Omni writes:
Yes, he writes and reasons as if he were free of even the intellectual shackles of grammar school. With just a little less schooling, he coulda been a genius.
My friend, haven't I told you thousands of times not to exaggerate?
Omni writes:
Perhaps you could quote some passage that illustrates the accuracies of this prodigious autodidact? Just saying it is so is what he does, and that doesn't make it so.
I don't have a passage perse in mind, but I have to agree with Kent that BB and evolution science assumes far too much pertaining to how things were in the universe scores of millions to billions of years ago, so very distant from physical observation. I agree also that ID is implicated in the degree of complexity that is observed on earth and in the universe; things like DNA, et al. I also agree that science should apply more logic to interpretations of what is observed than they do.
(BTW
autodidact is in neither my abridged or my unabridged dictionaries. I assume by the syllables of your term that you mean something like
an omnivorous self taught teacher.
Omni writes:
Kookiness is not next to Godliness. I'd be wary of cozying up to anyone whom even the folks at Answers in Genesis have turned their backs on, Brother Buz.
Read my former post carefully, my friend. By this and other stuff I've posted on Hovind, there's some significant differences in my creationism and his. My point here is that I don't buy the degree of rejection that many of you are posting. Imo, in the end after all is said and done in the judgement, Hovind will have ascribed to and taught more actual scientific truth than most of his counterparts in debate.
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW