Ex-Con Hovind released from the pokey.

[brinny]

What questions?

see post #599

 

[bhsmte]

the information given is like snippets of information here and there.......i would like to hear/read more details on this mammoth(s) to get a clearer picture of how this originated and by whom, and not just a very brief synopsis of "theories" on this mammoth(s).

Scientists have been mistaken, erred many times before in the past. They gots lots o' 'splainin' to do, mon.

Perhaps it would help to find someone who can articulate their side.

It would appear, the work is on your end, to educate yourself on these matters.

You make a lot of claims about scientists being wrong, but I don't see anything to support the same. When things are pointed out about Hovind, you claim you need more information, but it doesn't appear you have much information about scientists and still draw negative conclusions.

I wonder why that is?

 

[bhsmte]

like what traits fer instance?

Forum rules would not allow me to be specific, was just curious whether others see some common traits.

 

[brinny]

It would appear, the work is on your end, to educate yourself on these matters.

You make a lot of claims about scientists being wrong, but I don't see anything to support the same. When things are pointed out about Hovind, you claim you need more information, but it doesn't appear you have much information about scientists and still draw negative conclusions.

I wonder why that is?

Actually it's the scientists claims that i'm needing more information on. Perhaps a scientist can skillfully articulate what it is they were trying to convey.

 

[Loudmouth]

the information given is like snippets of information here and there.......i would like to hear/read more details on this mammoth(s) to get a clearer picture of how this originated and by whom, and not just a very brief synopsis of "theories" on this mammoth(s).

"One part of a mammoth was carbon-dated at 29,000 years old. Another part is 44,000 years old. Here’s two parts of the same animal. That’s from USGS Professional Paper #862."--Kent Hovind

Someone took a look at that paper. This is what they found:

Hovind makes a big-time misrepresentation here. I looked at the data in USGS Professional Paper 862. It is a 1975 paper by Troy Pewe entitled “Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska”. It is a description of stratigraphic units in Alaska, but does contain more than 150 radiocarbon dates. Many of these dates are from the 1950’s and 60’s. There are three references to mammoths: hair from a mammoth skull (found by Geist in 1951 in frozen silt); “flesh from lower leg, Mammuthus primigenius” (found by Osborne in 1940, 26 m below the surface); and the “skin and flesh of Mammuthus primigenius[”] [baby mammoth] (found by Geist in 1948 “with a beaver dam”). The dates given are, respectively, 32,700; 15,380; and 21,300 years BP BUT the last is thought to be an invalid date because the hide was soaked in glycerin.

NOWHERE IN THE PAPER DOES IT SAY, OR EVEN IMPLY, THAT THESE SPECIMENS ARE PARTS OF THE SAME ANIMAL. They were found in different places, at different times, by different people. One is even termed “baby”, and the other is not. To construct this Fractured Fairy Tale, Hovind must have hoped that no one listening would check and see what his reference really said.
http://www.angelfire.com/alt2/digicam/mammoth.html​

Hovind lied about those dates coming from the same animal.

 

[bhsmte]

Actually it's the scientists claims that i'm needing more information on. Perhaps a scientist can skillfully articulate what it is they were trying to convey.

I don't think we need a scientist to show Hovind misrepresents science at his leisure for his own benefit. The information has been provided and really, anyone with any desire to see reality, can see it for themselves, if they are willing to take a somewhat objective approach to the same.

Some can take an objective approach, others have something near and dear standing in the way.

 

[brinny]

I don't think we need a scientist to show Hovind misrepresents science at his leisure for his own benefit. The information has been provided and really, anyone with any desire to see reality, can see it for themselves, if they are willing to take a somewhat objective approach to the same.

Some can take an objective approach, others have something near and dear standing in the way.

i agree that it is beneficial to do our own research. Thank you for encouraging me to become more knowledgeable on my own, which is what i am doing now, especially on carbon dating....

speaking of carbon dating, when was it discovered?

Thank you kindly.

 

[bhsmte]

i agree that it is beneficial to do our own research. Thank you for encouraging me to become more knowledgeable on my own, which is what i am doing now, especially on carbon dating....

speaking of carbon dating, when was it discovered?

Thank you kindly.

If you are indeed doing your own investigation, look it up, it should be simple enough to find.

