Picking a few of the more egregious mistakes:
Along the same lines there is nothing to indicate things have always been the way they are...
Er, yes there is. Astronomical observations such as supernova 1987A indicate that radioactive decay rates have remained the same for at least hundreds of thousands of years. Other astronomical observations indicate that the speed of light has not changed significantly since the Big Bang. And a whole lot of things we do
not see indicate that physical laws are not changing and have not changed.
Evidence for an ice canopy or vapor shield ...
The problem with all such theories is:
1. Maintaining such a canopy requires pressures and tmperatures that would destroy essentially all life.
2. Getting the water to the Earth's surface in the form of water would release enough heat to destroy all life yet again.
Most creationists who pretend to be scientific have given up on all the variants on the canopy hypothesis. The ICR concluded that, if everything were set up just right, one could get about 3 feet worth of water into the atmosphere and not raise the temperature
too much (
SENSITIVITY STUDIES ON VAPOR CANOPY TEMPERATURE PROFILES). See also
The Demise and Fall of the Water Vapor Canopy: A Fallen Creationist Idea by a former young Earth creationist.
in the upper atomsphere include: palm trees found beneath the ice at the poles...what better evidence for a different world at one point, that world being more like a green house?
Evidence for a different world, yes .. but "the world being more like a greenhouse" is only one possible explanation. "The world being more like a greenhouse" is ruled out when other evidence is examined; it's a common creationist failing to explain one tiny piece of evidence without considering other relevant evidence.
How did redwoods grow in Canada at one point in the past since they require such a specific climate to prosper
Certainly not under a vapor canopy or ice canopy. Way too hot.
Wooly mammoths frozen standing up...with undigested or rotted food in their stomachs, would likely require a very fast freezing process which could not have occurred naturally on our earth today.
Do you believe everything you read on creationist web sites? That's not too smart.
There are no known mammoths that were frozen standing up, or were suddenly frozen. From
Library: Modern Documents: Dave Matson: Young Earth: Additional Topics: Mammoths:
quote:
Take the frozen Berezovka mammoth, for instance. In its stomach were found arctic plants like conifers, tundra grasses, and sedges. Its flesh was really rather putrefied. "The excavators found the stench of the partially rotted Berezovka mammoth unbearable; even the earth in which it was buried stank." (Weber, 1980, p.15). Ancient predators had a chance to get at the carcass, which proved there was no instantaneous freezing. The unfortunate animal seems to have fallen from a river buff, possibly by getting too close to the edge and causing a slump, and broke many bones. In the muck of the floodplain below his carcass was soon frozen in (Strahler, 1987, p.381).
William R. Farrand, writing in 1961, pointed out that only 39 mammoths had been found with some of their flesh preserved. Out of those only four were found more or less intact, including the Berezovka mammoth. All of them were rotten to some extent and the evidence showed that most were somewhat mutilated by predators prior to freezing. Such things as grasses, sedges, other boreal meadow and tundra plants, a few twigs, cones, and pollen traces from highboreal and tundra trees are typical of what was found in their stomachs. Evidence indicates that some of these mammoths had died in cave-ins or had drowned. The Mamontova mammoth was probably caught in a bog while grazing the floodplain of the ancient Mamontova River. Another apparently died on a floodplain, possibly falling through river ice, and rotted mostly away before natural burial. The upright nature of many mammoth finds suggest "that they perished when a rapid thaw melted the permafrost and turned the tundra into a huge bog." (Chorlton, 1984, p.70).
...
There is no direct evidence that any mammoth simply froze to death (Farrand, 1961).
All of this evidence points to a routine scenario of life and death.
Just because there is a lot of water, does not mean the atmosphere would contain it all
True. Just because it needs about 3 times the water there is in all the Earth, and there's no place but the atmosphere to put it.
Also the assumption remains that it would take more water than is here to flood the world. This assumption requires that the mountains have always been as high as they are today, I've seen no proof of this.
Actually, you have. Are you alive? Is the surface of the Earth solid? Well, there you are. If the Earths' topography had changed to the extent you are proposing in the last hundred thousand years or so, the amount of heat released would have sterilized the entire Earth and melted a good portion of it.
Just because you believe someone a fraud, does not necessarily invalidate everything they say.
True, we should evaluate Ken's arguments on their merits. The fact that he is a fraud is not necessarily relevant.
We have evaluated Ken's arguments on their merits. They have no merit, are wrong, and in many cases he is being intentionally dishonest. Many creationists agree.
Maintaining Creationist Integrity,
Analyzing of Kent Hovind.
Kent Hovind's Discussion of DNA: Abysmal Incompetence or Shrewd Demagoguery?, and many more.
I would be interested in some direction on how to make my posts more readable, putting lines above and below quotes,
When composing a new mesage or reply, click the "*UBB Code is ON" link at the left of the window in which you are typing.
™ Version 4.2