Kent Hovind

[A Sheep]

30a2: Just incase you did not know Mac is an Atheist and Elephant is a Wiccan so do don't take their advice on Creation. There are many Christians, along with many North American's, who, instead of believing in Evolution, believe in Creation, so you are not alone.

Here are some good sites you may not know of:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/ [Creation Research]
http://www.trueorigin.org/ [Creation Research]
http://www.christiananswers.net/ [Answers for Christians]
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/ [Theological Topics]
http://www.watchman.org/ [Cult Research]
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/ [Apologetics Resources]
http://www.tektonics.org/ [Theological Topics]
http://www.crosstalk.org/ [Messianic]
http://www.drdino.com/ [Creation Research]
http://www.icr.org/ [Institute for Creation Research]
http://www.endtime.com/ [Prophecy/Current News]
http://www.e-sword.net/ [Free Bible Software]
http://www.carm.org/ [Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry]

 

[mac_philo]

We've enterred the bizarro-science forum, apparently.

Yes, it took creativity to see that man evolved from other primates. In fact, it took genius to hit upon the theory of natural selection. Is there something about your particular brand of christianity that is anti-intellectual? Why are you suspicious of a scientific discovery that wasn't obvious? Isn't that always the case?

Also, yes, indeed--ignore everyone who isn't a member of your sect. You might learn something! Heaven forbid you follow our 'advice' (advice?) on creation.

 

[BigJon]

ok i didnt post what i learned but if you want me too i guess i can find the time too.

 

[BigJon]

and on a further note.....
#1 the reason people who are looking for answers shouldnt listen to you is the simple fact that they will be caught in the "trap of arguement of mindless rubbish" with you.

#2 calling something genius doesnt make it fact

 

[mac_philo]

Not to be glib, but I have to assume you learned nothing. You obviously already have the time--you're here, posting, right now!

Hovind makes money off his revivals/vhs tapes/booklets for the kiddies/etc. None of them are about learning--they're about telling people what they want to hear.

 

[BigJon]

when you assume you simpley make an *** out of u and me, in this case more you than me

 

[mac_philo]

Wow, with supporters like that, Hovind's own army is going to undermine his credibility.

Getting paid to tell people, essentially, nothing. What a great job!

 

[BigJon]

somewhere in here you must have assumed i was goin to post a big long thing explaining the entire wealth of knowledge contained in the entire world,(or atleast that which pertains to evolution) in which i had no intentions to do so.

 

[mac_philo]

No. But this is a science/evolution forum, and since you're taking up bandwidth defending Hovind, I thought perhaps you might give at least one reason why he is worth defending. But, clearly, you won't.

 

[BigJon]

well some other time perhaps tomorrow, i need sleep as so i can work tomorrow.

 

[Sayci]

Hi,

In my opinion, yes he does tell you what you want to hear, and yes he is charismatic. But he does have facts against Evolution and for Creation. He presents the facts well, he gives them as if he is saying these are my beliefs and it is your choice to believe or not. Did you know that nothing of his is copyrighted; he wants you to share it, and yes maybe his sub-conscious reason is to get more fame; but it still helps.

I am a Christian and I believe God created the earth 6000 years ago and there was a flood 4000 years ago, and then 2000 years ago Jesus Christ of Nazereth came down from heaven and died for our salvation. I do think that Kent Hovind tells us what we want to hear and that is why people buy his tapes; he is entertaining, but don't the Evolutionists do the same thing, they tell people that do not believe in Creation what they want to hear. All evangilists do...

Please do not be offended I am only saying what I believe to be truth.

Sayci

 

[elephanticity]

Originally posted by A Sheep
30a2: Just incase you did not know Mac is an Atheist and Elephant is a Wiccan so do don't take their advice on Creation. There are many Christians, along with many North American's, who, instead of believing in Evolution, believe in Creation, so you are not alone.

Here are some good sites you may not know of:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/ [Creation Research]

http://www.drdino.com/ [Creation Research]

No, i'm not wiccan, i just play one on tv.

I was trying to be respectful, and actually pointed him toward a group i disagree with, but grudgingly respect some of their policies. I even warned him off of No AIG. Wow, certainly looks like i'm trying to brainwash another creationist. Please.

I have no respect for Dr.Dino, as he will accept blindly the tabloid stories of any mouth breather that phones in, but rejects hard science. He really doesn't know what he's talking about, and the bible says in that situation, keep your mouth shut. It also says to verify the story, but he fell for the onyate man april fools joke because he did no research on it, and he liked the conclusions it seemed to support.
Hovind has stated that "the possum, the redwood tree and the kidney bean all have 22 chromosomes" And that "The average scientist can't tell the difference. They've got 22 chromosomes - all three of them." Geneticists working for the FBI, each State BI, other Law and paternity enforcement organizations will have to jimmy up an explanation for how DNA is useful in courts of law to distinguish between one out of a few billion individuals, but useless to distinguish between completely different species.

