What's the creationists thought on this?

"I have read many hundreds of anti-Hovind remarks, and they ALL either make personal attacks at HIM (unnecessary) or they make propositions and hypotheses that go against him and claim that Hovind lied."
--I don't think he lied, he's just a bit arrogant about himself with all the yelling and cheering coming from his credulous fellows. But I also think that the biggest problem with Hovind is that he just doesn't understand science.This is old, but I think you could use it: http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/evcforum/Hovind.htm"Honestly, if you had actual, irrefutable, empirical PROOF for evolution, Hovind would pay up."
--His problem is that there is no such thing as proof in scientific conclusions for the mechanics or happening of any historical event."Consider those two statements. The thumb is of remarkable design that allows us to pick things up easily, (it would have been much harder to type this comment if I had not thumbs). If we evolved by chance, how would "evolution" know that we would be in need of a thumb millions of years down the road?"
--Wow, you have impressed me. You must have read quite a bit on natural selection and evolutionary theory.-------------------

"Seriously, I don't doubt that Dr. Hovind has research of his own that would disagree with many other creationists. (that's part of the problem--if all the public creationists like Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, John Morris, Dr. Gentry, Brian Young, Vance Ferrell, Ray Comfort, Bill Sardi, Dr. Gish, and Dr. Comninellis settled their minor differences and agreed to combine their ministries to make one supreme creation science movement then they might be much more affective)."
--haha. I dread the day because no they wouldn't. With emphasis on Hovind and Gish, possibly Morris as well."On the other hand, I trust the research of Hovind's that remains consistent with the Bible and with other creationists (that would make it much more compelling for me to believe)."
--That doesn't make it more compelling for a scientist to believe. You don't trust/agree with the interpretations of people just because their conclusions are consistent with any belief."And there is plenty of it (I've seen all 15 hours of Hovind's seminars and he has an abundance of research consistent with the majority of creationists listed above.)"
--Would it help to note that much of those above do not do real research? I know it may be combersum, but you also don't agree with an(attemptedly) scientific finding because it is easy for the general public to understand. Hovind in particular has a habit of trying to come up with the simplest explanation, but forgets that that explanation must be consistent with the surrounding evidence (he seems to follow only half of Ockham's principle)."For you creationists out there: do you think that the creation scientists listed above should form a creation movement (combine) and be more effective? I realize it's not likely, but that should at least be discussed."
--My vote - Certainly not.-------------------

"Mr Hovind has yet to present any research of his own - only quote-mining and wild-to-altogether-goofy assertions. And the same goes for nearly everything the entire YEC bunch has done: I can think of maybe two examples where any of them have done any research whatsoever beyond the armchair speculation kind."
--I agree on the Hovind part. I disagree that all of the 'YEC bunch' has done this though.-------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 04-23-2003]

"He did say "goes for nearly everything" and then mentions "maybe two examples". So you comment about disagreeing with the "all" isn't pertinant."
--Thanks for the notice, I agree."I'd be interested in the research that has been conducted."
--Baumgardner and Horsetemeyer have done a good parametric study on deformation instabilities and the initiation of the runaway regime of subduction. Baumgardner also has a forthcoming paper on the general CPT process. Both are still in press but I have been given access to them for use in my analysis here:http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/...aft/heattransfer2.htm--Hopefully my paper will get published. I don't think I can pass off the papers themselves to you without Baumgardner's permission, if you like you can give him an e-mail and he may be willing to send it to you. I disagree with Baumgardner somewhat on some aspects of the event. If you read through the article where I reference the 2003 work of Baumgardner you might want to take note of my comments.Mark F. Horstemeyer & John R. Baumgardner, What initiated the flood cataclysm? Proceedings from the Fifth ICC, 2003
John R. Baumgardner, Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: The physics behind the genesis flood. Proceedings of the Fifth ICC, 2003--Both of these papers should be available shortly after the conference.--I don't study very much of the YECist material so I wouldn't be able to give you much of any significant incite on very many individuals and their works.-------------------

"... because there is not 100% agreement on many key issues. Also, that 'total agreement' won't ever be reached because there will always be unanswered questions / missing data (God planned it that way ) within the creationist community as well as within the Christian community."
--As well as all the rest of the scientific community.-------------------