Defeating "Dr" Kent Hovinds' claims.

Someone got hold of Hovind's "thesis" once , it was laughable stuff - it had diagrams cut out of books sellotaped in, no real literature review to speak of, no real analysis etc. It did not even have numbered pages or a table of contents! (you would not even be able to submit such a document at any decent university let along claim a PhD off the back of !)Doesn't the following tell you everything you need to know:

quote:

---

THE THESIS HAS NO TITLE. There are no references or footnotes. A few partial citations are included in the body of the thesis, but they are not in standard form, and are incomplete. In at least two places (pp 65-66) the citation simply notes that there is a book title to be added. This has no place in a final version.

​

The single illustration, the electromagnetic spectrum, is cut out of a science textbook and taped on; it does not fit the page. Additionally, there are substantial formatting errors typical of a draft, but not a final, version. The final version is printed on a dot-matrix printer, an absolute no-no, even in 1991.

---

Account SuspendedIt is fit for wiping your arse on but not much else. undergraduates who tried to hand in such tripe would fail.Edited by CK, : No reason given.Edited by CK, : No reason given.Edited by CK, : No reason given.

way off topic, but that reminds me of the attempt to make NATO look like a non-military alliance so that it could be accepted by the US.As Kissinger put in, a grad student would fail for making that assesment.Kinda tells you something about us in the US--we'll accept anything a dumb-ass tells us--whether it be Hovind or about NATO. and yet somehow we avoided communism. wierd, eh?

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

Remove the religious component from the equation and you never know. Taking it even further, if communism had started as a Christian movement things may have been quite different.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

quote:

---

Kinda tells you something about us in the US--we'll accept anything a dumb-ass tells us--whether it be Hovind or about NATO.

---

I think it's more a matter of them telling people what they want to hear. As a fundamentalist friend had told me years ago about prophets, true prophets were reviled and rejected because the people didn't want to hear the truth, whereas the false prophets were loved because they were telling the people those lies that the people wanted to hear. Is it any wonder that Hovind is so revered by his followers? Indeed, in one forum when I pointed out that one of Hovind's claims was factually incorrect, the creationist accused me of having viciously attacked Christianity itself.Hovind didn't create "creation science" nor did he create the vast majority of claims that he makes, but rather recycles other creationists' claims. Who had recycled others' claims, etc, like the constant recycling and circulation of urban legends. Nor did he initiate the deception of most of his audiences, but rather they seek him out because he's telling them the lies that they want to hear.Starting around WWI and afterwards (ie, going into and through the Twenties), the anti-evolution movement grew because more kids were attending high school and they were being taught things in biology class that their parents didn't understand and that they feared contradicted their religion. These people needed to hear that science was wrong and they flocked to anyone who would tell them that. They still do.Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

Holy shit I couldn't have even got away with that for the thesis/dissertation I did for my B.Sc. back in 1980 (before we had PCs and word processors to make such things easy).

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

It gets better. He has continued adding to it over the years.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

fish, barrel, i'd like to formally introduce you two to mr. rifle here.

---

Is that supposed to be a question? If so, then no "removing God from the picture" is not "putting God in the picture". In fact, they are opposite statements. I didn't see that coming (verbal irony). I would say that that is comparing apples to oranges. Those examples are common natural events that become easily understood after careful scientific investigation and there is no need in those cases to attribute anything to the supernatural. However, it seems that the more scientific knowledge we have, the more problematic naturalism is (complexity of life and homochirality of biological polymers are two examples) and the more clear it becomes that the origin of life without God is not possible. Yet atheists continue to believe that science will provide them with an answer, some excuse to not believe in God so they can continue living their godless life in peace without guilt.

Well, the Genesis account would probably be best described as "mythological" not as a "fairy tale" by those who do not believe its validity.Edited by Muhd, : I'm Awesome

Neither of which are the problem you think they are. It comes from believing what you are told without understanding the issue.There are good reasons for thinking these are not problems and using them simply because they are not totally resolved issues only means you are using the very, very weak god-of-the-gaps theology. An approach that has, in all resolved cases, been shown to be wrong.Edited by NosyNed, : grammer errorEdited by NosyNed, : punctuation error

That might be but you said: "to remove God out of the picture". Removing God out of the picture would be to put God in the picture. Perhaps to you, but there is certainly no evidence there, just more of the misrepresentation that is typical of Biblical Creationists. Well, this Christian says that is simply laughable. Why would an atheist need an excuse to live their goddless life. Too silly.What is sad are the Biblical Creationism who have such a tiny picayune goddlet.In the words of the Clergy Project:

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

So it was the wrong prepositional phrase for the verb. Should be "remove God from the picture". Certainly no argument there, just more ad hominem and sterotyping typical of evolutionists. Because if I'm right then they would have to change their lifestyle to a more godly one. Which is something some atheists are not willing to do, so they are forced to believe there is no god.I don't really care what the Clergy Project says. I'm aware that some Christians believe evolution. I just don't think these people are well informed.Edited by Muhd, : Fixed errors

Muhd, I'm not forced not to believe in a god. There's no evidence of one or more, so not believing in a god is incredibly easy. You can go around with the firm belief in unicorns, fairies & munchkins all day long, matey, but the rest of us require a little more.Secondly, what makes you think that whatever gods may exist require any moral standards from us whatsoever? What even makes you think they are even aware of us? You are rather assuming that if a god/s exist, that it is your god, non?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

You have already, in a very few posts, demonstarted that you are very, very uninformed yourself. It is amusing how arrogant the so-called "Christians" can be; thinking they can criticise something they know near enough to nothing about.In this thread you have chosen to be arrogant enough to think that you know the motivations of people that you haven't a clue about; that you can make comments about sciences that you have not informed yourself about and ignore those who attempt to help you.

For continuing an obviously off topic digression when he should know better.