What facts does Kent Hovind get wrong?

[aball1035]

I have watched many of his videos and find myself both impressed and blown away. However, many people say his facts are off.

My question is, what points is he wrong on?

(Please no general answers like “he’s wrong about the earth being a few thousand years old”, but rather more detailed and scientific answers such as “He believes this about C-14 dating, when it’s really this. Here is the source.” or something of that nature)

Thanks!

 

[rossum]

My question is, what points is [Hovind] wrong on?

Here is one of Kent Hovind’s argumants:Saturn’s Rings

The planet Saturn has rings around it but the rings are moving away from the planet, they are gradually expanding out. They cannot be billions of years old; they would have been gone by now. When voyagers sailed to one of the rings of Saturn, they said it looked like it was braided. They said Man, all these particles are in motion. You cannot keep that finely, braided texture from millions of years. Probably less than 10,000 years is a reasonable estimate. Like the Bible says, the earth was created 6,000 years ago.

– Source: jcsm.org/Creation/Hovind/seminar_part1b.html
There are two errors here, one of fact and one of logic.

The factual error is the lesser of the two, Saturn’s rings are millions of years old:We find that the ring age is between 4.4 and 67 myr.

– Source: A micrometeorite erosion model and the age of Saturn’s rings.

Hovind’s logical error is more serious. He assumes that the age of Saturn’s rings is the same as the age of the universe. This is an obvious logical error. I am less than 100 years old. Does that mean that the universe is less than 100 years old? Of course not, I am younger than the universe so my age alone cannot say much about the age of the universe. Similarly with the rings of Saturn, all we can say is that the universe cannot be younger than the rings. It can be older. Hovind provides no evidence and carefully glides over the gaping logical hole in his argument. I am sure it sounds effective at the time, but his skills as an orator are no substitute for his lack of factual accuracy or his lack of basic logic.

Hovind is one of the least credible creationists around.

rossum

 

[vz71]

Another argument of his…

All through our solar system we have what is called short period comets. They come around, like Haley’s comet; they come around every once in a while. They can predict how often they will be here. 76 years, I think for Haley’s comet. Well, short period comets are constantly losing material as the solar wind blows the tail off of them. They have a life span of less than 10,000 years. So why do we still have comets in the solar system? They prove the solar system is not billions of years old.

Well, he reaches a grand conclusion. That the existence of comets proves the universe is not that old.
but the facts he brings do not support any such conclusion.

He is making the assumption that comets were created at the same time as the the rest of the solar system. That they have been doing the same thing since our solar system was created. We know that is not the case, but this is conveniently left out.

Ignorant at best, deceptive at worst.
Either way he should not be believed.

 

[JustaServant]

Kent Hovind, besides being a convicted felon, is a loon even by fundamentalist Christian standards. There are far more reliable sources on the creation/evolution debate than him.
He is very anti-Catholic and thrives on conspiracy theories. He made a killing ten years ago with the Y2K scare.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I have watched many of his videos and find myself both impressed and blown away. However, many people say his facts are off.

My question is, what points is he wrong on?

(Please no general answers like “he’s wrong about the earth being a few thousand years old”, but rather more detailed and scientific answers such as “He believes this about C-14 dating, when it’s really this. Here is the source.” or something of that nature)

Thanks!

For one, he claims that the Hebrew word ראם means “unicorn” and argues that a unicorn wouldn’t be “wild” because horses (a similar animal) can be domesticated. Therefore, this word is probably referring to a dinosaur (like triceratops) because they are strong but their small brains would make them difficult to domesticate.

First, there’s nothing about ראם indicating that it’s a singular-horned animal–most likely this refers to oryx leucoryx or perhaps the aurochs. But in any event his logic basically is: 1) wild animals are wild (not domesticated) because they have small brains 2) dinosaurs have small brains 3) obscure wild animals mentioned in the Bible must be dinosuars.

When a man has a PhD from a diploma mill, doesn’t have a science background, and doesn’t use any citations in his articles, one does have to ask some serious questions about his qualifications.

My question is: How does this man blog from prison?

 

[MarkBrown]

Sadly Pensacola seems to be a magnet for loons…and not just the waterfowl. Hovind and crew are just one of too many poorly educated “ministers” dotting the streets of Pensacola. Seems like everytime I drive down the street, some other guy has gotten a “dipolma” from Pensacola Bible Institute and set up shop.

Fr. Mark