what you think of Kent Hovind?

[sanabas]

I wonder, do they attack dendrochronology?

They do. Off the top of my head, something about each tree not producing exactly one ring per 12 months, sometimes they can produce more than 1 ring in a year, so any tree with lots of rings clearly produced rings faster, possibly with all the extra water from the flood. I see a creationist has found the thread, so when he looks at it again in 2 months, he might vomit up the relevant irrelevant soundbite on dendrochronology.

But as to the OP he seems to be a lone wolf because those organisations with scientists in them don't use his arguments.

Yes, yes they do. They may not use every single one of his exact arguments. They may even have a token page on their website saying why some of his arguments are wrong. But AiG, ICR, they also rely on outright lies, on misunderstanding (deliberate or not) of whatever they're trying to discredit, on selective reporting, of ignoring any inconvenient evidence. If they see something that sounds good from another creationist source, they're hapy to start reporting it as well. To pick a few examples:

Your post in this thread is talking rubbish about radiometric dating, the same sort of rubbish Hovind does. In fact, Harv explicitly said he got those assumptions from Hovind's literature.

Take the time to read the 'dissertation' catfish linked to. You'll find many of the same things you can find by looking at one of the main creationist websites. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that those organisations are we he copied most of his stuff from in the first place.

Here's a good example of the way they do research, and the way they'll simply report each other's news: http://evoanth.wordpress.com/2014/02/03/aig-icr-double-down-on-gorillas-have-human-feet/

It would seem that once a claim supports the creationists their critical examination stops. Both AiG and ICR have made a career out of criticising news stories about evolution, but once they find a story that is on their side they don’t even do a google search to see if new research has been done on the subject in 3 years.

Here's an even better example of the selective reporting, comparing number of stories about interesting fossils to number of stories about Piltdown Man, prompted by the blog's author seeing questions like 'Why is there only one Lucy?': http://evoanth.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/creationists-present-distorted-view-of-human-evolution/

Here's a whole blog dedicated to looking at what ICR has to say: http://eyeonicr.wordpress.com/ It's an interesting read.

ICR, AiG, and all those involved in running them, they are also fraudulent scam-artists and/or contemptible oxygen thieves. Hovind just happened to get caught dodging his taxes, that's the only significant difference between him & them.

 

[El_Machinae]

Err...what? You have to explain to me why you think that nuclear tests have increased the decay rate of C-14 or any other radioactive isotope.

It's a misunderstanding in communication. The nuclear tests merely show that historical C14 generation needn't have been constant.

 

[sanabas]

It's a misunderstanding in communication. The nuclear tests merely show that historical C14 generation needn't have been constant.

Now read what CH said again...

Atmospheric C14 hasn't been constant, as demonstrated by nuclear testing increasing the amount of C14. THEREFORE, the nuclear tests also massively increased the decay rate.

No miscommunication there, just a tall conclusion leapt in a single bound.

Why did/does an increase in C14 also mean a massive increase in the decay rate? Any reasoning or evidence?

 

[El_Machinae]

Yeah, if you read what he clearly wrote, you can see that he's astoundingly confused. I prefer to believe that it was merely a typo and a brainfart. The confusion about carbon dating cannot actually be that deep.

 

[peter grimes]

You can choose to believe that if you like, but YEC aren't on board with a lot of the observations that science has confirmed. For example, when asked why we appear to be in a universe that - through multiple lines of evidence - point towards a billions years old rather than thousands, they say that the Flood messed things up *on a molecular level*. I kid you not.

Last Thursdayism anyone?

Tired light, a dynamic rates of beta decay, "where you there?", and drawing false distinctions between "historical" science and all the rest are there modus operandi.

Funny, since they also think that a particular group of texts handed down by word of mouth about events thousands of years ago are somehow *less* fallible than experiments which substantiate methods of archeological, geological, biological, climatological, and cosmological inquiry.

 

[Harv]

He is not a science teacher. He has no formal scientific qualifications. His 'Ph.D' was obtained from an unaccredited Christian diploma mill. The introduction to his thesis begins, 'Hello, my name is Kent Hovind.' I kid you not.

