Kent Hovind: does anyone take him seriously?

[Zadok]

Kent Hovind... (www.drdino.com)

I still can't believe anyone in the world actually takes this guy seriously. He has been debunked, defeated, put to shame, government questioned, ignored, laughed at, ridiculed by other christians, and had his credentials exposed to the public!!!

Still, he is the absolute MOST hilarious man to listen to on the face of the earth. If, for any other reason, than to listen to his wacked out nonesense. And remember, he believes it all!!! (or he's a liar... either way)

He has been brought to public shame by Dave Matson and his "how good are those you-earth arguements?" and Ian Wood's "300 creationist lies".

In case you have never seen those sites, go here-

Ian Wood's "300 creationist lies":

Ian Wood's Story-
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/kent_hovind's_lies.htm

"300 creationist lies" (Note, section K is always down)
http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pier/1766/hovindlies/index.html

Dave Matson's "how good are those youg-earth arguements?"-
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/index.shtml

I just can't seem to laugh enough at his psychoticly deluded, warped view of the universe. I remember he once proclaimed that "may 4, 2000, new agers were going to kill 4 billion people", he also says that people used to bleed tyrannosaurs to death by ripping off their arms. What a laugh RIOT!!!

So, without further wait. I present the BIG OL' LIST OF KENT HOVIND REBUTTLE PAGES!!!

Just listen to this great testimony:
"Overall I was not impressed. After spending almost six hours total of listening to his rants, I couldn't take it anymore and I had to leave to save my sanity. I had no idea how paranoid he is..." by ckthomps@u.washington.edu

The Kent Hovind Page-
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/kent_hovind_page.htm

The wild, wild, world of Kent Hovind-
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/hovind/wild_hovind.html

Analysis of Kent Hovind-
http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/

The grossly incompetent Reverend Kent Hovind-
http://www.holysmoke.org/kh.htm

Kent Hovind: Brainless in Seattle?-
http://students.washington.edu/~ckthomps/kenthovind.html

Arkansas House Bill 2548 is a composite of anti-evolutionary sources (brought to you by, Kent Hovind)-
http://inia.cls.org/~ae/ar_hb2548.htm

 

[seebs]

Distressingly, yes, people *do* take him seriously.

I find this offensive.

 

[chickenman]

I can't stand him, he annoys me immensely

 

[ashibaka]

The problem with "300 Creationist Lies" is that anyone who thinks Hovind is correct will never read it. Scientific propaganda, probably.

 

[kevinb]

I like what he says and I haven't heard of any real rebuttles yet.

 

[Zadok]

I like what he says and I haven't heard of any real rebuttles yet.

Ah HA HA HA!!!


wow

 

[Zadok]

A snipit from "300 Creationist Lies)-

Hovind: "Did Noah have dinosaurs on the ark? Certainly! You ask, Dinosaurs on the ark? The Bible says that he had seven of every clean kind, two of every common kind."

Lie #35. As I and many others have demonstrated conclusively, there was no such thing as Noah's ark, at least when defined as something that could carry representatives of every species together with specialized food and fresh water for all of them, for over a year in a worldwide flood. There is no way eight people could begin to provide the necessary care for these animals, even if they could have caught them in the first place. I publicly challenge Hovind, personally, here and now (or any creationist), to:

1. Define 'kind'. No creationist has ever dared, because they know that they will be destroyed by the cladists and taxonomists when they do.

2. Explain and demonstrate scientifically, what mechanism it is that enables myriad variation within a 'kind', but stops that mechanism dead, unable to go further, when it runs up against the 'kind' barrier. There is no mechanism, and they know it.

3. Explain, scientifically, if chimpanzees do not share a common ancestor with humans, but animals can vary within a kind, how it is that we humans are closer to chimpanzees genetically, than rats are to mice, than the Indian elephant is to the African elephant, than the red vireo bird is to the white vireo bird.

