Kent Hovind is a free man

Kent is a triple threat to tptb: he is sober-minded, Christian and the science is on his side...

Creation Seminar 1 - Kent Hovind - Age of the Earth
youtu.be...

AND the truth he speaks goes beyond the bogus science of "evolution":

Overpopulation. GMO Foods. Magnetic Fields. Astronomy - Kent Hovind
youtu.be...

and real scientists are on Kent's side:

“The gift of mental power comes from God, Divine Being, and if we concentrate our minds on that truth, we become in tune with this great power. My mother taught me to seek all truth in the Bible.”
--Nikola Tesla

“(modern science) was born out of a Christian worldview.”
--J. Robert Oppenheimer “On Science an Culture”, Encounter, Oct. 1962

"My worldly faculties are slipping away day by day. Happy it is for all of us that the true good does not lie in them.
As they ebb, may they leave us as little children, trusting in the Father of Mercies and accepting His unspeakable gift.
I bow before Him who is Lord of all.”
--Michael Faraday, on his death bed, one of the greatest experimental philosophers, Doctorate from Oxford University, holding 97 unsought for distinctions who discovered Electricity

“Education is useless without the Bible.”
--Noah Webster, Webster’s Dictionary

“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being.”
--Sir Isaac Newton, Principia, Book 3

“I think in the first place that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the Holy Bible can never speak untruth—whenever its true meaning is understood.”
--Galileo (Letter to Grand Duchess of Tuscany)

“The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order which has been imposed on it by God, and which he revealed to us in the language of mathematics.”
--Kepler

“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”
--Max Planck

“When the answer is simple, God is answering.”
“I am not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist.”[20]
“Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source.”[21]
"There is harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, yet there are people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me to support such views."
“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious.”
“Coincidence is God’s way of remaining anonymous.”
--Einstein

“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
--Dr. Fred Hoyle (scientist who coined the term "Big Bang" who was unafraid to go wherever the facts led him, and who consequently recanted his atheism.)

Head of Human Genome Project, Dr. Francis Collins, converts to Christianity
"I set out to prove that my atheist position was correct."

John Ray—Founder of Biology and Devout Christian
Ray quoted experiments by Francesco Redi which contradicted spontaneous generation. Ray said that “My observation and affirmation is that there is no such thing in nature” and he referred to spontaneous generation as “the atheist’s fictitious and ridiculous account of the first production of mankind and other animals.”
“He declared fossils were the petrified remains of extinct creatures. This was not accepted by biologists generally until a century later.”

“Since everything that is in motion must be moved by something, let us suppose there is a thing in motion which was moved by something else in motion, and that by something else, and so on. But this series cannot go on to infinity, so there must be some First Mover.”
--Aristotle, “Physics”

“One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all... To be forced to believe only one conclusion--that everything in the universe happened by chance--would violate the very objectivity of science itself.”
--Werner von Braun, Letter to CA State Board of Education, 9/14/72

"The laws of nature produce no events, they state the pattern to which every event have only and can be induced to happen, must conform. Just as the rules of Arithmetic state the pattern to which all transactions of money, must conform, if only you can get a hold of any money. Thus in one sense the laws of nature cover the whole field of space and time. In another what they leave out is precisely the whole real universe. The incessant "
"For every law says in the last resort: 'If you have A, then B."
But first catch your A.
The laws will not do it for you."
--C.S.Lewis

a reply to: Verum1quaere

Ah yes, the quote mine. The bastion of Creationists trying to make it sound like scientists agree with Christianity.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Verum1quaere

Ah yes, the quote mine. The bastion of Creationists trying to make it sound like scientists agree with Christianity.

Well, you can only work with what you have.
And they only have quotes.
And quotes won't change science.

Getting back to Kent, I'm surprised his defense didn't use the fact that he could only count up to 6000 as an excuse for his "tax issues"...

originally posted by: Verum1quaere
Kent is a triple threat to tptb: he is sober-minded, Christian and the science is on his side...

Creation Seminar 1 - Kent Hovind - Age of the Earth
youtu.be...

AND the truth he speaks goes beyond the bogus science of "evolution":

Overpopulation. GMO Foods. Magnetic Fields. Astronomy - Kent Hovind
youtu.be...

He fleeced people like you blind yet you still defend him?
You certainly have a special faith.

originally posted by: Verum1quaere
Kent is a triple threat to tptb: he is sober-minded, Christian and the science is on his side...