I clicked the link and tried to read as much of it as I can. Please tell me this is an internet hoax.

Without attacking his first sentence for presenting a PhD Dissertation, later in the Introduction, on Page 5/102, he states:

In the last twenty two years I have read hundreds of books by creationists and evolutionists alike. . . .

Why not list them in a bibliography?

Page 9

The first and second laws of thermodynamics are well established scientific laws that have never been observed in the universe to be broken. The first law says that matter cannot be created nor destroyed by ordinary means.

What?

Page 80 there is a diagram. What book did that come from?

Page 89 he is citing Dr. Morris' arguments. What book did that come from?

Page 90

Several astronomers have said that ten thousand years is the longest a comet could survive going through our solar system time and time again (like Halley's Comet does every seventy years) before it would disappear.

76 years. 76 years. 75.3 years according to Wikipedia.

Again. Where are the citations. What literature did he get this from? Several astronomers have said. . . . This should immediately be followed by citations so that I can look up the source material myself.

Page 94, he is presenting his own list of arguments for a young earth. Again, there is a lack of citations.

I would really like to think that this link is just a hoax. However, I did read a part of one of Henry Morris' books, and saw broad sweeping statements and a conspicuous lack of citations. At least there was a list of references following every chapter.

In fact, Harv explicitly said he got those assumptions from Hovind's literature.

It looks like I got called. Here is the literature I was quoting from previously:

Creation Science Evangelism, A resource designed to supplement the Creation Seminar Series
Seminar Notebook, Dr. Kent Hovind, 2000 Edition

He states on Page 2 that none of this material is copyright.

Harv, for an interesting read about the struggles archeologists have with accepting C-14 dates with questionable assumptions, read up on Monte Verde in Chile. It's all about the assumptions.

I got as far as to read the Wikipedia article. It looks like the Carbon-14 date contradicts the land-bridge theory.

 

[Narz]

Miscategorized. Should be in humor & jokes.

 

[sanabas]

Yeah, if you read what he clearly wrote, you can see that he's astoundingly confused. I prefer to believe that it was merely a typo and a brainfart. The confusion about carbon dating cannot actually be that deep.

Not confusion, but deliberate misunderstanding and/or lie. I don't believe there's any genuine attempt to understand, so there's no source for actual confusion. It's axiomatic that carbon dating must be wrong, so the goal is not to understand how carbon dating works, the goal is to come up with plausible & convincing reasons why carbon dating must be wrong, and anything that at first glance looks like a possibility is leapt on with great enthusiasm. See also various other topics, like the ideas of microevolution & macroevolution, which also takes under an hour of reading to get a basic understanding of, but which has been deliberately misunderstood in their arguments for 20 years or more, including in Hovind's 'dissertation'.

 

[sanabas]

I clicked the link and tried to read as much of it as I can. Please tell me this is an internet hoax.

It's not. That's why he calls himself 'Dr Kent', and what's in that paper is the same quality of argument as you can find in pretty much all the creationist stuff. It's just far less polished, and far more obviously crap, in the paper. It'd fail a high school science class, but it's somehow good for a PhD.

It looks like I got called. Here is the literature I was quoting from previously:

Creation Science Evangelism, A resource designed to supplement the Creation Seminar Series
Seminar Notebook, Dr. Kent Hovind, 2000 Edition

He states on Page 2 that none of this material is copyright.

Sorry, wasn't trying to attack you. Just attacking the idea that Hovind is a discredited maverick creationist, using arguments that the 'real creation scientists' won't stoop to. When in fact, he's a discredited creationist, using many of the exact same 'arguments' as the 'real creation scientists' of AiG, ICR, etc.

 

[Smellincoffee]

He's a preacher who ends lectures with an altar call; his schtick is to convince people that there is a cohesive, ideological foe arrayed against them and that science books and teachers are footsoldiers of the devil, not simply incorrect. The devil invented evolution and all the evil isms of the 20th century were to Hovind merely extensions of it. Hitler, Stalin? Not as bad as Darwin, at least in his book. I grew up watching videotapes of him and was a YECer during high school, which would be a surprise to people who have seen my bookcase lined with books on various aspects of evolution. It's one of my favorite subjects these days.

