Why Do Atheists Hate Kent Hovind?

[MrGoodBytes]

Well, from their website it's Lord Patten of Barnes. (Or to use his birth name Christopher Patten)

You mean the infamous ATHEIST and HOVIND HATER Lord Patten??????!?!?

 

[Nitron]

Please reply to my PM.

 

[speakout]

Well, from their website it's Lord Patten of Barnes. (Or to use his birth name Christopher Patten)

Oh I did not know Chris "Fat Pang" Patten was the Chancellor, this is the man who turned over Hong Kong citizens to communist China and they rewarded him with the chancellorship.

You mean you do not know who runs the Universities in England?

Pay me and I will tell you.

clue: Ask Dr Stanley Monteith at Radio Liberty his Book is full of refernces of Rhodes scholars and Internationalists at Oxford like Ruskin and the mess at All Souls College.

Have you ever read Six Wisemen by Issacson or Cloak and Gown.

Atheists lack know how ( someone will go and saying I am flaming to the moderators), but how can you not know who controls universities?

That is why I am not an Atheist, you guys according to
Manley P Hall "In Secret Teachings Of All Ages" are profane he says that Atheism is those will a little knowledge.

Now he was an avowed hater of Christianity but he shows how Atheists have been held captive by occult philosophies.

Now moderators what is up with your eyes? In every thread I get cursed but when I call those who like to complain cry babies I get told I might be banned. If you are not a cry baby why object to being called one?

I will not resort to reporting anyone to moderators, it is not my style.

 

[Patashu]

Given that atheism is a view that no deities exist and has no opinion on the supernatural (= atheists can go either way on the subject), how can it be held captive by occult philosophies?

 

[TheManeki]

Oh I did not know Chris "Fat Pang" Patten was the Chancellor, this is the man who turned over Hong Kong citizens to communist China and they rewarded him with the chancellorship.

You mean you do not know who runs the Universities in England?

Pay me and I will tell you.

clue: Ask Dr Stanley Monteith at Radio Liberty his Book is full of refernces of Rhodes scholars and Internationalists at Oxford like Ruskin and the mess at All Souls College.

Have you ever read Six Wisemen by Issacson or Cloak and Gown.

Atheists lack know how ( someone will go and saying I am flaming to the moderators), but how can you not know who controls universities?

That is why I am not an Atheist, you guys according to
Manley P Hall "In Secret Teachings Of All Ages" are profane he says that Atheism is those will a little knowledge.

Now he was an avowed hater of Christianity but he shows how Atheists have been held captive by occult philosophies.

Now moderators what is up with your eyes? In every thread I get cursed but when I call those who like to complain cry babies I get told I might be banned. If you are not a cry baby why object to being called one?

I will not resort to reporting anyone to moderators, it is not my style.

Bzzt. You have revealed secret information about our plans and must now be silenced.
​

Nothing to see here, citizens. Move along.​

 

[flatworm]

You mean you do not know who runs the Universities in England?

Pay me and I will tell you.

clue: Ask Dr Stanley Monteith at Radio Liberty his Book is full of refernces of Rhodes scholars and Internationalists at Oxford like Ruskin and the mess at All Souls College.

Have you ever read Six Wisemen by Issacson or Cloak and Gown.

Atheists lack know how ( someone will go and saying I am flaming to the moderators), but how can you not know who controls universities?

That is why I am not an Atheist, you guys according to
Manley P Hall "In Secret Teachings Of All Ages" are profane he says that Atheism is those will a little knowledge.

Now he was an avowed hater of Christianity but he shows how Atheists have been held captive by occult philosophies.

Do you know who controls the Aluminum Foil companies? Do you?

 

[FoeHammer]

Dawkins I can understand but I don't see the connection with Hitchens.

Did you ever wonder why Hovind only did spoken debates where nobody can check or explain the flaws in his claims?

Utter rubbish! Kent Hovind presents pretty much the same arguments in all of the debates that I have watched. There is no excuse for not being aware of his arguments. Any "professor" debating him, unable to present a counter argument there and then has no excuse. Kent Hovind PWN's them every time.

