what you think of Kent Hovind?

[Pegasus_77]

Do you buy his arguments?what is intriguing for me is that he masterfully use scientific rules to defend the Bible and God.

 

[Pegasus_77]

Tbh, I have just watched a lecture of him regarding the age of the earth. He claimed that the earth is just 6,000 years old, far younger than what is written on many textbooks--several billion years old. During the lecture, he, as a science teacher, said that many seemingly truths actually are fallible.For example, the method of using Carbon-14 to extrapolate the age of the fossil.

 

[sanabas]

The polite version of what I think of him is a fraudulent scam-artist and/or a contemptible oxygen-thief. The longer version would get me warned by the mods.

He does not 'masterfully use scientific rules to defend the Bible and God', he makes up stuff that sounds authentic enough to fool those who either want to be fooled, or don't have the basic knowledge required to realise they're being fooled. And further to that, he makes a concerted effort to convince other people to be ignorant, to indoctrinate kids to be ignorant, to simply vomit up bullet points like 'carbon dating is wrong!' without ever understanding anything about what they're talking about, or actually discuss what they're talking about. To simply keep screaming the same lies as loudly as possible, ignore all intelligent responses, and claim victory when people don't even deign to respond to the crap. To not only be a liar, to not only be wilfully ignorant, but to campaign to convince people to be stupid & uneducated, to campaign for schools to actually teach kids to be ignorant & wrong, that earns far more than ordinary dislike.

It's quite easy to find threads in OT that show exactly those traits, exactly the tactics used by people like Hovind. Post a handful of deliberate lies, crafted to try and sound intelligent, usually cut & pasted from a Hovindesque source, and then run away.

If you want to discuss some of the rubbish he spouts, maybe learn something about why it is rubbish, there'll probably be people at CFC willing to explain stuff. If you just want to mimic CFC's other creationists, then see the above few paragraphs.

 

[Pegasus_77]

Thanks, dude. I am impressed by your line that you will get warned if you speak impolitely of Hovind. I guess the CIV forum may be a cleaner and more civilized forum than the one I have frequented, where people often fool around and the mods turn a blind eye to them.
As for Hovind, I guess I need to study more about him.

 

[Harv]

The polite version of what I think of him is a fraudulent scam-artist and/or a contemptible oxygen-thief. The longer version would get me warned by the mods.

I have some literature with a list of some of his arguments. I have not yet found the time to analyze them in detail.

He does not 'masterfully use scientific rules to defend the Bible and God'. He makes up stuff that sounds authentic enough to fool those who either want to be fooled, or don't have the basic knowledge required to realise they're being fooled.

You can masterfully bury a fallacy, so that finding it requires massive amounts of spare time as you piece through the argument from A to Z.

Here. Consider this. Before he presents his arguments, he says that out of the 25 or 50 or however many he presents, only one of them has to be correct to disprove the idea that the earth is billions of years old. Look for a sentence that looks like this. Do you notice how he has shifted the burden of proof away from himself?

I am still working on my logic and critical thinking. What is this called? Burden of Proof? Appeal to Ignorance? Ad Ignoratum?

And further to that, he makes a concerted effort to convince other people to be ignorant, to indoctrinate kids to be ignorant, to simply vomit up bullet points like 'carbon dating is wrong!' without ever understanding anything about what they're talking about, or actually discuss what they're talking about.

I get the arument that carbon dating hinges on the assumption that the ratio of C14 to C12 has been reasonably constant, to the order of 10 to the -12, for many thousands of years. However, then he claims that the time constant is subject to change for reasons we do not yet understand, while providing no evidence to support this claim.

Then he shifts the burden of proof away from himself.

To simply keep screaming the same lies as loudly as possible, ignore all intelligent responses, and claim victory when people don't even deign to respond to the crap. To not only be a liar, to not only be wilfully ignorant, but to campaign to convince people to be stupid & uneducated, to campaign for schools to actually teach kids to be ignorant & wrong, that earns far more than ordinary dislike.

I know some home-schooled kids. They and their parents dislike science. If they believe state of the art science is wrong on the age of the Earth on the basis that is is contrary to Scripture, they should simply say that. Maybe the science will one day prove them right.