 

[Harv]

Miscategorized. Should be in humor & jokes.

I am curious - Why is there so much interest in Kent Hovind when he is apparently in prison?

 

[Catfish]

I clicked the link and tried to read as much of it as I can. Please tell me this is an internet hoax.

You've got more patience than I have. It's the real deal. Hovind hasn't voiced dissent, although apparently, he and the 'university' resisted its publication. Here's a review of the 'latest version' (2000) of Hovind's 1991 dissertation by a biochemist with a real Ph.D.

 

[Harv]

You've got more patience than I have.

It is a personal issue, since I hang around a lot of YEC's, and they presented this to me as evidence towards their case. I scanned through the document (2000 Edition Seminar Notes) and mentally filed the list of arguments for a young Earth for further consideration, when I actually have time to consider the issue.

One example that strikes me is the argument that the Moon's orbit recedes from the Earth "a few" inches per year. Taking "a few" inches to equal 0.0762 and multiplying by 5 billion years yields a number close to the current distance from the Earth to the Moon.

So I mentally filed it under things to investigate later, and I never considered the issue again until reading online a review of the KH PhD Thesis. The current number according to Wikipedia is

The Moon's linear distance from Earth is currently increasing at a rate of 3.82±0.07 cm per year, but this rate is not constant.

This number does not rule out an Earth that is billions of years old, as was claimed.

Nearly thirty years ago, I was an astronomy buff, and I should have known better. So I will have to go through these arguments one by one and check up on the facts - investigate the arguments from A to Z.

It's the real deal. Hovind hasn't voiced dissent, although apparently, he and the 'university' resisted its publication.

It's not. That's why he calls himself 'Dr Kent', and what's in that paper is the same quality of argument as you can find in pretty much all the creationist stuff. It's just far less polished, and far more obviously crap, in the paper. It'd fail a high school science class, but it's somehow good for a PhD.

Although I accept your testimony at face value, I claim the right to stick my head in the sand and maybe even strike oil!

Here's a review of the 'latest version' (2000) of Hovind's 1991 dissertation by a biochemist with a real Ph.D.

I printed this review. I agree with the analysis of what a PhD dissertation should look like. I also agree that what I read online looked more like a high school term project paper than a PhD thesis. I still want to stick my head in the sand and think somebody found such a paper and stuck a different title on it and put it on the internet.

The general lack of citations still gets me. I remember getting a reference wrong on a Master's thesis. When I put it in, I realized I had forgotten to grab the information from the book. No problem - I grabbed the book from the library and copied out the information. The problem was the book I grabbed had the same title, different edition, different co-author. The author was in the room with me, asking about this book, and who the co-author was - and then he pointed out to me that he never discussed that particular issue with that colleague.

Can you spell embarassing? I simply stated that I grabbed the reference information from the wrong book and that I know it is annoying because (having gone through this drill of checking references) you look for the discussion in the wrong reference and you cannot find it. Another professor commented that at least I understand what the issue is, and they moved on. Of course at the end of the day, I had to fix it.

It was still very embarassing.

Going back to the subject, I still find it very annoying when these writers make some broad sweeping statement, but then do not give you a reference so that you can read up on it yourself. Of they use a statement like "many scientists agree" without a list of references.

 

[peter grimes]

Here's a review of the 'latest version' (2000) of Hovind's 1991 dissertation by a biochemist with a real Ph.D.

Oh dear lord. I read as much of this as I could on my lunch break.

Assuming this review is based on the actual "dissertation", it's an embarrassment to the student, the adviser, and the issuing institution.

If creationists want to be taken seriously this is a lesson in how to abort that possibility entirely.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, our local YECer tends to disavow Hovind

 

[timtofly]

What is up with the moon? Are we saying that 6000 years ago, it was in an orbit closer to the earth? 5 billion years ago, it was a huge ball rolling across the surface of the earth?

