Jared v. Hovind

Are you sure? I can't see that anywhere in the wikipedia article, and they aren't visible on this CT scan of a Hoatzin head.TTFN,WK

You're right, he might not be intentionally telling untruths, he could just be deluded or forgetful with regards to the fact that he does not correct the errors that are pointed out to him. I've watched enough of his debates and seminars to come to the conclusion that there is some element of the propaganda about the way he presents his information (Gish Gallop, quote mining etc), which I'm happy to call deceptive.I don't know the exact nature of the 'Ornithiscia and Saurischia' scenario or whether or not deceit was employed, but we need to face facts here, either Hovind has a short memory or he lies about something somewhere. I think one of Hovind's tax evasion trials starts next week, so I guess we get to see a measure of how honest the man is there. My intuition tells me he is in trouble but will slide his way out of it, but what can you do when your lawyer gets sued for some kind of tax fraud affair?

Hovind might believe in a young Earth but that doesn't make him correct, or anything more than a fraud for that matter. If he has a defensible position, why would he use an impossible and incorrect definition of evolution in the $250,000 challenge? I would not call criticism of Hovind a "cheap shot" when the man uses strawmen like the definition of evolution found in his challenge, has a PhD from a degree mill, and parrots back long-disproven claims while failing to accept any evidence that disagrees with him.

Hi Faith,I am very curious. How much of Kent Hovind's materials have you actually seen for yourself?http://evolution.no-ip.net/seminar1.aspThis link looks to still work. I would be curious to see what you think of him given that may not have been exposed to much Hovind before. There are some people who come in here who either became YECs because of Hovind or use a lot of his work as their primary argument for a YE. IMO there is no way this is possible unless he seriously has some kind of mental disease. I am not trying to just attack the man because I disagree with him. I sincerely believe he is nothing but a classic snake-oil swindler who preys on honest, innocent, gullable, and ill informed Christians.My biggest reason for thinking this is that he still to this day uses "evidence" that is so far out of left field that to continue to use it only shows that he does not care about telling the truth.If you go out and preach that the sky is orange and honestly believe it is so. When you finally are told and shown that they sky is blue yet continue to preach that it is orange there is no way to avoid the fact that you are lying.Combine that with my impression that most of his seminars have that "used care salesman/pyramid scheme/rapid fire handy-dandy-mixer-dicer" look and feel, I would hope that most YECs would at least disown him in favor of the more legitimate YEC resources like AIG and ICR that are at least capable of abandoning arguments that are so long refuted as to be rediculous.I would love to join a thread on Hovind if you are interested in discussing this further.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Ironically, I became an 'evolutionist' because of Hovind. I've always accepted evolution, and never thought anyone seriously questioned it. Then I heard that some people actively fight the idea, so I watched some of Hovind's debates and thought I'd come to forums to see if anyone puts Hovind's work forward as an argument.Fortunately, it's rare, I think Hovind has lost a lot of credibility with creationists after their respectable champions, AiG proverbially turned their backs on him.

Sure, it is always possible that he is sincere. That does not have anything to do with the facts that he is dishonest and wrong. No one has even said that a YEC may not be sincere, we all acknowledge that, but they are still wrong. We can though look at the history of Hovind and see that he failed to report income tax and refused to get building permits. We can see that he continues to repeat things long after he has been corrected.Certain things, like the age of the earth, are not subject to personal opinion. Anyone who believes that the earth is young is simply wrong. They may sincerely believe they are right, but that does not have any effect on reality.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

No, I don't follow Hovind. But I know from experience that creationists may be accused of being deceitful when they are not.I didn't object to arguments that he's wrong, only that he's deceitful, so it's irrelevant to argue that he's wrong in answer.

For most folks, I would agree with you. Hovind's a different story.

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

Maybe I was wrong on that point. But I seem to recal reading it somewhere.Perhapse it's a baby tooth, like an egg-tooth sorta thing. In any case, still a cool specimine

you could go into population studies. most of biology is replete with calculus and statistics.welcome to our little piece of hell.

i seem to recall that most birds have egg teeth.btw. your icon just made me giggle. even ignoring what it means, it's just so funny looking This message has been edited by brennakimi, 04-21-2006 03:46 PM

having been to a hovind lecture, i can tell you that he's certainly sincere about what he believes. this does not have any bearing on the fact that he purposely misinterprets and miseducates people on biological and other scientific information. he goes around lecturing school children about the falsities he has constructed about the world around them. it seems that any lie that might persuade someone to believe in god is an acceptable lie to him.

I've watched Hovind a number of times on TV. Imo, where he get's in trouble, for the most part is his young universe stance.What our friends are not admitting is that even if Hovind is wrong on some things, he's is either right on much of what he says, or at least has a viable/sensible argument for many of his alternative interpretations of what is observed scientifically.As for Hovind's education, well, he's educated, having done a lot of homework and just maybe not as programmed into some questionable mainline interpretations of science observations as all those who've been through the mainline assemblyline of conventional science all the way from grade school through doctorate.I haven't seen the debate with Jared yet, but it appears from the comments that he at least held his own on much as debates go.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

Translation = he knows less about science than high school kids

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.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.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.