4. Explain, in scientific detail how all the animals managed to get to the ark - and then away from it in a period of 4,000 years since the flood, to the places they now occupy.

5. Explain, in scientific detail, how it was that a worldwide raging flood managed to neatly sort out all animal species, without a single exception, into differing rock strata such that not a single animal thought by science to be many millions of years old and extinct, was mixed in with modern animals and vice versa. Explain how the most primitive animals are always in the lowest layers and how hydrologic sorting failed to grade the animals by density.

6. Given their psychotic obsession with the rarity of evolutionary mutation, explain in scientific detail how it was that these few 'kinds' on the ark managed to mutate at an evolutionary rate far in excess of anything any true evolutionist would dare postulate. Explain just how these few 'kinds' managed to populate the world with literally hundreds of thousands of distinct species in 4,000 years. When they have done that, they need to explain by what mechanism this fantastical rate of evolution suddenly halted in modern times that we do not see wholesale evolutionary changes with such dramatic rapidity nowadays.

If Hovind explains this to my satisfaction, I'll pay him $10,000. (In other words, I'll let him keep the $10,000 he owes me).
-----------------------------------------------------------

 

[ashibaka]

Originally posted by kevinb
I like what he says and I haven't heard of any real rebuttles yet.

MY POINT EXACTLY

And thus, you see the problem! (hopefully)

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally posted by kevinb
I like what he says and I haven't heard of any real rebuttles yet.

Lots of rebuttals though.

 

[Lanakila]

I never heard of Kent Hovind and neither has my hubby, and we have read lots of creationist materials.

 

[MyJhongFist]

hey

 

[MyJhongFist]

Hovind has, what would be considered to be, an entire library of materials on creation vs evolution.

I would not consider his word, in itself to be life changing. But his research is, admittedly compelling.

I would not go so far as to call him stupid.

Just do some research.

 

[chickenman]

thats the thing myjhongfist, we have, kent hovind is talking out of his netherregions on most issues. He is totally unqualified to be making most of the outrageous and unsupported statements he does.

 

[MyJhongFist]

Originally posted by chickenman
thats the thing myjhongfist, we have, kent hovind is talking out of his netherregions on most issues. He is totally unqualified to be making most of the outrageous and unsupported statements he does.

Well, I am no scientist. Nor, do I claim to be. But many who agree with him or provide him information, are. I am not committed on his qualifications, either way.

 

[randman]

"1. Define 'kind'. No creationist has ever dared, because they know that they will be destroyed by the cladists and taxonomists when they do."

Bull, I have defined it and I have seen Creationists define it. "Kind" refers to the original parent species God created according to Creationist models.

Btw, defining species is problematic in many instances. Even large mammals from different sub-families have been known to mate and produce fertile offspring.

Mayeb you should define the first life form for evolutionary theory.

"2. Explain and demonstrate scientifically, what mechanism it is that enables myriad variation within a 'kind', but stops that mechanism dead, unable to go further, when it runs up against the 'kind' barrier. There is no mechanism, and they know it."

That's the wrong question. The mechanism to produce macro-evolution must be shown, and moreover, even if micro-evolution could add up to macro-evolution, which the fossil record suggests it did not, it wouldn't affect the Creationist position in the slightest.

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally posted by MyJhongFist
But his research is, admittedly compelling.

What research has Hovind done?

 

[randman]

Zadok, there are explanations for every one of your contentions. Why not show us why Creationist's explanations are wrong rather than acting like they haven't put together specific answers to all of these questions.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
"1. Define 'kind'. No creationist has ever dared, because they know that they will be destroyed by the cladists and taxonomists when they do."

Bull, I have defined it and I have seen Creationists define it. "Kind" refers to the original parent species God created according to Creationist models.

Ok, fine definition. I think the challenge was meant to ask for a scientific definition of "kind" (not one that assumes the theory it is meant to support, e.g. creationism), one that will enable us to identify the created kinds, and test the proposition that they are indeed biologically unrelated from one another.

