Part 1 in our new weekly series dissecting the errors made by Creation Science Evangelism’s Kent Hovind in his misguided attacks on biological science. References: 1) Merriam-Webster. 2004. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Merriiam-Webster. 2) Weinberg, S. 2008. Cosmology. Oxford University Press. 3) Hubble, E. 1929. A relation between distance and radial velocity among extra galactic nebulae. PNAS 15(3):168-173. 4) Fixsen DJ, Cheng ES, Gales JM, Mather JC, ShaFer RA, Wright EL. 1996. The Cosmic Microwave Background Spectrum from the Full Cobe1 Firas Data Set. Astrophysical Journal 473:576-587. 5) Reeves H. 1974. On the origin of the light elements. Annuak Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 12:437-470. 6) The Supernova Cosmology Project. 2003. New Constraints on ΩM, ΩΛ, and w from an Independent Set of 11 High-Redshift Supernovae Observed with the Hubble Space Telescope. Astrophysical Journal. 598:102-137. 7) Kuo HM, Goldhaber G, Perlmutter S. 1998. A study of 42 type Ia supernovae and a resulting measurement of ΩM and ΩΛ. Physics Reports 307(1):325-331. 8) Ellis GFR. 1979. The homogeneity of the universe. General Relativity and Gravitation 11(4):281-289. 9) Misner CW. 1968. The isotropy of the universe. Astrophysical Journal 151:431-457. 10) Hoyle F. 1946. The synthesis of the elements from hydrogen. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 106:343-383. 11) Seeger PA, Fowler WA, Clayton DD. 1965. Nucleosynthesis of heavy elements by neutron capture …
anybody ever feel like smacking creationist, especially hovind?
@novastrike81 >”Big Bang theory is a bust”
Too bad, that you forgot to mention any sources for that claim… :D
looks like Kent’s definitions came back to bite ya in the ass because the Big Bang theory is a bust… have a nice day evolutionists! lmao
“One professor said ‘Hovind you’re so stupid…..’” Fucking douchebag can’t even get that fact right. I’m pretty sure THOUSANDS have said that.Kent. How many gullible minds has this CONman knowingly warped with his creationist Bullshit.
@tctheunbeliever hahahahahaha…
@razieldumas I doubt he is…
Excellent video guys, as usual.
But there is a BIG, no, an ENORMOUS grammar mistake at around 0:45, you just can’t say “absurd hovindism” as that is a obvious case of pleonasm, AKA redundancy.
Just wanted to point that out, lol
Excellent thanks
@razieldumas
haha, I the the other inmates will bet too busy “studying” his “biology”.
At the rate of one Hovindism a week, Kent will be out of prison before you finish this series.
Hopefully Mr. Hovind is studying up on Biology while he’s in prison. Give him something to do.
Actually most Creationists think Hovind is an embarrasment to Christianity. Answers in Genesis (YECs) called him a “false professional”. A section on their website entitled “Arguments we think creationists should not use” contains many of Hovind’s claims.
Dr. Hugh Ross and the Old-Earth creationists seriously disagree with Hovind. Apologeticist William Lane Craig calls Special (YEC) Creationism “magic” and “not plausible.”
“Win your heart?” He’s trying to brainwash kids & take your money.
The major leaders of Christian or Creation apologetics basically agree with what Hovind is saying. He is not the ONLY one who says what he says most of the other creation scientists have done the same research he has done, so would you PLEASE stop calling it “Hovindism”, because he is not starting an abusive cult like Islam or Communism, but he’s only trying to win your heart to the Lord.
@JESUSFreeck – This is true. The bible is a prime example.
Just something fishy, I think.
But then again, I’m Swedish, so I might not understand every weird reference.
Ignorant Christians: “Oh i believe that, why? because i can
Smart Christians: “I believe that because the evidence shows this *shows good evidence*
… don’t you get your facts from the bible. FAIL!
A red herring is bringing something up that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, if that is what you are asking.
what was the red herring reference?
You know it’s funny you should say that–we find our facts in books backed up with evidence…. You find your “facts” in a book with none.
just because you find “facts” in a book, or libray will not make it true…
Watch “This is Why Every Scientist Accepts Evolution” by DonExodus2.
Here’s how it relatest.
1) Mutations are usually neutral. You’re wrong.
2) The point was that “macroevolution” is just “microevolution” over long periods of time. To believe in one and not the other is irrational.
3)It demonstrates that a homogenous subject can split over time into two distinct subjects without any guidance or design AND without any breaks in continuity.
I find endogenous retroviral insertions to be absolutely compelling for common descent. I have never had any creationist offer any compelling explanation because
1. the odds of it randomly occurring are less than 1 in the number of atoms in the universe.
2. there is no good reason for a creator to just randomly place broken pieces of viral dna junk in matching places in different species. Unless the creator’s intent is deception. If so, he’s an evil bastard.
Thank you for demonstrating you’re ignorance.
Leave a Reply