Kent Hovind vs. Einstein

[npetreley]

So what's your verdict, folks?

Einstein plagiarized. Indeed, it seems as if the places where Einstein seems to have added his own original ideas (or duplicated the work of others independently) are the places where Einstein introduced errors that others later corrected.

Kent Hovind was arrested for things that have nothing whatsoever to do with his work in creation.

So what does this all mean? Do we have grounds for doubting the integrity of the work of Einstein, Kent Hovind, or both?

 

[FordPrefect]

I have seen only one cite, that was an advertisement for a book, but if it is true, it is highly dissappointing.

We do have grounds for doubting the integrity of the work of both. However, Einstein's (or potentially his source, if the charge is true) work has been proven, corrected, and enhanced independantly, and therefore is valid regardless of the integrity of the source. Whereas Hovind's work is consistantly refuted, despite his lack of integrity.

 

[Baloo42]

In my opinion, neither Einstein's nor Hovind's life outside of their works really need be mentioned in addressing the validity of their works. The genius and sheer idiocy of said works, respectively, speaks plenty loud enough.

 

[Morat]

  Bad Nick! Naughty Nick! You started another thread on this topic, without ever addressing these objections by DialecticMaterialist.

  Indeed, not only did you start another thread on the same topic, instead of addressing these objections, you also phrased the plagerism accusation as a known fact, and not a highly disputed claim.

  Why, if I didn't know better, I'd claim you couldn't answer Dialectic's refutation, and merely repeated your claim once his objection once that thread was safely off the page.

Here's Dialectic's post (the quotes are the claim of your 'supporting' link):

Poincare provided the "four-dimensional analogue" to Lorentz' aether in 1905 and relativized the "Lorentzian ether" in 1895, long before Minkowski or Einstein manipulated credit for his work. The Einsteins' 1905 paper contains no four-dimensional analogue, and is, therefore, a theory of the "unrelativized Lorentzian aether",

. . .An article by "S." had appeared in Nature, Volume 31, Number 804, (March 26, 1885), p. 481, titled, "Four-Dimensional Space", which presented the concepts of "time-space", "four-dimensional solid" ("sur-solid", after Des Cartes), "time-area", and "time-line"; which later became "space-time" ("Zeit-Raum" is a confusing pun in German with the word "Zeitraum"), "absolute world", and "world-line".

. . .In this same lecture, followed by a discussion which is on record, Einstein shamelessly parroted Poincare's enquiries into the nature of simultaneity and his clock synchronization procedures, without citing Poincare; and Einstein failed to correct those who credited Einstein with the ideas he repeated, which were not his own.

The guy is merely translating one guy's wroding into Einstein and saying since their phrases "seem similiar" Einstein obviously copied the guy.

The list of true relativists is long. To name but a few: DesCartes, Huyghens, Locke, Leibnitz, Berkeley, Hume, Comte, Spencer, Stallo, Hamilton, Mach, Anderssohn, Avenarius, Petzoldt, etc

That for me did it. The guy obviously hasn't a clue as to what he's talking about. Locke, Liebniz and Berekley were all theists, only someone who is totally ignorant of philosophy could ever believe these people were relativists. I rule out lying, of course, because anyone capable of it( they would have to know a bit about Locke, Liebniz and Berekley), would see how obviously wrong such a statement was. i.e. only pure ignorance could lead someone to make such a comment. This whole thing is either the work of a boob or a hoax. In either case it hardly warrants the 2 mins I spent on it.  

  Naughty Nick!

 

 

[Hank]

I have no clue who Kent Howord is.

I do know Einstein though. His two theories of relativity may have been inspired by other geniuses, but he added the proverbial two and two together. To this day Newton classic laws of physics are taught. And if you read 'between' the lines of The Principia by Newton it could be said that Einstein 'stole' from Newton. LOL

Can someone explain how this Kent guy is connected to Einstein ?!?

 

[TheBear]

Hovind is in no way, in the wildest imagination, connected to Einstein.

 

[TheBear]

In all fairness to Hovind: parking tickets, fist-fighting arrests, or anything along those lines, have absolutely nothing to do with debating points, good or bad.


John

 

[Hank]

Originally posted by TheBear
Hovind is in no way, in the wildest imagination, connected to Einstein.

OK and thanks!

 

[Joe Meert]

Hovind does have a connection to Einstein, of course.  Hovind discusses Einstein in his lecture and says the following (imagine Einstein rolling over in his grave as you read)....

