Kent Hovind is a Doctor (READ ON) personally debunks the issue

If his degree was bogus, why do you think he would tell you?Geez, what a world of credulity you must live in. "Did that guy kill his wife and kid?" "I know, let's ask him!"It's mind-boggling why you would think that Hovind's word counts for anything on this matter.Anyway, did you notice his degrees are all in Bible studies or education? Even by his own admission he has no biological training. So why is his opinion relevant to this discussion? One would think that a man who calls himself "Dr. Dino" could get a degree in paleontology, at least.

Not if you want to be "Dr. Dino" and talk about science. If your doctorate isn't in science, then you can't use it to suggest an authority of science. That's exactly what he has done, however, and what makes him a charlitan. No one doubts that he has a piece of paper that says "PH.D" on it. It's the validity of that paper in reference to evolutionary science that has yet to be established.What does he do with his doctorate in education? What great education theory has he developed? What was his thesis material? It's a salutation where (s)he's from. It just means "thanks and goodbye". Around where I'm (and probably you too) from we say something like "Sincerely".

It's "he", in fact. (I couldn't remember if you'd specified a gender, and I hate to make assumptions.) And I appreciate the sentiment, thanks.

Do you think this is trying hard? It takes like 10 minutes on google. Discrediting Kent Hovind is only as hard as quoting most of the garbage from his own mouth. In other words it's pretty simple to discredit him. Sure, because he did science. he didn't just graduate the seminary and write "The Origin of Species". He served for years as a naturalist aboard the Beagle, studying and classifying plants and animals across the world.Kent Hovind calls himself "Dr. Dino." What dinosaurs has he discovered? What digs has he been on? What scientific papers has he published?He's right, it's not the degree that makes you a scientist. It's doing science. Kent Hovind, however, has neither. Must you be so totally ignorant about everything? Shakespeare wasn't a peasant, he was the son of a well-off tradesman. It's the difference between growing up homeless and growing up in Beverly Hills. And he did indeed have an education - he had a grammar school education, which at the time involved about as much study as getting an undergraduate degree in the classics, today.But most importantly, he was a student of human behavior. Since that's what he wrote about, his studies are most relevant to his works.But Kent Hovind has no education in paleontology, nor any other science. So his degree has nothing to do with his thoughts on evolution or creationism. On that subject he knows no more than you or I. Probably significantly less than I, actually. But how is it common sense to ignore evidence? We use evolution today to design circuits and jet planes, and it works better than human design. Common sense to me says that if evolution can design circuits in weeks, it can design all life in a billion years. Simple logic.