By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
highwaystar101 on 05 July 2010
Edit Thread
Homeroids said:
highwaystar101 on 06/29/10 18:58 GMT

I find the Macro/micro evolution argument often given by creationists to be a fallacy, purposely promoted by the likes of Kent Hovind and Answers in Genesis.


Kent Hovind. Ah yes, personally, I think recent creationists like this guy are the one's making anyone that has a non-world view on the old creation/evolution chestnut look like crackpots. People like Hugh Ross tend to have a more balanced view on the subject. Alternatively, people like Hovind are just like the extreme element of the church when the Galileo was around. You can only hold onto the idea that the earth is the centre of the universe for so long. And no, a lot of theology of the time did NOT have a strong dogma about this topic.

Kent Hovind's Doctrate is not even in a science, as far as I know. It was in education (probably theologically based). Last I heard of Hovind was that he was serving time for tax evasion. I find it almost offensive to teach children that man walked with the dinosaurs. It's just ridiculous.

As for the age of the earth/universe. I put it at about 4.5b for the earth and 13.8b for the rest :). Extreme fundalmentalists will look at Genesis in an absolute literal sense, based on the English (ie, non-original script) version, and then build their science around this premise. Maybe they need to look at Genesis as being a laying of theological principals and possibly poetic in some form or analogous.

Kent Hovind's PhD was from a diploma mill called Patriot bible University. Basically you turn up, do a few weeks of research, make a minuscule original contribution to knowledge, and at the end of it you get an illegitimate and unaccredited doctorate. Apparently his doctoral dissertation was only 100 pages long and did not contain any references. It's a real piss take.

He also claims that he taught high school science, which is another lie .

Both of them have been said for a specific reason, people tend to not question those who have signs of considerable experience in a field. But in Hovind's case, he has no experience whatsoever.