 

[MikeEnders]

When Aron-Ra used to post here, he put up a challenge asking for a single example of a creationist who claimed to have scientific evidence that didn't lie about that same scientific evidence. No one was ever able to come up with a single example.

You mean no answers you liked and if no one did answer its probably because they realized it was a dreadfully Stupid challenge setup by your crony just to argue against any example that would be provided.

 

[HitchSlap]

Heeeeeey, you first, mon LOL!

Ha. Without googling, I would say OT, major/minor prophet.

 

[HitchSlap]

"One part of a mammoth was carbon-dated at 29,000 years old. Another part is 44,000 years old. Here’s two parts of the same animal. That’s from USGS Professional Paper #862."--Kent Hovind

Someone took a look at that paper. This is what they found:

Hovind makes a big-time misrepresentation here. I looked at the data in USGS Professional Paper 862. It is a 1975 paper by Troy Pewe entitled “Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska”. It is a description of stratigraphic units in Alaska, but does contain more than 150 radiocarbon dates. Many of these dates are from the 1950’s and 60’s. There are three references to mammoths: hair from a mammoth skull (found by Geist in 1951 in frozen silt); “flesh from lower leg, Mammuthus primigenius” (found by Osborne in 1940, 26 m below the surface); and the “skin and flesh of Mammuthus primigenius[”] [baby mammoth] (found by Geist in 1948 “with a beaver dam”). The dates given are, respectively, 32,700; 15,380; and 21,300 years BP BUT the last is thought to be an invalid date because the hide was soaked in glycerin.

NOWHERE IN THE PAPER DOES IT SAY, OR EVEN IMPLY, THAT THESE SPECIMENS ARE PARTS OF THE SAME ANIMAL. They were found in different places, at different times, by different people. One is even termed “baby”, and the other is not. To construct this Fractured Fairy Tale, Hovind must have hoped that no one listening would check and see what his reference really said.
http://www.angelfire.com/alt2/digicam/mammoth.html​

Hovind lied about those dates coming from the same animal.

And if he's willing to lie about one thing...

 

[HitchSlap]

You mean no answers you liked and if no one did answer its probably because they realized it was a dreadfully Stupid challenge setup by your crony just to argue against any example that would be provided.

Are you stepping up to the challenge, then?

 

[brinny]

If you are indeed doing your own investigation, look it up, it should be simple enough to find.

you don't know?

Thank you kindly.

 

[brinny]

brinny said:
Heeeeeey, you first, mon LOL!

Ha. Without googling, I would say OT, major/minor prophet.

Not bad, and you could possibly be right....where, specifically?

Thank you kindly.

 

[MikeEnders]

Are you stepping up to the challenge, then?

Where would that challenge be? All i see are claims. A REAL challenge would have grown up adult standards and criteria set beforehand to meet. Any intelligent person can see what this would be. i name a name and you CLAIM they are lying.

Call me when you have a real grown ups challenge. I work. I am not on summer break.

 

[Loudmouth]

You mean no answers you liked and if no one did answer its probably because they realized it was a dreadfully Stupid challenge setup by your crony just to argue against any example that would be provided.

Notice that you can't meet the challenge, either.

 

[HitchSlap]

Where would that challenge be? All i see are claims. A REAL challenge would have grown up adult standards and criteria set beforehand to meet. Any intelligent person can see what this would be. i name a name and you CLAIM they are lying.

Call me when you have a real grown ups challenge. I work. I am not on summer break.

Rich. Challenges tenets of challenge. Won't accept challenge. You'd better get back to work.

 

[MikeEnders]

Notice that you can't meet the challenge, either.

see above. Real challenges have conditions and adult standards to meet that are agreed beforehand. From that retort its quite obvious you are more into proposing a child's game of "You get to name a name and I get to be the judge". which of course an an adult standard is just.....ummmm....... hilarious nonsense - not a challenge.

 

[HitchSlap]

Not bad, and you could possibly be right....where, specifically?

Thank you kindly.

Want me to Google this for you?

 

[HitchSlap]

see above. Real challenges have conditions and adult standards to meet that are agreed beforehand. From that retort its quite obvious you are more into proposing a child's game of "You get to name a name and I get to be the judge". which of course an an adult standard is just.....ummmm....... hilarious nonsense - not a challenge.

Sure, sure, you're right.