It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Evolution: the conspiracy of creationism's favorite son, Hovind.

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 25 2002 @ 07:04 AM
Hello everyone....

What are the possible motives of Kent Hovind?

Big surprise, I was discussing evolution versus creationism with someone the other day, and Kent Hovind was brought up with his "$250,000 challenge" for anyone who can prove evolution. My debater took great pride in pointing out that it hadn't been awarded yet.

So, I looked at this "challenge" and found it to be a deliberate hoax.

Here's are the five major points of his "challenge":

" 1. Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing.
2. Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets around the sun. (This process is often referred to as cosmic evolution.)
3. Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving matter (chemical evolution).
4. Caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in reproducing themselves.
5. Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms of living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth today (biological evolution)."

He later states as a means to collect the cash-o-la:

"Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence."

Anyone see the problem here?

Item Five is the only item in his list of five that falls into the branch of science defined as evolution. Evolution does not define the "how" of the universe's and earth's formation, nor does it concern itself with the manner in which life happened. Instead, as most of us know, this branch of science examines the way life changed, over millions of years.

I've seen Hovind's videos and his live presentations to Churches... this little piece escaped my notice until now. He uses his "challenge" as a basis for proving evolution must be wrong since no evolutionist can provide the proper evidence. Well, it's designed that way and he knows it.

Hovind is the worst kind of huckster, playing on people's faith and emotion to make a buck, and lying to tens of thousands of people in hundreds of church congregations.

His motives are cash. Plain and simple. Therefore, any of his claims are of exceedingly dubious quality and should be dismissed.

posted on Oct, 25 2002 @ 02:35 PM
Hello William.

I have as far as I can remember always believed that all things have been created, But I would like to just share with you a few things that I can remember seeing on a video tape about creation. I am not able to remember all what i saw but i do remember a couple of significant scientific facts that an English professor said on that tape. firstly he said that the Sun is growing about 5ft an hour so if the universe is millions of years old the Sun would by now be touching the Earths surface. Secondly he mentioned a particular gas, either Helium or HYdrogen I can't remember which one it was, but anyway he said that this gas enters the Earths atmosphere but is unable to escape. So you see that if this Earth was as old as evolutionists say it is, then the air would be flooded with this gas and we would not be able to breath.

Concerning Mr Kent Hovind Im afraid I do not know much about him or what he has said. So I am unable to Comment. But I would like you to try an experiment for yourself. Evolutionists say that all that is mainly required for things to evolve is the Sun and access to water, and I suppose with some Earth. So go and find a stick, plant it in the ground visible to the sun and water it every day, and if it eventually turns into a beautiful apple tree then maybe you can start your own grocery store.

I do thankyou for the topic though Stewards.

posted on Oct, 25 2002 @ 03:15 PM
That's a very bizarre post Stewards...

Since I haven't seen the creationist materials you provided, I can't comment on them directly. However, you brought up topics which are oft repeated in the debate of creationism versus science.

In relation to the sun, I'm only aware of creationists claims that the sun is actually shrinking. No matter. I am interested, however, in how you decide that this is a steady-state system?

A brief discussion of this is found in ``Looking Inside the Sun'', ASTRONOMY, March 1989. Analysis of historical records of eclipses and transits give varying numbers. One result gives 2.25 arcseconds per century, similar to the above figure. Another result gives an upper limit of 0.3 arcsecond per century, but is also consistent with no shrinkage. Two more historical analyses indicate that the sun was a bit larger a century ago than today. Current measurements indicate that the sun is not now shrinking.

The statements about helium are false as well (that helium should have built up from U-decay over time). Our current level of helium is exactly as predicted. Check out the following sources for more information:
Calculations on the Composition of the terrestrial Planets -- Reynolds & Summers, Journal of Geophysical Research vol 74, no 10 May 15, 1969 p 2494
The formation of the Earth from Planetesimals -- Wetherill, Scientific American June 1981
Atmospheric and Hydrospheric Evolution on the Primitive Earth -- Cloud, Preston E., Jr., Science 160, (17 May 1968), pp 729 - 736
The Effect of a Planet's Size on the Evolution of its Atmosphere -- Mart, Michael H, published in some conference or another; I got a copy from the author. (ave Allen davea@ll-vlsi.ARPA)
Our Evolving Atmosphere -- Is Anyone There? by Isacc Asimov

I'd rather this discussion not degrade into a creation versus science debate (unless it remains civil... we'll see if that can happen), so your analogy of watering a twig is a bit childish don't you think? Everything evolves. However, for this discussion we're concerned with biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve.