It's quite easy to find threads in OT that show exactly those traits, exactly the tactics used by people like Hovind. Post a handful of deliberate lies, crafted to try and sound intelligent, usually cut & pasted from a Hovindesque source, and then run away.

What is this called? Hit and run?

I have posted in OT on subjects like this in an honest attempt to understand creation science. Sometimes I have posted questions that really make me look like an idiot.

With some time, I will try to post on the subject later.

EDIT 1: Here is a Wikipedia Article.

According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), Kent Hovind, BOP Register number 06452-017, is scheduled for release from prison on August 11, 2015.

He is in jail? I wonder what my home-schooled friends would think.

 

[uppi]

During the lecture, he, as a science teacher, said that many seemingly truths actually are fallible.For example, the method of using Carbon-14 to extrapolate the age of the fossil.

And there is already the first untruth. No science teacher worth his name claims that the C-14 method is a good way to determine the age of a fossil. The vast majority of fossils is far too old for the C-14 method.


In my opinion, the thoughts Hovind stands for are dangerous to Christianity.

 

[Pegasus_77]

And there is already the first untruth. No science teacher worth his name claims that the C-14 method is a good way to determine the age of a fossil. The vast majority of fossils is far too old for the C-14 method.


In my opinion, the thoughts Hovind stands for are dangerous to Christianity.

Not only fossils, but also the refrigerated dead animals.
According to him, the C-14 method leads to totally different results of the age of the same mammoth,if the specimen are different body parts.

 

[timtofly]

So if a fossil has a measurable amount of C-14, it should not be dated with the C-14 method, because it comes from a period of time in which it should have no C-14 left? Is the amount of C-14 just overlooked as an anomaly?

 

[sanabas]

Not only fossils, but also the refrigerated dead animals.
According to him, the C-14 method leads to totally different results of the age of the same mammoth,if the specimen are different body parts.

It took me literally 10 seconds with google to find this: http://evoanth.wordpress.com/2012/0...carbon-dating-and-evolution-misguided-monday/

Take any of these creationist claims, do a tiny bit of research, and you'll discover the claims are crap, that rely on outright lying or a misunderstanding (often a deliberate one) of stuff.

If you're genuinely interested in this stuff, enough to be listening to one of his talks, then make the effort to spend an hour doing basic, google-level research. Say 4 claims, 15 minutes each.

When the first 4 claims you check turn out to be rubbish, why would you believe any of the next 40?

 

[Harv]

During the lecture, he, as a science teacher, said that many seemingly truths actually are fallible.For example, the method of using Carbon-14 to extrapolate the age of the fossil.

I am not sure where he claims that the age of a fossil can be determined by the C-14 method. He does say that an age of the sample is assumed, and a radiometric dating method is selected based on this. So if the sample is assumed to be millions of years old based on its location in the geologic column, then the C-14 date is automatically dismissed.

And there is already the first untruth. No science teacher worth his name claims that the C-14 method is a good way to determine the age of a fossil. The vast majority of fossils is far too old for the C-14 method.

I still stand by my earlier statement, and the first untruth is that just one of his 31 or so arguments has to be proven correct for the old Earth theory to be proven wrong, and it is therefore up to you to disprove each of his arguments.

I have a piece of literature from him listing 31 arguments against an old Earth and can copy them in if people are interested. Given the statement above, each statement should have a flaw, and finding these flaws should be like an Easter Egg Hunt.

Not only fossils, but also the refrigerated dead animals.

I wonder if the stuff in my refrigerator would yield bizarre carbon dates.

According to him, the C-14 method leads to totally different results of the age of the same mammoth,if the specimen are different body parts.

I did find the part in a piece of this literature where he makes this statement. I find it rather annoying, however, that he does not give an independent source for me to reference.

So if a fossil has a measurable amount of C-14, it should not be dated with the C-14 method, because it comes from a period of time in which it should have no C-14 left? Is the amount of C-14 just overlooked as an anomaly?

Fossil fuel, for example? Are you talking about the amount of Carbon 14 in your unleaded gasoline?

---------

All this said, I do understand that the Carbon 14 method rests on several assumptions, and I do understand that bad assumptions lead to bizarre results. His literature does list some of these assumptions.