With all of Hovind's spare time at Club Fed do you think he will ever do a written debate now? No? I didn't think so.

I, for one, don't want him to do written debates. I prefer to watch the evos squirm as he reels off point after point after point and all they can do in response is question The Biblical account of creation as if an argument against Genesis is an argument for evolution..... Pathetic.

FoeHammer.

 

[BrainHertz]

Do you know who controls the Aluminum Foil companies? Do you?

Would that be the Honorable Guild of Hat Makers?

 

[BrainHertz]

I, for one, don't want him to do written debates. I prefer to watch the evos squirm as he reels off point after point after point and all they can do in response is question The Biblical account of creation as if an argument against Genesis is an argument for evolution..... Pathetic.

Seriously? Sorry, but it's been a long day and I can't tell.

 

[Blayz]

You used too many words there FoeHammer. here, let me correct it for you.

Utter rubbish! Kent Hovind presents pretty much the same arguments in all of the debates that I have watched. ..... Pathetic.

FoeHammer.

 

[Patashu]

Hehe. Reels off point after point...oh hovind!

Okay, FoeHammer, a CHALLENGE approaches! Pick one of Kent Hovind's claims regarding creationism then provide evidence for said claim. It doesn't matter which.

 

[InTheCloud]

Hate Kent Hovind? Are you kidding? I love Kent Hovind! Have you seen his videos on creationism? Hilarious! Funnier than Wedding Crashers! He's a comic genius. I can't wait for his new comedy about being in prison.

The man amuses me, he makes me laught, he is funny like a clown. Pure comedic genius. How can I hate the man. Neva in the life!

That is why I am not an Atheist, you guys according to
Manley P Hall "In Secret Teachings Of All Ages" are profane he says that Atheism is those will a little knowledge.

Now he was an avowed hater of Christianity but he shows how Atheists have been held captive by occult philosophies.

Well, that confirm the thesis of a exfundamentalist Pastor friend of mine. Fundamentalism atracts and enables persons with paranoid personalities.
That does not means that the OP has one, I'm just making a observation about fundamentalism in general.

 

[eri]

I think my biggest problem with Kent Hovind is that he insists on calling himself a 'doctor'. His PhD (from a non-accredited diploma mill) is in Christian Education, but he always leaves off the 'Christian' part of that when introducing himself. After one person got a copy of his thesis and reviewed it here http://www.kent-hovind.com , he prevented anyone else from ever being able to read it. Small wonder, based on the review. I wouldn't have gotten an A on that in high school, much less a PhD for that kind of work.

As someone who's been working diligently for the last 5 years to earn her (legitimate) PhD, that just annoys the crap out of me.

(I definitely recommend reading the thesis review - it's pretty hilarious. And you can all read mine when it's finished - they are supposed to be publicly available, after all!)

 

[consol]

I don't hate him, I just think he's a mug for letting himself be caught out on such a silly thing like tax evasion,
he has now lost years of making and enjoying a lot of money, think how much more he could have made if he
was on the outside, I know his books are still selling well and he is still making a lot of money,
but you can not replace time, every day inside is a day lost.

The guy was a mug just like the mugs he conned, and con men can not afford to look like mugs.

Although it might not be as bad as it could have been had he been in something other than the religious con,
they usually get forgiven by the people being conned, because they think they need him,
so I expect he knows what he's doing.

He was still a mug for letting himself be caught.

 

[TexasSky]

Athiests aren't the only ones not happy with him.

His dishonesty has tainted the image of all creationists, and many Christians.

He bought his degrees from a diploma mill.
He doesn't have a science degree, even from there.
He violated the laws of the lands via tax evasion.

Some of his science, taken from real scientists, is actually right, but because he has been so dishonest, and so well known, if people state some accurate science that he also quoted, people automatically assume they used him as a source, and therefore are wrong.

