did I claim you came to argue? Where did I make an ad-hom. against you?? Show me. You are either confusing people or you are not sure what an ad hom is. An ad hom is not if someone disagrees with your religious views! LOL

 

[LorentzHA]

Josh-If you did not come here to argue/debate what did you come here for? Certainly not to learn???

 

[LorentzHA]

Claiming the audience is ignorant is a copout and all of you know it. When faced with a real scientist (Your going to love this) evos fall short everytime. By the way, I don't know where you came from but homeschoolers normally have a higher grade average where I am (as bad as it hurts).

Of course homeschoolers have a higher GPA. Mom grades the papers and tests-duh!!!! The class rank is pretty amazing as well, huh. A child and a sibling so a kid graduates 1 out of 2 and they are in the top 1/2 of their class !!!!

 

[LorentzHA]

I don't know where you came from but homeschoolers normally have a higher grade average where I am (as bad as it hurts).

Not sure where you are but try a major American University with a student UNDERGRAD population of almost 50,000 and holding a GPA over 3.6 in a science major and then come back start talking.

3. Claiming the audience is ignorant is a copout and all of you know it. When faced with a real scientist (Your going to love this) evos fall short everytime

Nope not a copout at all, his audience IS scientifically ignorant or they would not be his audience. They are there to have someone affirm their religious beliefs using "science". Trouble is they do not know enough to know how "off" his science is. Who is the real scientist we are "faced with"??? Has this man ever ran ONE experiment? Has the ever set foot inside a science lab?? Nope. Glad he is a "real scientist" to you, although You made my point. Thanks.

 

[LorentzHA]

You are so typical of creationists. You come here toss out nonsense and bad science; you have it swatted back in your face by people who hold real science degrees and then you yelp and exclaim, "I did not come here to argue!!" Next you start with the strawman attacks of evolution because you do not know enough about the REAL theory of evolution or enough to hold an intelligent conversation on the topic. Yes, this is all about emotion to you. If it wasn't, you would go to one of your local libraries, dig in and see what you do not know and where you may be wrong. You do not even know enough to be embarrassed by what you are writing. That is Hubris.

 

[USincognito]

This will probally be my last response to this nonsense, but I need to get a couple of things straight.

1. I did not come to argue like Lorentzha claims, so no emotion is getting involved here. I was only asking questions and evos never can stop with the ad-hominems.

Let's see, pointing out that Kent's full of it, documenting his "evidence" is utter offal and showing that the good "Dr's" PhD is bogus constitutes ad homs to you? You might want to review the definitions of logical fallacies a few more times before trying this tired tactic.

2. Most of these are strawmen, you are trying to discredit his science by discrediting him, doesn't work. I am not taking up for Dr.hovind for he is very able to take care of himself.

No, attacking the individual is an ad hominem not a straw man. No one on this thread thus far can be accused of a straw man as we've only taken Kent's actual "evidences" that he uses and shown them to be bogus or incorrect. You really do need to review the definitions of logical fallacies.

3. Claiming the audience is ignorant is a copout and all of you know it. When faced with a real scientist (Your going to love this) evos fall short everytime. By the way, I don't know where you came from but homeschoolers normally have a higher grade average where I am (as bad as it hurts).

Ugh. Two points. First, the audience for all of Kent's dog and pony shows is without a doubt ignorant of even the most basic fundamentals of science much less biology in general and the theory of evolution in particular. It's patently obvious from the way they hoot and holler at every bovine fecal matter filled assertion he makes that they are ignorant of the very issues he supposedly is an "expert" on. Second, as demonstrated previously, Hovind is a coward when it comes to his willingness to debate "real" scientists. Unless he can rely on the ignorance and mob mentality of his audience his points only make him look willfully stupid or loony.

I didn't come in to start an "argument", I came to ask a few questions to see where most evos stand.I did some answers as far as that but most were littered with personal insults which I find very immature and pathetic.

Ah yes, the ultimate cop out. "My source meant to make me seem knowledgale on an issue is a kook so I can't defend him so I won't but I'll still believe him." Which is more pathetic and immature Josh, an unwillingness to see your sacred cow slaughtered and realize it wasn't so sacred after all or plugging your ears, closing your eyes and claiming you didn't want to start a ruckus by posting offal and were shocked when people didn't buy it like fillet mignon?

 

[Dracil]

LOL, I knew I would get a fast response. Evos hate Kent, why do you think some ect..ect..(a lot) of evo professors wont debate him.

Josh

Creationists hate him too. (See: AiG)

Also, I once showed my roommates (both Creationists) his lectures. We had a good time laughing at the absurdity of his arguments.