At what point did the moon begin to orbit the earth? How long would it take before receding away from the earth would we loose the moon?

Now from what I have found, the earth used to spin faster, and the moons rate of orbit was faster. However, that still does not explain that at some time the moon will escape the earth's attraction. There is the window of orbit to take into consideration, not the fact that the moon could have moved away from the earth in a linear fashion. It would be nice if OE'rs would at least show the window of acceptable orbit.

 

[peter grimes]

Haven't totally checked the link, as I was supposed to be in bed 20 minutes ago, but:

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=124

 

[Harv]

Again, here is the document I was given that exposed me to the name mentioned in the OP.

Creation Science Evangelism, A resource designed to supplement the Creation Seminar Series
Seminar Notebook, Dr. Kent Hovind, 2000 Edition

He states on Page 2 that none of this material is copyright.

Quick physical overview:

Spoiler :

98 page document
Page 1 - Table of Contents
Page 2 - Introduction and Dedication
Pages 3 to 6 - Seminar Outline
Pages 7 to 8 - Dr. Hovind's $250,000 Offer
Pages 9 to 14 - [Argument that] the Universe is not Billions of Years Old
Pages 15 to 18 - Questions for Evolutionists
Pages 19 to 20 - [Further] Points to Ponder
Pages 21 to 26 - Battle Plan
Pages 27 to 38 - Kent Hovind's Letters to the Editor
Pages 39 to 40 - Discussions on the value of pi and [Apparent] Contradictions in the Bible
Page 41 - Of Governments and Cows [for humor]
Page 42 - [Discussion of] Two Basic Worldviews
Page 43 - Chart showing Creationist versus Evolutionist Time Line
Page 44 - Hitler's Hit List
Page 45 - 4 Types of Workers and Chart comparing Honeybee's Brain to Supercomputer
Pages 46 to 47 - Carbon 14 Calibration Curve and Wrong Assumptions in C-14 Dating Methods
Pages 48 to 51 - Indoctrination in Evolution [and charts showing its effects]
Page 52 - Human Population Chart
Pages 53 to 88 - General Questions and Answers
Pages 89 to 98 - Sources for more Information [annotated list]

For now I am going to focus on the Argument on Pages 9 to 14 that the Universe is not Billions of Years old.

It starts with an analogy that in a certain fairy tale, a frog plus a kiss equals a prince. Evolution theory is analogous to the frog, and the kiss is analogous to billions of years of time. The prince, of course, is the valid theory. Therefore, by disproving the idea that the Earth is billions of years old, he effectively disproves evolution theory.

On Pages 11 to 13, he lists 31 arguments to support a young earth. On page 10, he states, "Even if a few indicators seem to show a greater age for the earth, it takes only ONE fact to prove the Earth is young." On Page 14, he reiterates this: "Each evidence stands independently: It takes one to prove the earth is young. The burden of proof is on the evolutionists if they expect all taxpayers to fund the teaching of their religion in the school system."

Here I have some problems:

Spoiler :

First [p9] he claims to be able to prove that the universe is not billions of years old. Then [p10] he admits that some of his listed proofs might still suggest a greater age for the Earth, and says he only has to be correct on one. So he has cleverly appealed to ignorance, shifting the burden of proof away from himself. Then he lists 31 arguments in a shotgun manner and then states it is up to his opponent to disprove all 31 of them. I still say that as soon as he uses this approach, we should know that there is a fallacy in each and every one of these 31 arguments.

Look, I'm bored enough tonight to laboriously type out all 31 of them. If you want me to research each and every one of them, it is going to take some time.

Then at the end, he gets political. Are we having a scientific discussion or a political discussion?

Here is the list.....

Evidence from Space

Spoiler :

1. The shrinking sun limits the earth-sun relationship to less than "billions of years." The sun is losing both mass and diameter. Changing the mass would upset the fine gravitational balance that keeps the earth at just the right distance for life to survive.