1. Atmospheric C-14 is in equilibrium.
2. Constant C-14 decay rate. [Is there any reason to believe otherwise?]
3. Initial C-14 can be determined. [Decay curve crosses calibration curve.]
4. Uncontaminated sample
5. Geologic column can be used to calibrate the C-14 dates. [This one I cannot follow. In Latin, this would be non-sequitur? In American English, this would be huh? I do not see anywhere the geologic column being used to calibrate the C-14 dates.]

It looks like he was taking a shotgun approach at attacking the Carbon 14 method. Again, however, I do understand that the Carbon date comes with assumptions, and I struggle with the concept that once a Carbon date is accepted, it is considered absolute truth and the assumptions are forgotten. Sometimes Carbon dated is used in our language as indisputable.

Here is another Wikipedia Article on Carbon Dating.

 

[Kyriakos]

Haven't heard of this person. Is he some sort of symmetry point for the likes of Richard Dawkins?

 

[peter grimes]

No, because Dawkins is a profession evolutionary biologist who has made significant contributions to his field. Hovind is either a malicious scam artist, or a fraud, or an ignoramus, or some combination of the above.

But it doesn't really matter, what matter is what each of them say. And what Hovind says is demonstrably wrong.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Well, given a relevantly constructed axis of symmetry, he can still be linked to Dawkins in this way

 

[El_Machinae]

I think he's done way more harm than good. As much as he's helped teach some science, he ingrains so many falsehoods into his teaching that the people end up being more ignorant than when they started (including that curse, thinking they're more informed than they were before).

As well, he never updates his understanding and his teaching, and thus is more ignorant than I have tolerance for

 

[timtofly]

Fossil fuel, for example? Are you talking about the amount of Carbon 14 in your unleaded gasoline?

I think that the general consensus of what a fossil is may be found in wiki:

Fossils (from Classical Latin fossilis, literally "obtained by digging") are the preserved remains or traces of animals, plants, and other organisms from the remote past. The totality of fossils, both discovered and undiscovered, and their placement in fossiliferous (fossil-containing) rock formations and sedimentary layers (strata) is known as the fossil record.

The study of fossils across geological time, how they were formed, and the evolutionary relationships between taxa (phylogeny) are some of the most important functions of the science of paleontology. Such a preserved specimen is called a "fossil" if it is older than some minimum age, most often the arbitrary date of 10,000 years. Hence, fossils range in age from the youngest at the start of the Holocene Epoch to the oldest from the Archaean Eon, up to 3.48 billion years old. The observation that certain fossils were associated with certain rock strata led early geologists to recognize a geological timescale in the 19th century. The development of radiometric dating techniques in the early 20th century allowed geologists to determine the numerical or "absolute" age of the various strata and thereby the included fossils.

If people want to stick with that, then even wiki points out that the age of the strata would include all fossils, (regardless of how that fossil got there.) It seems to me that assumes there could be no transfer whatsoever of fossils between strata.

I may be wrong, but there is a constraint on C14 dating and past a certain amount of time another form of dating would be used, even if that sample contains C14. The point being though, it would not be tested at all. If it were to be tested and it was found to have a carbon reading, it would be passed by as a deception on the part of the one who wanted it tested. I am sure that does not happen in real life. It is just a hypothetical.

 

[Catfish]

he, as a science teacher

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.

The polite version of what I think of him is a fraudulent scam-artist and/or a contemptible oxygen-thief. The longer version would get me warned by the mods.

Ditto.

Kent Hovind was convicted of various tax-related offences in 2007 and received a 10-year jail term. I believe his release date is some time later this year. In his stead, his idiot son, Eric, has continued the family pseudo-science business.

 

[uppi]

I am not sure where he claims that the age of a fossil can be determined by the C-14 method. He does say that an age of the sample is assumed, and a radiometric dating method is selected based on this. So if the sample is assumed to be millions of years old based on its location in the geologic column, then the C-14 date is automatically dismissed.

I may be wrong, but there is a constraint on C14 dating and past a certain amount of time another form of dating would be used, even if that sample contains C14. The point being though, it would not be tested at all. If it were to be tested and it was found to have a carbon reading, it would be passed by as a deception on the part of the one who wanted it tested. I am sure that does not happen in real life. It is just a hypothetical.