I'm more concerned with the tactics of lies and deceit by one of creationism's loudest voices, Kent Hovind. How can Christians of sound faith continue to believe creation versus science material that is based on lies?

[Edited on 25-10-2002 by William]

posted on Oct, 25 2002 @ 03:23 PM
i beleive in both...

posted on Oct, 25 2002 @ 05:07 PM
Hello again William.

The supposed facts that I said were just what I watched on this tape. I don't know if they are really true or not afterall Im not a scientist. Concerning the stick, sun, water, thing, even though the professor did say this, I meant it as a joke. Just some old fashioned british humour.

I will just mention that an evolutionist said that evolution takes millions of years to happen and we can't see it happening because it goes so slowly. well that does not make sense, how can something go so slowly that you can't see it happening.

Now. You ask how can christians of sound faith continue to believe creation verses science materials based on lies.
Well your right, they should'nt. If a christian does this he is not a true christian. lying or believing a lie is an abomination in the sight of God. The bible clearly states that he who lies is not of or for God. So if a christian brings forth material and knows that it is based on lies then throw this back at them.

posted on Oct, 25 2002 @ 05:57 PM
Hi Again...

As for things moving slowly, well... you accept that water erodes rock don't you? That functions so slowly you cannot notice, for example.

Regarding creationism lies, among the most important that evolution defines the creation of the universe, here we find the conspiracy of deception. A small group (Hovind, Answers In Genesis, etc.) is attempting to keep a large population (Christians and more) ignorant of the facts. And, as usual, this larger group, inspired by the lies of the smaller group, is attempting to influence public education.

This certainly follows the patterns and motives of what qualifies as a conspiracy.

posted on Oct, 25 2002 @ 10:19 PM
For me the implication of the 7 days in Genesis is indicative of a period of rotation. One which is on a much grander scale than what we are accustomed to,
when discussing orbital phenomenon.

Specifically my impression is the 7 days, are days in regard to what we understand as the Universe rotating about its axis. Because everything in nature engages in the same act of (to one degree or another). There is really no reason to conclude, that what we call the Universe does itself have a period of rotation

posted on Oct, 26 2002 @ 04:11 AM
Hovind is beneath contempt - a money-grabbing fraud whose only contact with reality is his not infrequent brushes with the law and the IRS.
Go to and see for yourself.
This is the guy who said vitamins B17 and C would cure cancer
Take a stiff drink, six aspirin, complete a legal will-form and then search "kent hovind hoax"
And can anyone tell me of an evolutionist/Darwinian who's hustling for donations, hyping his DVD's, scientifically a cretin, and who addresses the ignorant by choice, rather than the educated?

posted on Oct, 26 2002 @ 04:28 AM
with his customary sagacity, has pointed out the only real conspiracy angle - I do hope this doesn't become another GodSquad v Darwin rant - leading nowhere.
And can someone post an idiot-proof guide to elementary quantum-mechanics so that we are spared at least some of the babble about the "Universe" and its contents?
Children of 3 and 4 are constantly stopping Estragon, as he does his field-work survey of the local bars, demanding that I listen to their insights into unified field theory and the multiple dimensions of Kaluza and Klein.
"Is it not the case, Uncle Estragon" they cry, "that the present state of Physics is a set of closely inter-related but fundamentally -as yet -incompatible theories?"
"Quite so, little ones." I reply amiably.
"It would be fair to say,then," they continue, " that anyone claiming anything approaching 'knowledge' about the universe, is probably six wheels short of a roller-skate?"
"'Twas ever thus." I reply before I cuff them gently and proceed with my vital task.
We've just retrieved the Board - we can do better than this.

posted on Oct, 26 2002 @ 12:17 PM
Estragon how much do you know about Bells theorem?