2. The 1/2 inch layer of cosmic dust on the moon indicates the moon has not been accumulating dust for billions of years. *insufficient evidence to be positive

3. The existence of short-period comets indicates the universe is less than billions of years old.

4. Fossil meteorites are very rare in layers other than the top layers of the earth. This indicates that the layers were not exposed for millions of years as is currently being taught in school textbooks.

5. The moon is receding a few inches each year. Billions of years ago the moon would have been so close that the tides would have been much higher, eroding the continents quickly.

6. The moon contains considerable quantities of U-236 and Th-230, both short-lived isotopes that would have been long gone if the moon were billions of years old.

7. The existence of great quantities of space dust, which by the Poynting-Robertson effect would have been vacuumed out of our solar system in a few thousand years, indicates the solar system is young.

8. At the rate many star clusters are expanding, they could not have been traveling for billions of years.

9. Saturn's rings are still unstable, indicating they are not billions of years old.

10. Jupiter and Saturn are cooling off rather rapidly. They are losing heat twice as fast as they gain it from the sun. They cannot be billions of years old. Jupiter's moon, Io, is losing matter to Jupiter. It cannot be billions of years old.

Added to the list: All astronomers from 2000 years ago recorded Sirius was a red star - Today it is a white dwarf star. . . .

Evidence from Earth

Spoiler :

11. The decaying magnetic field limits earth's age to less than billions.

12. The volume of lava on earth divided by its rates of efflux gives a number of only a few million years, not billions. I believe [sic] that during the Flood, while "the fountains of the deep were broken up," most of the earth's lava was deposited rapidly.

13. Dividing the amount of various minerals in the ocean by their influx rate indicates only a few thousand years of accumulation.

14. The amount of Helium 4 in the atmosphere, divided by the formation rate on earth, gives only 175000 years. (God may have created the earth with some helium which would reduce the age more.)

15. The erosion rate of the continents is such that they would erode to sea level in less than 14 million years, destroying all old fossils.

16. Topsoil formation rates indicate only a few thousand years of formation.

17. Niagara Falls' erosion rate (4 to 7 feet per year) indicates an ages of less than 10000 years. Don't forget Noah's Flood could have eroded half of the seven and a half mile long Niagara River Gorge in a few hours as the flood waters raced through the soft sediments.)

18. The rock encasing oil deposits could not withstand the pressure for more than a few thousand years.

19. The size of the Mississippi River delta, divided by the rate mud is being deposited, gives an age of less than 30000 years. (The flood in Noah's day could have washed out 80% of the mud there in a few hours or days, so 4400 years is a reasonable age for the delta.)

20. The slowing spin of the earth limits its age to less than "billions of years" called for by the theory of evolution.

21. A relatively small amount of sediment is now on the ocean floor, indicating only a few thousand years of accumulation. This embarrassing fact is one of the reasons why the continental drift theory is so vehemently defended by those who worship [sic] evolution.

22. The largest stalactites and flowstone formations in the world could have easily formed in about 4400 years.

23. The Sahara Desert is expanding. It easily could have been formed in a few thousand years. See any earth science textbook.

24. The oceans are getting saltier. If they were billions of years old, they would be much saltier than they are now.

25. Ice accumulation at the poles indicates less than 5000 years.

Evidence from Biology

Spoiler :

26. The current population of the earth (6 billion souls) could easily be generated from 8 people (survivors of the Flood) in less than 4000 years.

27. The oldest living coral reef is less than 4200 years old.

28. The oldest living tree in the world is about 4300 years old.

Added: The genetic load in man is increasing. Geneticists have cataloged nearly 1300 genetic disorders in the human race. It is certainly reasonable to believe that the human race was created perfect from the hand of the Creator but has been going downhill. . . .

Evidence from History

Spoiler :

29. The oldest known historical records are less than 6000 years old.

30. Many ancient cultures have stories of an original creation in the recent past and a worldwide Flood. Nearly 300 of these Flood legends are now known.

31. Biblical dates add up to about 6000 years.

Added to this list by myself: Fire up Civilization. It starts in 4000BC.

He did annotate references for many of these points, but I did not feel up to putting them in tonight. I can edit them in later. Here is his list of references.