The point is that if a sample is too old to be tested, the assumptions underlying the C-14 method are not valid anymore. If those assumptions are violated, one expects the result to be wrong. So using the C-14 method is useless for such samples and there is no point in applying it.

I still stand by my earlier statement, and the first untruth is that just one of his 31 or so arguments has to be proven correct for the old Earth theory to be proven wrong, and it is therefore up to you to disprove each of his arguments.

True. Essentially he is arguing that if you have 30 clocks and they all show about the same time and you have one clock that shows a different time, then those 30 are all flawed and must be thrown away.

All this said, I do understand that the Carbon 14 method rests on several assumptions, and I do understand that bad assumptions lead to bizarre results. His literature does list some of these assumptions.

1. Atmospheric C-14 is in equilibrium.
2. Constant C-14 decay rate. [Is there any reason to believe otherwise?]
3. Initial C-14 can be determined. [Decay curve crosses calibration curve.]
4. Uncontaminated sample
5. Geologic column can be used to calibrate the C-14 dates. [This one I cannot follow. In Latin, this would be non-sequitur? In American English, this would be huh? I do not see anywhere the geologic column being used to calibrate the C-14 dates.]

It looks like he was taking a shotgun approach at attacking the Carbon 14 method. Again, however, I do understand that the Carbon date comes with assumptions, and I struggle with the concept that once a Carbon date is accepted, it is considered absolute truth and the assumptions are forgotten. Sometimes Carbon dated is used in our language as indisputable.

You are right to struggle with such a concept, because such a concept is very much unscientific. One carbon date, even if no flaw can be found in the application of the method, is never the absolute truth. You can always argue that one of the assumptions are violated. So if you can you will try to validate the age with other methods. If that is not possible, the date is on quite shaky grounds. Only when the evidence for a certain date is piling up, it becomes very hard to argue anything else.

You have to keep in mind, that the public discourse about science is sometimes very bad. A statement by a scientist that comes with conditions and disclaimers is often regarded as absolute truth with far more confidence than the scientist ever had.


Anyway, what I don't understand is the focus on C-14 dating. It only provides very weak evidence of an old earth. Other methods, especially isochron radiometric methods provide much stronger evidence for an old earth. I do have on guess: attacking hose methods is much harder so YECs just omit those in the hope that their audience doesn't know about them.

 

[peter grimes]

I think they attack C-14 dating because (unless I'm mistaken) it was the first radiometric dating method to be developed. And right out of the fate it was giving support to a vastly older earth than they are willing to acknowledge. It's one thing to consider Lyell's uniformitarianism, it's one thing to consider evolution via natural selection - these both *suggest* a deep time. But nuclear physics is far more precise.

I wonder, do they attack dendrochronology?

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.

 

[classical_hero]

All this said, I do understand that the Carbon 14 method rests on several assumptions, and I do understand that bad assumptions lead to bizarre results. His literature does list some of these assumptions.

1. Atmospheric C-14 is in equilibrium.
2. Constant C-14 decay rate. [Is there any reason to believe otherwise?]
3. Initial C-14 can be determined. [Decay curve crosses calibration curve.]
4. Uncontaminated sample
5. Geologic column can be used to calibrate the C-14 dates. [This one I cannot follow. In Latin, this would be non-sequitur? In American English, this would be huh? I do not see anywhere the geologic column being used to calibrate the C-14 dates.]

It looks like he was taking a shotgun approach at attacking the Carbon 14 method. Again, however, I do understand that the Carbon date comes with assumptions, and I struggle with the concept that once a Carbon date is accepted, it is considered absolute truth and the assumptions are forgotten. Sometimes Carbon dated is used in our language as indisputable.

Here is another Wikipedia Article on Carbon Dating.

We know number one is false because the rash of nuclear tests increase th amount of C14 and thus it shows that number 2 is incorrect also, since the tests massively increased the rate and we have to wonder if other events did the same also. 3 is an assumption that we can never know.4 is something we can control and we are extremely effective in removing any contamination and et any sample that had carbon in has given a result, which means it is relatively young. 5 no, because not every thing in the column has carbon in it and thus we can't even use it. But for all the dating methods to agree with each requires accuracy that is not known in such scientific endeavours.

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

 

[uppi]

thus it shows that number 2 is incorrect also, since the tests massively increased the rate and we have to wonder if other events did the same also.

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.