 

[Skaloop]

Some of his science, taken from real scientists, is actually right

Such as? Because I've never really heard him use any real science. At least, nothing that wasn't just a springboard for his wild ideas. In other words, I've heard him say something like "Science shows X, therefore I have come up with this crackpot theory to explain it, even though there is already a legitimate viable explanation supported by evidence." But I don't recall seeing him use real science as evidence for his assertions.

 

[rjw]

In the latest entry on my blog I ask why is Kent Hovind such a hate figure?


click below
http://dawkinswatch.wordpress.com/2...eist-manifest-demons-when-they-hear-his-name/

Hi Speakout,




You simply make the assertion that atheists hate Hovind then offer a video clip of Hovind arguing for a young earth.

In your writing you offer no evidence to show that your claim is correct. I watched part 10 of the video clip and Hovid offers no evidence there to suggest that atheists hate him.

So what are you on about?

With reference to the video clip - part 10, Hovinds claims are silly. A couple examples show how bad he is:-

Towards the end he says (paraphrasing):-

1) "Some people are claiming that new stars are forming in Crab Nebula. Well no stars are forming."

2) "Scientists claim it takes billions of years for red stars to turn to white stars ... that is simply not correct ... we have overwhelming evidence that read stars can turn to white stars ... All the ancient astronomers said that Sirius was a red star ... today it is a white dwarf".

3) Jupiter is losing heat and if the universe was billions of years old then this just cannot be.

Well on point 1) the Crab Nebula is the remnant of an exploded star. Therefore no one would make the claim that stars are forming there.

On point 2), Hovind has his facts confused and distorted. The naked eye Sirius is not a white dwarf. For the claim that it was a red star plus a refutation of Hovind, see the following link:-

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Sirius_was_a_red_star_2000_years_ago_and_is_a_white_dwarf_now

(Only one ancient astronomer made the claim, as far as we know.)


Regarding point 3), Hovind does not say why a planet losing heat cannot be billions of years old. There are a couple of ways in which a planet can lose heat over billions of years - slow gravitational collapse or radioactive decay of unstable elements which make up its composition. Another possibility is a slow ticking over of some fusion reactions with deuterium and/or tritium (heavy hydrogen) in its core.


So, given the above, why on earth should Hovind be trusted in the remainder of his clip?

You do not provide evidence for your claim. As for the clip, based on the evidence I provide, it can be deemed to be silly.

In what sense is Hovind doing God's work (which I presume he is claiming to be doing), when he gets his facts wrong or confused, and is unable to mount a good scientific argument for his assertions?




Regards, Roland

(I have put this on your blog).

 

[rjw]

Athiests aren't the only ones not happy with him.

His dishonesty has tainted the image of all creationists, and many Christians.

He bought his degrees from a diploma mill.
He doesn't have a science degree, even from there.
He violated the laws of the lands via tax evasion.

Some of his science, taken from real scientists, is actually right, but because he has been so dishonest, and so well known, if people state some accurate science that he also quoted, people automatically assume they used him as a source, and therefore are wrong.

Gidday TexasSky,

I don't think Hovind does too well on his science facts either. See my post above for just a couple of examples. And these were taken from a wee part at the end of the clip speakout had at his blog.

Regards, Roland

 

[Phred]

A better question would be... "why doesn't everyone hate Kent Hovind?"

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Utter rubbish! Kent Hovind presents pretty much the same arguments in all of the debates that I have watched. There is no excuse for not being aware of his arguments. Any "professor" debating him, unable to present a counter argument there and then has no excuse. Kent Hovind PWN's them every time.I, for one, don't want him to do written debates. I prefer to watch the evos squirm as he reels off point after point after point and all they can do in response is question The Biblical account of creation as if an argument against Genesis is an argument for evolution..... Pathetic.

FoeHammer.

By all means, cite one of these points. Or, better yet, watch these series of videos:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Why+do+people+laugh+at+creationists?&search=Search

There are many parts to it, and the first set (if not the total set) are focused on Hovind and his nonsense.