"Well, suppose a car passes you at 60 mph with its lights on.  To the driver, the light travels at the speed of light, but to you the light is travelling at c+60 mph."

Someone whould arrest him for murdering science. 

  

  

 

 

[FordPrefect]

Oh your god, did Hovind actually say that...

 

[Sky]

Hovind is not a real scientist, he fights against real science.

 

[elephanticity]

Consider this:

Hovind, in his bankruptcy trial, stated under oath that he owned no property.
In his arrest for assault, he stated that the apartment was in a house that was his property, and that he had the right to expel the occupants in the manner he chose to exercise that day.

In my opinion, he has the attention span of a lit firecracker, and the ethics of a weasel in a leg-trap. His willingness to twist reality and ignore the laws of man in favor of what he sees as the laws of God put a definite spin on his reliability, credibility and stability.

Much like Judge Thomas. I don't know for certain if he, or Anita Hill, was lying. But President Bush made a promise to fill the Supreme Court with judges that would overthrow Roe vs. Wade. Thomas faced Congress and swore that he had never even considered RvW, much less discussed it, with anyone. That means either Bush or Thomas lied. It is a fact that needs to be addressed in considering any other testimony by Thomas....or by Bush.

If Hovind swears an oath on a Bible in court, and lies, what does that say about his trustworthiness in any other statement he ever makes, whether you agree with the statement, or not.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Ah, good old Kent Hovind. I originally came to this forums to see if any adaquete written defense of his teachings existed. I'm still looking...

 

[JGMEERT]

Originally posted by FordPrefect
Oh your god, did Hovind actually say that...

 

Not only did he say it, he continues to say it!

 

 

 

[blader]

I hope you're happy. You evil atheists have successfully slandered his spotless reputation. Even the police are under your influence.

The world's going to hell.

 

[jon1101]

Originally posted by elephanticity
Consider this:

Hovind, in his bankruptcy trial, stated under oath that he owned no property.
In his arrest for assault, he stated that the apartment was in a house that was his property, and that he had the right to expel the occupants in the manner he chose to exercise that day. 

I'm not doubting this, but do you possibly have a reference for this point? I could use a published source for my own reasons. Thanks.

-jon

 

[Sky]

Blader,

Just curious, are you a Christian?

 

[Offtoou777]

Mr Einstein and Mr Havind I have to reset by the standard: risen by God.

That no one has ever seen evolution take place, micro or macro, has set the theory of evolution to the worlds standard of knowledge. Thus is how the world views the origin of life.

God by design in-errantly formed creation from His own Knowledge, He placed the work of life in a complete and total void without any form."formless" He knew that nothing was there before He spoke creation by a firmament to firmament from firmament .....

Thus  creation was made with His knowledge of Life.
Man has taken of the knowledge of good and evil before he partook from the tree of life, our knowledge is constant to know the good and bad in each subject of life because of the sin that had deceived mans eyes to be taken off God.

Evolution is the theory that life survives through the fittest of means; the strongest going through a path of least Physical resistance adapting living species to survive climatic-al change. So the climate is more powerful than that of life thus science deems this as powerful enough to create life from chaos.

Folks this is a theory that has the good and the bad, the right and the wrong as well and just the same good and evil as knowledge.

My examination of the worlds scientific view of the origin of life is this:

Evolution is just one proof that "Sin" is based from the knowledge of good and evil.

But more over is the fact that The knowledge " good and evil " has brought such things  far off base of proportion and/or context i.e.works vs. faith to an equal of that of Salvation.......

and to the stronger example: a tree whether literal or not, can only produce one fruit of

 

after its own kind, thus the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, are one knowledge

"the tree of life was also present"

There are mightier works of God than that of even Creation, He has sent the heaven and earth not for sins rebut-le, for He has made possible for us to come to Him through  creation but there is another work He has done, mightier than even that of creation, which is Eternity.

This is not a scientific post, but I thought you might like to hear a little of a conversation I had with God a few years back.

Offtoou777

 

[Caffeine Socialism]

"This is not a scientific post,"
You couldn't be more right.

"...but I thought you might like to hear a little of a conversation I had with God a few years back."
If you could, I'd like a transcript. And say hi to Iehova for me. We go way back.

 

[findtbax]

 i dont know about you, but einsteins hair was sweet