Kent Hovind is a Doctor (READ ON) personally debunks the issue

Hiho, Jozzy my boy, hope you're keeping well Mark

quote:

---

I cant believe the proof is right there and you refuse to accept it.
-Chris

---

Chris, please answer the following question.What kind of university, college, or higher educational institution do you think operates out of a split-level home in a residential neighborhood?Seriously, what would you think if someone said he or she was going to take you to see the University from which they received their Doctoral education and drove up to a modest split-level home in a residential neighborhood in suburban Colorado, pointed at it, and said, "There! That's the place I earned my PhD?What would you think?

quote:

---

By the way, Darwin's only degree was in theology yet he is often called a great scientist in textbooks today.

---

Darwin had a degree in Theology and not Biology because there were no Biology degrees back then!There were no formalized sciences back then, only rich "gentleman naturalists" who belonged to loose academic groups.Sheesh, this guy will go to any end to deceive people, won't he?Either that or he is completely ignorant of the history of science.

Not to bad, new job is keeping me busy as heck so I'll probably go back to lurk mode soon, hows things with you?P.S (New job is as an inspector for the assessors office, just the way to make friends and influence people, "hello Mr X, your property is worth far more than you want us to think and your property taxes are going up". Yes its official Joz is the man in the black hat.....)

Joz,Not too bad, same shite, different day, y'know how it goes.If spurs EVER get to the FA cup final again, I'll personally stand you for the flight & tickets. But, well, my money's safe, sadly Nice to see you posting, though, mate.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Well I'll just have to put on my believe like crazy hat and start in on coaxing the big fella into helping out.....Its the only way it'll happen....Maybe a certain D Maradona could give me some tips.....

joz, are you referring to handy tips or the hand of god?

I do not stand behind some of Hovinds beliefs and theories ( the ones mainly disputed by you guys). I looked on AiG's resources and saw some of his errors. This of course has nothing to do with the question "is he a doctor?". Though that question doesnt matter. Is there a way to close a thread? lol------------------
"I believe in christianity as I believe the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."-C.S. Lewiscontact me for any reason at: messenjahjr@yahoo.com

Excellent messenjah! You have realized the point of the whole exercise here: using someone's credentials as validation of their claims is spurious - even if their credentials are valid, it doesn't make their claims valid. It's the fallacy of "appeal to authority". The reality with Hovind is that his claims are not only invalid, but his credentials are at best irrelevant and at worst questionable. The fact that he relies on his "PhD" to convince the unknowing that his claims have weight is in and of itself a reason to scrutinize the claims very closely.You should take advantage of Mark's offer to discuss one or more of the claims you personally feel are compelling - not because Hovind said so, but because YOU feel they either require an answer or are troubling. That's the kind of discussion this board was established to address.My two cents.

I dont see anything to discuss, every man has their faults. I still think he is a doctor but that hopefully doesnt matter if he is or not when discussing evolution and creation, just because a man doesnt have vast science degrees doesnt mean he cant argue evolution. Hopefully you feel the way I do.------------------
"I believe in christianity as I believe the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."-C.S. Lewiscontact me for any reason at: messenjahjr@yahoo.com

messenjaH writes:

quote:

---

just because a man doesnt have vast science degrees doesnt mean he cant argue evolution. Hopefully you feel the way I do.

