Some have said that obtaining a doctorate is the process of learning more and more about less and less. In this case, well... there was only a Bible and only so much can be learned from such a finite source, so to obtain a doctorate Kent had to make shit up.
Patriot University inspired me the (sic) continue my education by making it possible for me to study at my own pace and complete this thesis as I could.
('thinking maybe this is the opportunity to add several doctorates to my resume)
It is my burning desire to help Christians get back to a simple faith in God's Word.
(emphasis on simple)
Chapter eight gives the truth about cave men.
(Or Uncle Harry)
I believe that dinosaurs are not only in the Bible, but they have lived with man all through his six thousand year history.
(Uncle Harry keeps one as a pet)
Where in the world did the idea come from that things left to themselves can improve with time? Who would start a crazy idea like that? This idea is the opposite of everything that we observe in the world today.
(especially within the Christian community)
I would like in this chapter to trace the history of evolutionary doctrine. Where did this dangerous doctrine come from? Evolution is purely a religion.
(oh... so that's why it's dangerous)
The city where you are now probably did not even exist three hundred years ago.
(woah - stop the presses)
Tyrus is a type of Satan who lifted his heart up. Pride is mentioned repeatedly in the Bible as being one of the main things that God hates.
(and just previous to this he quotes)
Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty,
(watch out pretty boy!)
Cain promoted the evolutionary doctrine that man can progress by his own efforts.
(and here we have the reason why there is no progress among Christians)
Aristotle is known for many scientific discoveries, and no doubt, had a great positive impact on the world of science. However, his god was not the God of the Bible. His god was nature.
(and so, let's piss him down the toilet)
In the early 1600's, Galileo invented the telescope. He looked at the moon and noticed the rugged surface of the moon. He then said that the moon was not smooth like Aristotle said it was. Aristotle had said back in 400 B.C. that the moon was like a perfect smooth sphere, a crystal ball to reflect the sunlight. Galileo even published a book that stated that the moon was not smooth. Aristotle was also contradicted by Galileo on his theory of gravity. Aristotle had said that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects. Galileo proved that to be wrong. In the mid 1600's, Galileo, under penalty of death by the Catholic church, had to recant his awful heresy of teaching that the moon was not smooth. He had dared to suggest that the doctrines of Aristotle as taught by the church could be wrong! He wrote a second book to say that he was wrong and that the moon was perfectly smooth. The priests even refused to look through Galileo's telescope because they said that it was demon possessed.
(Soooo close Kent! you almost had it boy!)
The hold of Aristotle's philosophy on the minds of the people of that time was so strong that scientific progress was hindered. We face the same thing today. The faulty teaching of evolution is hindering scientific progress.
(dooh!)
Thomas Aquinas was no doubt a very sincere man. However, he was sincerely wrong. He was a very influential person in the Renaissance which is called the "Great Awakening." He is often called the father of the Renaissance. This was a time for getting people to think again. They began to be sceptical (sic) of religion in general and the Catholic Church in particular.
(It is a wonder that Kent is unable to learn anything, even from his own "dissertation")
During the French Revolution, Voltair tried to establish a ten-day work week instead of a seven-day week just to try to get people away from the seven days of creation. This of course was a miserable failure.
(he should have tried a five day work week)
Lamarck died in poverty and was unwanted when he died.
(as opposed to Kent over whom the entire world will one day weep and mourn)
The Colorado River did not form the Grand Canyon. The Grand Canyon was formed as the flood went down.
(darn, I already knew this much. I was hoping he'd share with us the location of the stopper)
The New Age movement is nothing more than the old rebellion against God and the belief in evolution, with a little Hindu and Buddhist religion mixed in with it.
(so... piss them down the toilet as well)
It has long been my contention that evolution is just another religion.
(interesting argument for the worthlessness of evolution)
There is no empirical evidence to back it up so it is certainly not a part of science.
(keep refusing to look through that telescope at the rough surface on the moon Kent)
The evolutionists say that man made God instead of God making man.
(Wow, I didn't realize that was a part of evolution theory. Maybe Ken Miller should be alerted to this?)
There may some reading this who may remember when prayer when was taken out of the public school system.
(Kent, did you proof read this at all? Or did you just sit down and let her fly? Perhaps you finished it the night before the assignment was due? This is a doctoral thesis!)
What I am upset about is the fact that their faith is being taught as science in the public school system at my expense as a taxpayer. That upsets me greatly!
(so much so that he went about getting some of it back)
Micro-evolution is small little variations between the species that have been in the genetic structure by.