The scary thing is that people actually believe this, even when Hovind flies in the face of all evidence....

a reply to: Verum1quaere

and real scientists are on Kent's side:

If this is true than they would come up with the same conclusions as "real scientists." The fact that they don't, and are on "Kent's side" should be your first clue your dealing with frauds. Just name one of these "real scientists" and I''ll prove it to you!
There is no science involved in Kents arguments, No falsifiable hypotheses, No unique predictions that follow from its premises, No research or testing done anywhere, No positive evidence EVER presented. Only out of context, quote mined science, contorted and twisted to seemingly fit his preconceived beliefs.

You people need to ask yourself... How much of reality do I need to deny in order to believe in this crap?

originally posted by: Verum1quaere
Kent is a triple threat to tptb: he is sober-minded, Christian and the science is on his side...

Creation Seminar 1 - Kent Hovind - Age of the Earth
youtu.be...

AND the truth he speaks goes beyond the bogus science of "evolution":

Overpopulation. GMO Foods. Magnetic Fields. Astronomy - Kent Hovind
youtu.be...

If the science is so much in favor of Kent Hovind's version of truth, why then are your supporting citations only to Youtube links and not a single published scientific paper? Why is his degree from a diploma mill that will sell you a doctorate degree for $2000 and not an accredited institution of learning? Why are your responses in nearly every thread you post in related to evolutionary theory comprised of quote mined blurbs devoid of context? If the quotes were legitimate, you would post links to the original quotes in their original context instead of just copy and pasting bits and pieces that work in favor of your personal position. It's intellectually dishonest at best. But then again, so is Kent Hovind so I suppose the tactic is apropos.

The fact of the matter is, Kent Hovind is a scientifically illiterate huckster, conman and felon. He claims advanced degrees including 4 doctorates. If this were true, his dissertations would be available to the public. The closest one gets to his dissertations is a book he claims is his dissertation and then attempts to sell to his adoring fans. Apparently none of them are aware that actual dissertations are publicly available.

Let's go back to Kent's scientific illiteracy for a moment. He claims that the Sun is shrinking by 5 ft per hour which is absolutely untrue. There is nothing that even remotely supports this insane notion.

Another fine scientific argument by doc dino is...

Given the rate at which cosmic dust accumulates, 4.5 billion years would have produced a layer on the moon much deeper than observed. By implication, the earth is also young.

This is based on early research regarding the landing of men on the Lunar surface and was completely obsolete prior to the first utterance of this fallacy in a 1971 edition of 'Creation Research Society Quarterly'

Here's another quality utterance of good old Kent...

The existence of short-period comets means that the universe is less than 10,000 years old. Comets and meteoroids only last from 10,000-15,000 years before they are blown apart by the solar wind.

His first error is in attributing the demise of short period comets to the Solar Wind when most middle school students can tell you that it's the heat of the Sun and gravity that are the culprits here. That lovely tail seen on comets is a result of the comet heating up as it nears the Sun which is essentially immolates the comet every time is makes its way to the inner solar system. In the end though, the life span of a comet is entirely dependent on its size/mass/volume and not some arbitrary time frame imposed by Kent.

Furthermore...

There are no fossil meteorites in the geologic record. If the latter were laid down over billions of years we would expect to find at least a few fossil meteorites in the geologic strata. Therefore, the geologic record was deposited rapidly.

Except that despite the absolute difficulty of finding the remains of even freshly deposited meteorites on the surface, we DO in fact have a number of meteorite remains in all manner of strata from all time periods of the Earth's geological history. For example...

Two Swedish scientists made the first positive identification of a fossilized stony meteorite (Astronomy, June 1981). Per Thorslund and Frans Wickman reported in Nature that a 10 centimeter object found in a limestone slab from a quarry in Brunflo, central Sweden in 1952 is really a stony meteorite as demonstrated by microscopic examinations and other properties. It has a terrestrial age of about 463 million years. The object had until recently been mistaken for something else. If the odds were not bent enough, it appears that the meteorite hit an Ordovician mollusk which is fossilized in conjunction with the meteorite! (Spratt and Stephens, 1992, p.53)

And...