 

[Josh1]

Lorentzha :Where did I claim you came to argue? Where did I make an ad-hom. against you?? Show me.

Lorentzha : Josh1-You really need to study evolution more. You are ARGUING on emotion not on logic or fact.


Just figured I would answer your question. By the way, I never accused YOU of making ad-hominem attacks, there were many others in that ship.


Lorentzha : Of course homeschoolers have a higher GPA. Mom grades the papers and tests-duh!!!!


This shows your ignorance in this subject. Many homeschoolers send their papers in to be graded by certain orginizations that were brought up for the purpose of working with homeschoolers. It is true that in some cases moms do grade the papers, but in most they do not. I have mentioned my point in here many times and I get the same old stuff. I brought up a radio program that Dr. Hovind defended himself and in one section went piece by piece thru the arguments on the websites that many of you have wanted me to look at. I wanted to see what you thought about it and how you would critique his rebuttal to your rebuttal. So many of you that say that I am trying to further his ministry or teaching is not correct.


As far as the audience, Hovind has debated in secular crowds and at universities. He fields questions from classes at many well known universities. He has never claimed that Patriot was a big school or even close to mainstream. Ok, now USincognito said :

Ah yes, the ultimate cop out. "My source meant to make me seem knowledgale on an issue is a kook so I can't defend him so I won't but I'll still believe him." Which is more pathetic and immature Josh, an unwillingness to see your sacred cow slaughtered and realize it wasn't so sacred after all or plugging your ears, closing your eyes and claiming you didn't want to start a ruckus by posting offal and were shocked when people didn't buy it like fillet mignon?


I find this funny and amusing. I posted to get feedback, as far as right now I have not heard one credible argument. I admit I am probally not on the same level as many of you in this forum and I respect the many years that people have dug in and learned. I did not expect any people on this forum to accept Hovinds view, but all I get is to be directed to websites that I have heard Hovinds rebuttal too. I was wanting to hear what you thought about what he said. So I see no relevance in this post what so ever. I am not closing my eyes or plugging my ears, I just wanted some scientific review of what you thought. Why is Hovinds view incorrect? Also, Don't use AIG thing, Both men have respect for each other, they just agree on some minor things. Just because their (arguments) not foolproof, they are still justified arguments. I have personally talked to AIG, you bringing up does not discredit Hovind and statements such as "even AIG discredits Hovind" are incorrect.


Josh

 

[Meatros]

I find this funny and amusing. I posted to get feedback, as far as right now I have not heard one credible argument. I admit I am probally not on the same level as many of you in this forum and I respect the many years that people have dug in and learned. I did not expect any people on this forum to accept Hovinds view, but all I get is to be directed to websites that I have heard Hovinds rebuttal too. I was wanting to hear what you thought about what he said. So I see no relevance in this post what so ever. I am not closing my eyes or plugging my ears, I just wanted some scientific review of what you thought. Why is Hovinds view incorrect? Also, Don't use AIG thing, Both men have respect for each other, they just agree on some minor things. Just because their (arguments) not foolproof, they are still justified arguments. I have personally talked to AIG, you bringing up does not discredit Hovind and statements such as "even AIG discredits Hovind" are incorrect.

Here's a hint: Do a 'search', we've discussed Hovind before.

 

[Physics_guy]

Also, Don't use AIG thing, Both men have respect for each other,

One, AiG is not a man - it is an organization. Two, AiG does not have respect for Hovind and AiG's senior spokeman Jon Sarfati frequently calls Hovind an idiot and a detriment to their cause (if you want to see go to Theologyweb.com and post a question to Socrates who is actually Jon Sarfati what he thinks of Hovind).

As for how wrong Hovind is, well that is easy to show. He is completely wrong about elementary physics such as conversation of angular momentum, Big Bang Theory, thermodynamics, paralax measurements, etc. He is completely wrong on biology and seems to not even have a clear understanding of what he is supposedly fighting against, evolution. He is a total whack job regarding things like barcodes being the mark of the beast and a secret governemnt of the world planning to kill off the majority of the population.

His debate style is comical and works great when the audience already agrees with you, but real scientists, if they have even heard of him, laugh at him. You should really take a chance to look at him more critically.

I and many others here could easily refute every one of his claims because they are simply incoherent drivel, but not interested in taking the time in rebutting every one of his claims. Pick one you like - we will tear it apart with real science - I promise.

Also, please stop calling him "Dr." - it trivializes others who have actually taken the time to earn a doctorate.