Spoiler :

1. Morris, Henry M. Scientific Creationism,. 1985

2. McLean, G. S.; McLean, Larry; Oakland, Roger. The Bible Key to Understanding the Early Earth. 1987

3. Huse, Scott M. The Collapse of Evolution. 1983

4. Ackerman, Paul D. It's a Young World After all. 1986

5. Blick, Edward F. A Scientific Analysis of Genesis. 1991

6. Petersen, Dennis R. Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation. 1987

7. Hovind, Kent E. Creation Seminar, Parts 1-7

8. Wysong, R. L. The Creation-Evolution Controversy. 1976

9. Baker, Sylvia. Bone of Contention. 1990

10. Moore, John N. Questions and Answers on Creation-Evolution. 1977

11. Brown, Walt. In the Beginning.

12. Morris, John D. The Young Earth. 1994.

They appear to be all creationist references.

I will try to go though this list and trace some of these theories to see where they came from and where they go. Have fun hunting!

 

[sanabas]

One example that strikes me is the argument that the Moon's orbit recedes from the Earth "a few" inches per year. Taking "a few" inches to equal 0.0762 and multiplying by 5 billion years yields a number close to the current distance from the Earth to the Moon.

I think you made an error in there somewhere. 5 billion x 0.0762 = 381 million inches, 381 million/63,360 = ~6,000 miles, which is definitely not the current distance.

Call it 4cm (1.57 inches) a year, that's 1m every 25 years, 1km every 25,000 years, 1,000 km every 25 million years, and it's currently ~385,000. 385 x 25 = 9,625 million years, 9.625 billion years. Or alternatively, if it receded at a constant rate, then around 4.5 billion years ago, it would have been 4500/25 = 180 thousand km closer, so still 200,000 km away.

What is up with the moon? Are we saying that 6000 years ago, it was in an orbit closer to the earth?

Yes. About 250m closer, at a guess.

5 billion years ago, it was a huge ball rolling across the surface of the earth?

No.

At what point did the moon begin to orbit the earth?

Learn to do some basic research and actually answer your own questions, instead of writing them down like the answers make no sense and prove a young earth.

Anyway, about 4.5 billion years is what current research says. Orbit would get tidally locked relatively quickly.

How long would it take before receding away from the earth would we loose the moon?

We wouldn't. Instead, the earth's rotation would continue to slow, we'd reach an equilibrium point where the moon would be like a GPS satellite, and in geosynchronous orbit. Half the world would never see it, the other half would see the moon hang motionless in the sky, and it'd be about 7 weeks from one sunrise to the next. But more likely the sun gives up before earth & moon reach that point.

Now from what I have found, the earth used to spin faster, and the moons rate of orbit was faster. However, that still does not explain that at some time the moon will escape the earth's attraction.

No, it won't.

There is the window of orbit to take into consideration, not the fact that the moon could have moved away from the earth in a linear fashion. It would be nice if OE'rs would at least show the window of acceptable orbit.

I can't understand what you mean. I *think* you mean that based on what's happening now, the moon can't be more than say 25 billion years old, because it would have flown away, or actually because it would be a lot further away than it is now. And that it can't be younger than say 25 million years, because it wouldn't have time to tidally lock the way it has. Is that close? So, 'the window of acceptable orbit', based on what we know, is that the moon is an orbit it could only be in if it was between 25 million & 25 billion years old. Which is somewhat pointless to say, because there are much better ways to estimate the age of the moon. And happily, all those estimates do fall into 'the window of acceptable orbit'. So the moon's steadily increasing orbital distance is no problem at all for 'OE'rs'.

 

[Harv]

I think you made an error in there somewhere. 5 billion x 0.0762 = 381 million inches, 381 million/63,360 = ~6,000 miles, which is definitely not the current distance.

My quote was:

Taking "a few" inches to equal 0.0762 and multiplying by 5 billion years yields a number close to the current distance from the Earth to the Moon.

I intended to convert to metric and meant 0.0762 meters. The symbol, m, is missing from my quote. 381 million meters is a bit closer, but not spot on.