And while there may be no copyright on the anti-evolution stuff he produces, he very carefully refuses permission to reprint his doctoral thesis. Well, not the original. You can print the 'latest version' if you want, but the one with all the spelling errors? The one he actually 'handed in' to the diploma mill? Nope, can't print that one anywhere.

He did updated Jack Chick's silly little anti-evolution tract, but didn't improve any factual content:
http://www.hexfiles.multiservers.com/soapbox/tract/bug daddy.htm
It's just so mind numbingly hilarious!

 

[mac_philo]

Yes, when I read a scientific article, it is in a sense telling me what I want to hear. This, however, is completely unlike Hovind. Why?

Scientists have peer-review. If what they are saying is not justified by the facts, and is not carried out with a rigid scientific methodology, it won't be published. Now, after it meets these guidelines, and after the audience seeks out the publication, yes, in that sense, they are hearing what they want to be told.

Now, Hovind doesn't publish in scientific journals, so he is not subject to peer review. He can simply ascertain what people want to hear, and then give it to them, without any of the constraints employed by the scientific community.

 

[elephanticity]

It's not a faith or belief in evolution...it's a trust in the scientific method, and the formal review, defense, vindication and acceptance by the scientific community as a whole.

If you start with doctrine, and work backwards to fact, it isn't science, it's editing.

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by 30a2
So who do you know that is a really good Creationist scientist? Or does every one here believes in Evolution?

What do you mean by "Creationist scientist"?

Do you mean only a scientist who subscribes to the young earth theory and whose philosophy is compatible with the Institute for Creation Research?

Or do you mean a scientist who believes that in the beginning (of time, matter and the universe), it was God who created time, matter and the universe?

There tends to be rather vast differences between the two positions. An ICR scientist will, for example, generally oppose the Big Bang Theory, since it does not fit very well with their theory that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Other creation scientists will tend to embrace the Big Bang Theory, since it says that there was a beginning of all time, matter, space and of the universe--and tends to be rather compatible with the first chapter of Genesis' account of the creation.

Take a look at the thread that deals with the age of the universe (click here). Of the five major theories listed, theory 2 would probably be the one most likely to be followed by ICR creationists, while most other creation scientists would probably be more likely to embrace theories 3, 4 and/or 5.

 

[Billy the Kid]

Thank you A Sheep and Sayci for that information.
I believe that God was evrything and he created the universe and all that's in it in 6 days. So, Sinai I have to say that the scientist I'm talking about would be the guys who don't believe in the Big Bang.
Okay, my question has been answered. Thank you.

 

[elephanticity]

http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by 30a2
I believe that God was evrything and he created the universe and all that's in it in 6 days

Take a look at those five major theories I mentioned in my previous post. Both theories numbers 2 and 5 say creation took 6 days. But because number 2 measures the 144 hours looking back toward creation while number 5 measures it at the speed of outward thrust immediately after creation [what mainstream science calls the Big Bang], time dilation causes the difference to be over 15 billion years of Earth time looking back toward creation--even though they are each 144 hours of Earth time.

In other words, both those theories use precisely six days of Earth time--but one is consistent with mainstream scientific discoveries while the other is not.

 

[BigJon]

#1 I've read some of this "anti-hovind" stuff and it seems to be more personal attacs on him rather than his material

#2 Mr. Hovind is not out to discover any new ground breaking info, just to share the facts that are already know with people who dont know them.

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by Sayci
Hi,

In my opinion, yes he does tell you what you want to hear, and yes he is charismatic. But he does have facts against Evolution and for Creation. He presents the facts....

Originally posted by BigJon
Mr. Hovind is not out to discover any new ground breaking info, just to share the facts that are already know with people who dont know them.

Facts? Not necessarily. I've purchased his set of CDs to see what he had to say. Although much of it is rather entertaining, it is not particularly factual.

Folks, the theory of evolution is very susceptible to attack--but not the way Hovind and most of the other young earthers generally attempt to do it. If you want to actually discredit or possibly even disprove the theory of evolution, don't waste your time with painting yourself into corners with spurious logic, illegitimate "facts" or easily disproven assertions. Instead, concentrate on its weak points: the lack of evidence supporting macro-evolution and the inability of random events to account for either the origin of life or the development of life within the time available.