Twelve more meteorites have been found at the Thorsberg Limestone Quarry in Sweden:


A 10-foot-thick section of the Holen ("Orthoceratite") Limestone, of Early Middle Ordovician age, is extracted at the Thorsberg quarry and sawed into thin slabs that are used for window sills and floor tile. Quarry workers discarded slabs with impurities, such as the meteorites, until Professor Maurits Lindström of the University of Stockhom alerted them to save such slabs. The 12 specimens were recovered between 1992 and 1996. Ten of the specimens were recovered from a 2-foot-thick bed of limestone and may represent a single meteorite fall. The other three specimens were recovered from two separate levels above this layer. Seven of the specimens, collected between 1993 and 1996, are from a quarried limestone volume of no more than about 127,000 cubic feet. Most of the specimens are now on display at the Stiftelsen Paleo Geology Center in Lidköping, Sweden. ... The dark, reddish brown meteorite masses [from 0.5 to 3.5 inches in diameter] look like iron nodules surrounded by a zone of lighter colored limestone and would be mistaken by many people for common sedimentary features.

Not only do we have buried micrometeorites here, but we have a problem for Noah's flood. If it is, indeed, responsible for laying down most of the geologic column, as claimed by Henry Morris and others, then how do we explain this evaporative salt deposit? Did the flood poop out in its early stages and give way to a prolonged dry spell before resuming?

We may conclude, therefore, that it is not true that fossil meteorites don't exist in the geologic record. An extensive, systematic search in the right areas will likely produce results. However, recovering and identifying them is extremely rare in practice.

This will be the last one because I can keep this up all day long and there's not much point in beating Kent's dead horse all night.

The Moon contains considerable quantities of U-236 and Th-230, both of which are short-lived isotopes that would have expired long ago if the Moon were 4.5 billion years old.

Thorium-230 is an intermediate decay product of uranium-238 which has a half-life of about 4.468 billion years (Strahler, 1987, p.131). Thus, it will be continually generated as long as the supply of U-238 lasts.

According to the McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, 7th edition (1992), the naturally existing uranium isotopes are: U-234 (0.00054%); U-235 (0.7%); U-238 (99.275%). However, trace amounts of U-236 also exist in nature. Dalrymple (1991, p.376) informs us that "U-236 is rare but is produced by nuclear reactions in some uranium ores where sufficient slow neutrons are available." Thus, Th-230 and U-236 are currently being generated and their existence in nature proves nothing.

. a reply to: amazing

I have read and continue to read. I've been looking into Ancient Sumerian Texts recently and how they relate to genesis...I read multiple evolution and science blogs. You have the same books and resources available to you as I do. Why is it that we have a difference in opinion on Evolution? I still think it's a great theory and the best we have...much better than Dinosaurs on the Ark and God Created the Earth in seven days.

It could be that your choice of books is vastly different than my choice of books. That is why I said that only you can convince yourself. Evolution is probably the best you have simply because your choice is drawn to that source. If that is your choice then so be it. If you need to bolster your belief that this formed world is millions or billions of years old without proof of that assumption then so be it. I have yet to see the scientific proof of the formed world being millions of years old. That is an assumption just as six thousand years is also an assumption. That assumption, in time, becomes a lie told so many times that it become truth. Now dinosaurs is another matter for another day.

originally posted by: Seede

. a reply to: amazing

I have read and continue to read. I've been looking into Ancient Sumerian Texts recently and how they relate to genesis...I read multiple evolution and science blogs. You have the same books and resources available to you as I do. Why is it that we have a difference in opinion on Evolution? I still think it's a great theory and the best we have...much better than Dinosaurs on the Ark and God Created the Earth in seven days.

[b]It could be that your choice of books is vastly different than my choice of books. That is why I said that only you can convince yourself. Evolution is probably the best you have simply because your choice is drawn to that source. If that is your choice then so be it. If you need to bolster your belief that this formed world is millions or billions of years old without proof of that assumption then so be it. I have yet to see the scientific proof of the formed world being millions of years old. That is an assumption just as six thousand years is also an assumption. That assumption, in time, becomes a lie told so many times that it become truth. Now dinosaurs is another matter for another day.

I suppose it boils down as to what, as an individual, you accept as evidence towards proof.
However, irrespective of what you as an individual do accept, the science and evidence doesn't change.
Unless of course you do have evidence to counter it and if you do please share it.
If it's robust then it will replace what is known.
If not...

a reply to: borntowatch

Thanks for the info!

Just like the OP Hovind is a broken record and nobody pays the slightest attention to him anymore...