Bells Theorem

And what about the issue of Microtublules?


Have you ever heard of a theory known as Eternal Oscillating Universe?


And what of the Speed of Gravity?


posted on Oct, 26 2002 @ 07:47 PM
Bellís whisky more Estragonís field, dear Toltec, but even here in the steaming jungle, we are not unfamiliar with John S. Bell, locality and spin correlation.
However, one must make the immediate observation that, as in so much else, it is called a ětheoremî because that is just what it is: no more and no less, just as most of what it is based upon: e.g. Diracís original postulates concerning spin are simply postulates. Certainly some experimental confirmation has come later, but nothing that is conclusive or does not require further work.
And, and this again is very often the case, Bellís work illustrates the problems that arise when gifted mathematicians attempt to verbalise their work: moving into another field where they are not particularly gifted. The usual counter to Bell, for example, focuses upon the looseness of his notion of ěsimultaneityî
The theorem proceeds from a linear combination of spin correlation functions, each of which has a differing pair of arguments. The meaning of ěsimultaneousî when we talk of the presence of these different arguments in the same equation is not clear: either it applies only to a single pair or it applies, and is measured as such, for each of the different pairs. Bell appears to take only the former into account and therefore, not unexpectedly, shows
a discrepancy between local realistic and quantum mechanical positions. Yet this may only be because Bell has unjustifiably applied the single-pair postulations to multiple sets of pairs. We cannot say with strong objective clarity that ěsimultaneousî applies across multiple sets of pairs ń we can only assume it mathematically or postulate it explicitly. Thus we have a possibly meaningless comparison between a local realistic inequality (1 pair) and quantum mechanical predictions (more than 1 pair).
In short, the mathematical sophistication may be entirely vitiated by a sudden linguistic lapse in something as obviously dubious as ěat the same timeî.
I am well aware that Bellís theorem is backed up by limited experimental data and that the consensus is that only non-local hidden variable theory is still a strong counter-argument.
The point is that the theorem remains simply a possible account of problems within any attempt at specifying a physical system and should not therefore be treated as a sound foundation for anything more than speculation. And this is no doubt why one so often encounters Bellís work in pseudo-science, ěpsiî science, articles on telepathy and the rest. Bell is taken to ěproveî strange and mysterious possibilities whereas it is no more than a mathematically powerful case against certain arguably more prosaic models of interpretation that, if adhered to, would give rise to Bellís inequality. It is about what probably isnít, much more than it is about what really is.
Hence the need to eschew the practice of presenting such bits of science as a philosopherís stone that will somehow turn mere fancy into holy writ.
Whatever we may think of it: "local"; "simultaneous" "hidden" and the rest will always have (or at least for the foreseeable future) meanings that do not coincide with the mathematical applications of these terms. What is more or less mathematically coherent will tehrefore very often appear linguistically nonsensical: it is this clash that charlatans can exploit.
When the physicist says : "X is almost certainly in New York; but there's a statistical probabity that he's somewhere else." this can all too easily be made into mumbo jumbo about "reality" "out of body experiences" and whatnot when in fact it simply illustrates the curent level of mathematical reasoning: what makes the equations work that is also consistent with the limited experimental data.
And that is where the conspiracy comes in: how do the likes of Hovind manipulate the current state of science in order to manipulate the unscientific man in the street.

posted on Oct, 26 2002 @ 07:51 PM
In brief - Estragon "knows" as much as anyone "knows": very little in this area. The examples you mention are all, like Bell's theorem, more or less solid suggestions concerning the attempt to provide more robust explanations of "everything".
Speculations of various strengths: no more.

posted on Oct, 27 2002 @ 11:43 AM
Main Entry: the…o…rem
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-r&m, 'thi(-&)r-&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Late Latin theorema, from Greek theOrEma, from theOrein to look at, from theOros spectator, from thea act of seeing ómore at THEATER
Date: 1551
1 : a formula, proposition, or statement in mathematics or logic deduced or to be deduced from other formulas or propositions
2 : an idea accepted or proposed as a demonstrable truth often as a part of a general theory : PROPOSITION
4 : a painting produced especially on velvet by the use of stencils for each color
- the…o…rem…at…ic /"thE-&-r&-'ma-tik, "thi(-&)r-&-/ adjective

Pronunciation Key

© 2001 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
Merriam-Webster Privacy Policy

The word "Theorem" means truth
or fact. Bells Theorem despite your
very interesting response is a fact
of life. Bells Theorem estabishes
an interconnectivness amoungst all
things created at the same time.

