Yes, I do know who he is.
No he is not. He has a lot of very bad, but plausible sounding, arguments that even fellow creationists reject. His grasp of science is tenuous at best. He has a fake ‘degree’ from a degree-mill which he tries to use to impress people. He is one of the worst creationist hucksters out there, though at the moment he is somewhat restricted in what he is able to do.
He sounds plausible but when you stop to think about what he says, or investigate it more deeply, it collapses like a house of cards.
Listing resources is not enough. For example, the Bible says that there is no God. See Psalms 14:1, 53:1. Just because I list the resources does not mean that I have interpreted them correctly. Google “quote mining” for references to this practice.
Although I’m agnostic about Mr. Hovind, your analogy misses the point. If a man were thought to be 100 years old, yet some part of his body which had been observed to steadily grow throughout the life of a human (say, for simplicity’s sake, our bones) showed instead evidence of 30 years of growth, it would be against this evidence to say he was 100. Similarly, if Saturn is thought to be “billions” of years old, but the growth of rings shows only x many years worth of constant expansion, it would seem against the evidence to posit that Saturn was billions of years old.
You are making a hidden assumption. You are assuming that Saturn’s rings are the same age as Saturn. We can see that other planets do not have elaborate ring systems like Saturn’s so it is not certain that Saturn always had rings. Hovind makes a similar error when he assumes, without evidence, that Saturn’s rings are as old as the universe. That is incorrect.
) regrow. Hovind’s ludicrous argument glosses over the fact that he is looking at a single hair and trying to date the whole body from that.That section of Hovind’s arguments is titled, “The Age of the Earth”. Of course to Hovind the universe and Earth were created within a week of each other so he is talking about the ages of both. Other arguments on that same page talk about spinning galaxies and red giant stars. He is indeed trying to show that both Earth and the universe are only 6,000 years old.
Odd that one who denies the validity of sense perception to know the outside world is going out proving the age of Saturn…You are making a hidden assumption. You are assuming that Saturn’s rings are the same age as Saturn. We can see that other planets do not have elaborate ring systems like Saturn’s so it is not certain that Saturn always had rings. Hovind makes a similar error when he assumes, without evidence, that Saturn’s rings are as old as the universe. That is incorrect.
Going back to your human analogy, it is crucial that the part you examine, bones in your example, are present throughout. If I examined a hair on my head then it would be younger than my bones because hairs fall out and ( mostly
That section of Hovind’s arguments is titled, “The Age of the Earth”. Of course to Hovind the universe and Earth were created within a week of each other so he is talking about the ages of both. Other arguments on that same page talk about spinning galaxies and red giant stars. He is indeed trying to show that both Earth and the universe are only 6,000 years old.
rossum
That is a subject for a different thread. The topic of this thread is Kent Hovind.
Does your religion require you to be a creationist? That is a shame.Do you guys know who kent hovind is??
drdino.com
I dont know if you’ve ever heard of him, but hes good at proving the evolutionists wrong.
You should check him out!
He also has great videos on youtube where he debates evolutionists.
I agree, were that requirement true (notice the careful use of the subjunctive
) However, if you look at this and other threads, you’ll see that the great majority of those who call themselves Catholics believe in some form of evolution, i.e. common descent (as distinguished from one or another proposed mechanisms for evolution, e.g. the Darwinian mechanism of survival of the fittest.) Church dogma and doctrine do not prohibit a belief in evolution. Indeed John Paul II called evolution “more than a hypothesis”, and that no Church teaching prevented Catholics from believing in the bodily descent from lower species.If we disagree about how to do addition, there’s no point discussing the multplication table.
None of which affects the fact the Kent Hovind is a charlatan who misled people into accepting his rubbish as factual.
And of course what you mean by “Kent Hovind” is simply some idea that exists only in your mind and not in reality…in which case, there is no reason for me to argue with you about it, since arguing about imaginary people is pointless.
There is currently a temporary ban on the discussion of evolution in this Forum. See the stickies at the top of this Forum: Temporary Ban on Evolution/Atheism Threads.
Yeah - ‘temporary’… right…