(I give up. Does someone else understand this sentence?)
David Kits, in "Paleontology and Evolutionary Thought" magazine, said, "Evolution, at least in the sense that Darwin speaks of it, cannot be detected within the life time of a single observer." It cannot be detected. It is not part of science.
(so anything, anything at all that takes longer than the span of a human life is unobservable and unscientific?? If you don't find the facts agreeable, change the definitions to exclude them.)
There are basically four steps involved in the scientific method. There are basically four steps in the scientific method: observation, experimentation, classification of data, and conclusion.
(I like the repetition. I think it helps in case the reader is dozing a bit. Classification of data includes activities such as, "Oh, this is a fish, and that is a bat.")
There has never been an increase in genetic matter or genetic structure.
(here the reader is offered a choice, genetic matter or genetic structure, pick your favorite)
The effect that evolution has on science, I think is devastating. America is rapidly losing ground in the world market in our science students. We are turning out students that many other countries are able to beat in academic scores and academic knowledge because we waste so much class time and textbook time on this dumb idea of evolution.
(oh, that's why... hmmm)
It hinders right thinking.
(I'll grant that something hinders right thinking.)
This is the most common mistake people make when thinking about God. God is not limited by time. There is no time at all in heaven.
(so God is like a snapshot)
I cannot explain it, because I don't understand it. I just have to believe it.
(there is great merit in this kind of belief)
For instance, look at the illustration of the electromagnetic spectrum. The section that we can see with our eyes we call the "color range." ... The spectrum goes beyond that in both directions forever.
(really? in both directions? forever??)
Suppose that God decided to give us eyes that would be able to see the entire magnetic spectrum. We could then see radio waves, radar, television, or microwaves.
(Oh so now it's the magnetic spectrum. Get out your lodestones. I can see television fine right now thank you very much. This conversation sounds more like it belongs in a Cheech and Chong movie rather than a doctoral dissertation. "Hey dude, imagine that you could see radio waves as some new color with your eyes.")
As I was thinking on this subject, I wrote a poem to try to explain this,
(a poem in a doctoral dissertation?? Who handed out this PhD? Willy Wonka?)
I contend that the earth is six or seven thousand years old. There may be some slight error.
(quite)
The theistic evolutionists have said that the six days of creation were actually epics, ages, or eons of years. ... If you look at the sequence of creation, you would see why this argument is not reasonable or scientific. God created the plants on day three before He created the sun on day four. If you think plants are going to survive for billions of years without a sun, you need to study more biology.
(we see here how science can be used to inform proper interpretation of the scripture)
The problem is further complicated when we realize that the insects to pollinate the plants were not created until day five.
(the problem is further complicated when Genesis is read literally)
Another evidence that the earth is young is (sic) fact that the earth's spin is gradually diminishing. The diminishing spin is very minor, just a second a century we are losing.
(Well I think that's a little off. Try 0.0015 sec per century.)
If you interpret that over billions of years, however, it would mean that the earth was spinning so fast that no life could have been possible due to the shorter days, centrifical (sic) force, earth quakes and high winds created.
(a science teacher that can't spell centrifugal? in a doctoral dissertation??)
I'm convinced that much of our modern science, especially relating to evolution, is an absolute joke.
(some thing's an absolute joke)
Kent speculates that bristle cone pines are capable of growing forever and uses that to prove a young earth asking why we don't find any that are half a million years old.
The age of the oldest living thing in the biosphere, the Bristle Cone Pine, indicates a young earth.
(Actually the oldest living thing is a clump of 80,000 year old Aspen trees)
...if the earth is indeed million (sic) of years old, why is the oil still under such incredible pressure? Why hasn't it disipated (sic) into the rock, and formed cracks, and leaked out through the years?
(dunno... why hasn't the water which is at the very bottom of the ocean which is under such incredible pressure still there? Why hasn't it seeped up to higher levels where the pressure is less? Man is not intended to understand such mysteries of the deep. Maybe if we are good, God will reveal these mysteries to us in heaven.)
Kent uses a few other well refuted arguments not worth repeating.
I first saw Kent Hovind on a you-tube video in a debate where he held up a model of a fossil hominid and declared with a smirk that there was no proof that this individual had any offspring and therefore according to him the fossil evidence in general was invalidated.
He should never have been employed as a teacher of anything. Perhaps maybe as an apologist - though I believe the smart money would have been spent having him keep his mouth shut.
One wonders whether he is sincere and really this stupid or whether he is knowingly taking advantage of the institution to rake in some easy money from a stupid population.
™ Version 4.2