As far your statements in relation to Mumbo jumbo perhaps you have never sought a vison quest is relation to acertaining the animal spirit which pertains to you? If you are referring to what are often called Charlatans and or those who apply what they claim as paranormal ablity to make money, I am not in that category.

Bells theorem is a response to EPR Phenomenon. Just as the term Quantum leaps is a response to the Aurora Borealis, It really is that simple.

What are your thoughts?

[Edited on 27-10-2002 by Toltec]

posted on Oct, 29 2002 @ 07:16 PM

Originally posted by Toltec
2 : an idea accepted or proposed as a demonstrable truth often as a part of a general theory : PROPOSITION

It seems you've misinterpreted that second definition; It states that a therom is an *idea* that has been *accepted/proposed* as truth...It does not say that it *is* truth.

Just clearing up any further arguments as to the termonology here...

posted on Oct, 30 2002 @ 06:51 AM
MidnightD. And to make my point again -without undue immodesty, I can say that beside the average layman, Estragon knows a great deal of Physics and Maths and beside a real physicist, Estragon is a bumbling half-wit.
But the point is that no amount of technical huff'n'puff about quanta or relativity or fundamental particles is going to "prove" anything of interest to ATS-posters, or anyone else. Interesting to some no doubt but at best speculative evidence.
Isn't this thread about a villainous charlatan and the many like him and what they trying to do to people- if anything -beyond relieving them of their cash?
Come back Conspiracy, all is forgiven.

posted on Oct, 30 2002 @ 11:21 AM
Main Entry: pro…pose
Pronunciation: pr&-'pOz
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): pro…posed; pro…pos…ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French proposer, from Latin proponere (perfect indicative proposui) ómore at PROPOUND
Date: 14th century
intransitive senses
1 : to form or put forward a plan or intention
2 : obsolete : to engage in talk or discussion
3 : to make an offer of marriage
transitive senses
1 a : to set before the mind (as for discussion, imitation, or action) b : to set before someone and especially oneself as an aim or intent
2 a : to set forth for acceptance or rejection b : to recommend to fill a place or vacancy : NOMINATE c : to offer as a toast
- pro…pos…er noun

Pronunciation Key

© 2001 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
Merriam-Webster Privacy Policy
Main Entry: ac…cept…ed
Function: adjective
Date: 15th century
: generally approved or used
- ac…cept…ed…ly adverb

Pronunciation Key

© 2001 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
Merriam-Webster Privacy Policy

It would seem MD that the Verb and adjective are meant to suport the noun not the other way around. Estragon are you not our resident expert on Lingusitics. This should be easy for you to interpret.

[Edited on 1-11-2002 by Toltec]

posted on Oct, 30 2002 @ 12:08 PM
well if people think that it is unbelievable what evolution people say,

then what about what christians say!
a god that have have always excisted and can do anything?!

now thats hard too swallow

posted on Oct, 30 2002 @ 02:31 PM
This is crazy. We were all made by God. It is that simple. In my own beliefs those who do not belive in God or do not belive in God's word, will rot in Hell for your sins. Your last chance will be when Jesus comes again.

God is all mighty. All none belivers will have one more chance to change their wicked ways.

posted on Oct, 30 2002 @ 06:18 PM
In case you haven't noticed, JediMaster...You've just *judged* everyone with your words when such judgment is not *yours* to make...

Can you say the word, "Fundamentalist"?

I knew you could.

[Edited on 31-10-2002 by MidnightDStroyer]

posted on Oct, 30 2002 @ 09:24 PM
JM we at a conspiracy site??????

That means we discuss issues in relation to the potential, of an issue being related to the efforts. Of individuals and groups trying to suppress information. It seems strange but every time we try get this thing going someone comes along and begins making the same claims you are making JM. What's the deal here man? What have you got to hide? And to be very specific what are you afraid of?

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in