Btw, defining species is problematic in many instances. Even large mammals from different sub-families have been known to mate and produce fertile offspring.

Of course a "species" is a designation of scientific convenience. It is necessary for scientists to classify organisms for purposes of identifying what organism they are studying. There are no claims that a "species" is ever absolute in nature. There are other concepts of "species" apart from purely taxonomical ones (i.e. the BSC, and cladistic determination of species). Claims about phylogenies are based on the cladistic definitions of "species", and only extensive testing can resolve an organism's species as it pertains to the place on the evolutionary tree to a fair degree of certainty. Cladistics is a new field of inquiry and only a minority of species have been placed with confidence at this point.

Mayeb you should define the first life form for evolutionary theory.

We are still working on the "branches" of the tree: we have good evidence that they converge on a root, but that root may never be identified - especially since it is most likely that it (as a genetically distinct entity or small group of entities) is a billion years extinct and most likely left no discernible fossil traces.

"2. Explain and demonstrate scientifically, what mechanism it is that enables myriad variation within a 'kind', but stops that mechanism dead, unable to go further, when it runs up against the 'kind' barrier. There is no mechanism, and they know it."

That's the wrong question. The mechanism to produce macro-evolution must be shown, and moreover, even if micro-evolution could add up to macro-evolution, which the fossil record suggests it did not, it wouldn't affect the Creationist position in the slightest.

But it is very much the "RIGHT" question, if indeed your theory states that kinds are immutable, yet extensive variation within them is permissable. You must be able to explain why, for instance, less variation than exists within the "cat" kind is still too much to consider humans and apes to be of the same "kind", even though there is no more variation between humans and chimpanzees than there is between a North American bob-cat, a Leopard, a lion, and a Siamese kitten.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by randman:
That's the wrong question. The mechanism to produce macro-evolution must be shown, and moreover, even if micro-evolution could add up to macro-evolution, which the fossil record suggests it did not, it wouldn't affect the Creationist position in the slightest.

It was shown decades ago that macroevolutionary differences were the result of the accumulation of microevolutionary differences. There is no separate mechanism. Here is a synopsis from Douglas Futuyma's Textbook.

One of the most important tenets of the theory forged during the Evolutionary Synthesis of the 1930s and 1940s was that 'macroevolutionary' differences among organisms--those that distinguish higher taxa--arise from the accumulation of the same kinds of genetic differences that are found within species. Opponents of this point of view believed that 'macroevolution' is qualitatively different from 'microevolution' within a species, and is based on a totally different kind of genetic and developmental repatterning. The iconoclastic geneticist Richard Goldschmidt (1940), who held this opinion, believed that the evolution of species marks the break between 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution'--that there is a 'bridgeless gap' between species that cannot be understood in terms of the genetic variation within species. Genetic studies of species differences have decisively disproved Goldschmidt's claim. Differences between species in morphology, behavior, and the process that underlie reproductive isolation all have the same genetic properties as variation within species: they occupy consistent chromosomal positions, they may be polygenic or based on few genes, they may display additive, dominant, or epistatic effects, and they can in some instances be traced to specifiable differences in proteins or DNA nucleotide differences. The degree of reproductive isolation between populations, whether prezygotic or postzygotic, varies from little or none to complete. Thus, reproductive isolation, like the divergence of any other character, evolves in most cases by the gradual substitution of alleles in populations.

Futuyma, D. Evolutionary Biology, 3e. 477-478

 

[alexgb00]

Zadok

Kent Hovind is a very honest and Christian man! I see no reason for anybody to attack him the way you do. I know he is far more qualified than you will ever be. And if you don't like him because you love Chuck Darwin a lot, that's your problem and there's no need for you to come and cry here.

I'm sure you haven't read or watched any of the material Dr. Hovind presents. I'm telling you, he has interviews with people, cited news articles, photos, etc. If you don't understand something he says, that reflects on you and not on Kent Hovind. It just shows you have a lot to learn.