T.O. Hovind Website

[ardipithecus]

I don't think that I have mentioned it here on this board yet, but The Talk.Origins Archive has now has an index page on Hovind:

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/

 

 

[Christian Soldier]

"I don't think that I have mentioned it here on this board yet, but The Talk.Origins Archive has now has an index page on Hovind:"

Alas, the evolutionists must continue to beat the dead horse of Kent "Straw Man" Hovind.

None of the major YEC organizations (ICR, AIG, CRS) will have anything to do with the guy. Evolutionists continue to use the obvious straw man attack via Hovind, in an underhanded (and failed) attempt to discredit the major legitimate organizations I mentioned.

Of course one could go into detail about Crick's "panspermia" debacle, just to name one world renown evolutionist who has presented a hypothesis wackier than any of Hovind's.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by Christian Soldier
Alas, the evolutionists must continue to beat the dead horse of Kent "Straw Man" Hovind.

Alas, the creationists continue to refer to the dead horses that are Mr. Hovind's straw man arguments.

None of the major YEC organizations (ICR, AIG, CRS) will have anything to do with the guy. Evolutionists continue to use the obvious straw man attack via Hovind, in an underhanded (and failed) attempt to discredit the major legitimate organizations I mentioned.

Please, Soldier, show one one example on this board where the evolutionists use Hovind to discredit anyone other than himself.

Of course one could go into detail about Crick's "panspermia" debacle, just to name one world renown evolutionist who has presented a hypothesis wackier than any of Hovind's. [/B]

Panspermia wackier than Hovind? I think not. Here's one of Hovind's apparent favorites:

http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=products&specific=jocnfqo8

 

[ardipithecus]

Originally posted by Christian Soldier
Alas, the evolutionists must continue to beat the dead horse of Kent "Straw Man" Hovind.

None of the major YEC organizations (ICR, AIG, CRS) will have anything to do with the guy. Evolutionists continue to use the obvious straw man attack via Hovind, in an underhanded (and failed) attempt to discredit the major legitimate organizations I mentioned. 

Christian Soldier's reply is puzzling to say the least.  First of all that page goes through pains to mention that other YECs consider him to be a crank and links to to AiG's list of arguments not to use with the note that Hovind uses them.

Second, the simple fact is that Hovind remains a popular and for some strange reason trusted person to many lay creationists.  He is extremely popular among the creationists on this board who have defended everything about him tooth and nail and against all reason.

The simple fact is that Hovind's extreme popularity and that so many people are getting their "information" from him means that T.O. has to devote resources to answering Hovind and his claims.

Third, that particular page does not try to discredit AiG, etc.  Other pages in the Archive do that and do a damn good job of it.

• Scientific Creationism and Error. Shows how the ICR and Duane Gish handle their errors.  Includes info on the infamous "bullfrog" claims of Gish.
• Supernovae, Supernova Remnants and Young Earth Creationism FAQ. Detailed information on how the ICR/AiG has dealt with supernova.  This is one of the most damning documentation of misuse of references.
• Creationist Whoppers
• Polonium Halo FAQs
• Thrust Faults. Refutes the claims the ICR has made about the Lewis Overthrust, etc.
• Ian Taylor and Nebraska Man.  Ian Taylor (AiG author) claims on Nebraska Man.

So on and so forth. 

If anything the Intellegent Design folks have a far better case of saying that T.O. spends so resources debunking AiG ("hillbillies" as the DI called them) instead of dealing with their "credible" claims.  T.O. has on the past few months has greatly improved its coverage of the ID people and their claims. And as in case of Hovind, the very fact that many people take them seriously means that T.O. has to devote resources to answering them and the extensive debunking of AiG is not a smoke screen to avoid taking on the Discovery Institute's claims.

 

 

[Christian Soldier]

"Panspermia wackier than Hovind? I think not. Here's one of Hovind's apparent favorites:"

Panspermia is FAR wackier than anything at the link you provided. Get real.

 

[Christian Soldier]

"Third, that particular page does not try to discredit AiG, etc. Other pages in the Archive do that and do a damn good job of it."

Merely your biased opinion. I noticed TO failed to allow rebuttals to the claims made at the links you provided. Like the guy who was assuring us that he had soundly beaten Gish in some debates--of course we only heard his side of the story, and no official transcript was provided. It's real easy to win every time when you're the only one allowed to give your side of the story.

 

[ardipithecus]

Originally posted by Christian Soldier
"Panspermia wackier than Hovind? I think not. Here's one of Hovind's apparent favorites:"

Panspermia is FAR wackier than anything at the link you provided. Get real.

You are talking about the Hovind who thinks the UPC codes are the sign of the beast, that laws do not apply to religious organizations, who has promoted The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,  and of course thinks the world is only a few thousand years old!  No, panspermia is a mild hypothesis next to that.  At least I don't see panspermia stating anything that is so utterly contrary to observations.

 

 

[alexgb00]

CS, it's useless to try to argue this point with these guys. They can't speak on the subject without invoking their emotions. Personally, i think Hovind strikes a nerve because he has good evidence for the Bible account and against darwinism.

God bless you, brother!

 

[chickenman]

*bangs head against wall*

 

[Susan]

Moderators! Are you ignoring this thread?
There are at least 2 flagrant rule violations going on here!

 

[blader]

Originally posted by alexgb00
CS, it's useless to try to argue this point with these guys. They can't speak on the subject without invoking their emotions. Personally, i think Hovind strikes a nerve because he has good evidence for the Bible account and against darwinism.

God bless you, brother!

And you still say this despite knowing CS's own opinion on "Dr." Hovind? Namely, that he is a crank of the highest order? Invoking emotions is one thing we are guilty of, but sheer stubborness is another. A crank is a crank is a crank.

 

[WinAce]

Originally posted by Christian Soldier

Merely your biased opinion. I noticed TO failed to allow rebuttals to the claims made at the links you provided. Like the guy who was assuring us that he had soundly beaten Gish in some debates--of course we only heard his side of the story, and no official transcript was provided. It's real easy to win every time when you're the only one allowed to give your side of the story.

I'm pretty sure the debate's transcript can be found using a search of the index or site.

And we don't need to discredit AiG as a bunch of cranks and charlatans--their statement of faith, which says in black and white that they'll never consider *any* evidence that goes against their interpretation, does that well enough.

The totally absent research standards, misleading claims that rely on being repeated by the trusting, less-knowledgeable layman, repeating worn-out arguments that have been debunked for around 500 years, and the fact this this is the *PREMIER* YEC organization also does that (to anyone who's willing to look at the evidence instead of defending his personal view of Genesis to the bitter end, that is).