---

Of course one does not need little letters after one's name in order to have something significant to say about a subject.However, one has to have evidence to justify what one says. Simply believing really hard isn't sufficient.Take Fermat. He's a big name in mathematics...and he wasn't a mathematician. He basically did math as a hobby and had no real training in it...and it shows. If you look at his work, it is filled with unjustified assumptions, questionable areas dismissed with a wave of his hand, and general sloppiness. The story surrounding his Greater Theorem is a perfect example:When studying a book about Diophantine Equations, he came across a section dealing with quadratics: x² + y² = z² where x, y, and z are all integer. While this form was known to have solutions, it was only speculated that forms of higher degree, xⁿ + yⁿ = zⁿ, had no integer solution.Fermat wrote that infamous line, "I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain."But he never wrote it down anywhere else. So why were people so sure that there was a proof? Because despite the fact that he was so sloppy, he was quite often right. He had the essential truth down even though he didn't have the formal methodology right that would justify his claim. He would routinely send his work to friends of his who were mathematicians who would clean it up and make sure all the details were worked out.It turns out that Fermat was right about xⁿ + yⁿ = zⁿ, too. However, the actual proof we have of it is so complicated, requiring the use of mathematics that hadn't been discovered in 1630 when he wrote that note, that it is certain that the proof he was thinking of was wrong.So just because you don't have a degree doesn't mean you should remain silent. I dare say that most of the people on this list aren't degreed in biology.But you should pause to take stock as to where you are getting the justifications for your statements. Are they based in the work of the lab and the field, upon repeatable experiment and study, upon data that has been analyzed by a host of practitioners who are actively looking for errors and finding none? Or are they based upon the statements of people who have an ax to grind, an agenda to push, an ulterior motive?Consider this question: How will the people you are turning to for guidance take to the idea of being wrong? Will they rejoice in learning something new, praise the creativity, and offer money to teach others what has been found? Or will they condemn the information as heresy, blasphemy, and work of the devil?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Hi messenjaH,I'm a little puzzled why you began discussion of this controversial topic in the Free For All forum where there is no moderation. Would you like it moved?I think you and Hovind are both correct to suspect that ad hominem attacks often indicate that the message hasn't been found vulnerable, and so the attacks are instead directed against the messenger. Even if we grant for the sake of this point that Hovind's degree is from a degree mill, it wouldn't have any bearing on whether his arguments have merit. They must stand or fall on their own. I suspect that the evolutionists here are only raising this issue as a supporting point along the lines of, "Not only does he lie about the facts of evolution, he even lies about his own degree."If we instead assume that Hovind's PhD in education was completely meritorious it leaves open the important question of why you are not casting a skeptical eye on arguments by an admitted non-expert. Kent Hovind is a gatherer of true-sounding arguments against evolution, but his inability to assess the quality of those arguments places his scientific expertise into serious question, while his unwillingness to back away from those arguments that are demonstrably false and whose only purpose is to persuade those unfamiliar with science calls his honesty into question. That every year there's another incident of people buying shares in a company touting a perpetual motion machine clearly illustrates the vulnerability of the scientifically illiterate, and Hovind takes full advantage of this.I do not myself believe that Kent Hovind is lying. I believe he is truly as ignorant of science as his arguments make clear.Your communication from Hovind is mostly a form letter. You may find it in substantially the same form at these two links: The second link is actually an archive of Hovind's Dr. Dino site. Evidently Hovind used to address the degree question right at his site, but he has since removed it. The possibility that Hovind is dissembling when he describes his degree is reinforced by the minor differences between the versions. For example, the version that used to reside at the Dr. Dino site said this about Patriot University: But the version Hovind sent to you instead says this: It would appear that as the facts about Patriot University became clear that Hovind first amended his statements, then as the difficulties became more and more evident completely removed the question from his site altogether.Hovind aside, my advice would be that as you study the issues surrounding evolution that you always ask yourself how we know this, or what evidence is there in support of that. And you should ask the evolutionists the same question.--Percy

Hi Schraf!When you click on an avatar you get a bigger version, but yours is still pretty small and that's one fine picture. If you send a bigger high quality version to Admin I'm pretty sure I can keep the larger size while reducing the space requirements.Is that your horse? She's beautiful! Your fan club is growing, we're off plotting how to get rid of Zhimbo...------------------

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

Rats. I was mistaken. You DID completely miss the point. Tell you what, let me rephrase it for you: So in an attempt to move the discussion along, I'll stipulate to the following:1. Hovind's degree is a genuine, gold-plated, legitimate (if non-traditional) degree.2. Since he has been writing and speaking on this subject for many years, he has at worst informed layman's status, and may aspire to the caveat of "expert".THEREFORE, we should be able to evaluate his specific statements and claims without reference to ad hominem - as we would the statements and claims of ANY other expert up to an including Charles Darwin himself in light of scientific observations and evidence.Agreed? If so, please go back to Hovind's site, pick one or two of the claims or statements he makes (since you seem to be enamored of his work) OR ANY OTHER CREATIONIST SITE, that appear to YOU PERSONALLY to be either problematic for evolution, troubling or confusing to you personally, or compelling evidence for creationism, open a new topic string, and let's discuss them!So far, we appear to be bogged down in an utter irrelevancy (whether or not Hovind the man is legit). Let's move on past it, shall we?Get my point, now?

messenjah, That's true, but Hovinds faults are directly relevant to his claims. It's not like his faults are chewing his fingernails, is it? His faults are that he is a preacher of anti science, misrepresents the truth, is not logically or evidentially consistent, & I maintain he is an outright liar. If he isn't a liar, then at best he is guilty of making bombastic claims without ever having seen the data. Same difference as far as his readers should be concerned.He has been shown to be wrong twice, in just the two cases brought up. Both Quetzal & I (among others, I'm sure) are confident that the cancer runs deeper than you could possibly imagine. I agree that Hovind having a Ph.D or not matters not one jot to his arguments.How about we strike a deal. You pick what you think is one of Hovinds best arguments, & we'll show it to be false or irrelevant logically or evidentially. Three strikes & he's out? This isn't a reflction on you, messenjah, but at some point you have to be able to spot that Hovind isn't just an unreliable source, he is a willfully unreliable source, & that that casts a mighty big shadow on anything he says.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."[This message has been edited by mark24, 08-10-2003]