Kent Hovind - Creationism refuted
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-10-2012, 10:19 PM (This post was last modified: 22-10-2012 11:05 PM by Vosur.)
Kent Hovind - Creationism refuted



This post will be structured as follows. Within square brackets, I will post the section of the video I am referring to, ex. [2:16-2:55], followed by a summary of the contents of said section. You can look the contents up on the website below.

[0:00 - 3:20]
• [Introduction]

[3:21 - 4:25]
• There is no evidence for cosmic evolution.
• How do we get 92 elements? How did the chemicals evolve?
• The formation of new planets is scientifically impossible.

[4:26 - 4:43]
• How did life get started from non-living material?
• According to the theory of Evolution, life must have come from non-living material.
• There is no evidence that it can happen.

[4:44 - 5:00]
• Macro-evolution means that one animal changes into a different kind of animal.
• Evolutionists believe that a dog came from a rock if you go back far enough in time.

[5:01 - 5:15]
• Micro-evolution is a scientific fact.

[5:16 - 5:40]
• The first five definitions of Evolution [Cosmic evolution, Chemical evolution, Stellar and Planetary evolution, Organic evolution and Macro-evolution] are stupid.
• Since they are not supported by science, you have to believe in them.
• The Big Bang happened 20 billion years ago.
• What exploded when The Big Bang occured and where did it come from?
• Where did the energy come from?

[5:41 - 7:00]
• According to The Big Bang Theory, the universe started in a tiny spot and exploded.
• The Big Bang Theory is stupid.
• Modern scientists claim that the universe started with nothing at all.
• The universe started 18 to 20 billion years ago. [science textbook]
• The concept of a Singularity is stupid.

[7:01 - 8:57]
• The universe will end with a Big Crunch, resulting in another Big Bang. [science textbook]
• The universe started 16.5 billion years ago. [science textbook]
• Physicists theorize that the universe exploded/originated from nothingness.

[8:58 - 14:20]
• Fossils found by scientists are thousands of years, not millions of years old.
• The Bing Bang Theory is not part of science, it is religious.
• Evolution is a religion, because you have to believe in it.
• Evolution is a religious worldview that is stupid.
• 6000 yeas ago, god created the universe.
• 4400 years ago, there was a big flood that destroyed everything.

[14:21 - 24:28]
• Conservation of Angular Momentum disproves The Big Bang Theory.
• The Bible teaches that the Big Bang happened.
• If The Big Bang Theory were true, matter would be evenly distributed.
• If the universe is billions of years old, how come there are less than 300 observable super nova?
• The claim that planet earth was formed 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years ago is stupid.
• Gen. 1:2 refutes the claim that earth was once a hot molten mass.
• Polonium halos are proof of a young earth.
• Life originated from the soup that was created by rain falling on the rock layer of earth for millions of years.
• There is no proof for the origins of live.
• Live can neither evolve with, nor without oxygen.

[24:29 - 34:30]
• The earth has always had oxygen.
• Every scientific experiment attempting to recreate the beginning of life has either failed or is unrealistic.
• Why would any organism want to reproduce more of it's own kind when that's only going to increase the competition for the food supply? Why would they instead not evolve the ability to live forever and then be happy?
• Trees of life are a bunch of nonsense.
• There are no primitive unicellular organisms. One single cell is more complex than a space shuttle.
• The theory that humans, birds, mammals and crocodiles had a common ancestor is stupid religious speculation.
• The claim that scientists have evidence for evolution based on fossils is stupid. If you find a fossil in the dirt, all you know is, it died.
• Evolution is a fantasy.

[34:31 - 52:13]
• There are no transitional fossils.
• The different kinds of evolution, excluding micro-evolution, are religious ideas.
• Species never give birth to anything other than their own species. For example, dogs only produce dogs and birds only produce birds. No dog has ever given birth to a bird.
• The information for the variations between different animals within one species was already contained in the existing gene pool. No new information has ever been added to it, the old information was merely scrambled.
• The gene pool of new variety is more limited than before and less able to adapt to future changes.
• The evolution of the horse has been proven to be wrong decades ago.
• Fossil records and similarities between the fossils of different species do not prove that they share a common ancestor.
• The theory that the Grand Canyon was created by the Colorado River over a long period of time is stupid.
• Instead, the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's Flood as described in the Bible.
• The Geological Column is like a Bible for a evolutionists and can solely be found in textbooks.
• There is no Geological Column and scientists know it.

[52:14 - 1:00:12]
• Why are there no erosion marks between the layers of the Grand Canyon?
• The method of determining the age of fossils and different layers is based on circular reasoning, therefore, stupid.
• All rock layers are the same age and were created by Noah's flood.
• Telling kids that the layers are different ages is stupid.
• Every single method used to determine the age of fossils, rock layers, etc. doesn't work and can't be used to measure the age of anything
• The devil is laughing at you for believing in evolution. He has you fooled and is laughing at you. If you want to believe you came from a rock, well, enjoy yourself, but that's not science. God made this world, god loves you, god has a plan for your life.

[1:00:13 - 1:00:29]
• [Break]

[1:00:30 - 1:10:25]
• Radiometric dating and carbon dating do not work.
• The earth's atmosphere has yet to reach equilibrium, even though reaching it would have only required 30.000 years.
• There is more C14 in the earth's atmosphere now than ten years ago.
• Living animals have been determined to be up to several thousands of years old using carbon dating, thus showing it's inaccuracy. (ex. a living snail being 27.000 years old)
• The estimations of the earth's age has been increasing enormously in the last 300 years. All scientists do is adding more time to it to make the theory look more reasonable.

[1:10:26 - 1:18:34]
• There is no evidence for embryology.
• Embryology is stupid.
• The drawings used to show the similarity between human and animal embryos created by Ernst Haeckel have been forged with the intent of deceiving the German population so that it can be converted to evolution.
• Charles Darwin was a racist, because his work "The Origin of Species" has the alternative name "The preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life".
• Science textbooks deliberately state that a baby at 7 months of development is not a human to justify abortion.
• Contrary to the textbooks, it's a human being the moment it is conceived.
• Abortion is murder.
• Scientists claim that dinosaurs turning into birds is evidence of evolution.
• The archaoepteryx was proven to be a fraud in 1986.
• Bird feathers evolved from scales, well, that's stupid.
• Feathers and scales are both made of the protein Keratin, but that proves a common design engineer, not a common ancestor. So what? Battleships and forges are both made out of iron, doesn't prove they both evolved from a tincan.

[1:18:35 - 1:25:27]
• Somebody went around in England and counted moths. He discovered that 95% of the moths are light and the remaining 5% black. He started burning coals in a nearby factory, turning the trees black. After counting the moths again, he discovered that the situation had been reversed, 9% of the moths found were now black and the remaining 5% were light. This story is a lie, it never happened.
• Even if it did happen, dark moths and light moths were there at the beginning and dark moths and light moths were there at the end. The racial population might have shifted, so? Doesn't prove anything, that's stupid. That's not evidence for evolution.
• There are no vestigial organs.
• The remains of certain, now considered to be useless bones in whales are not evidence that they were once land-dwelling mammals, that's stupid.
• Those bones in the whale's abdomin are actually essential to hold muscles that support the reproductive system. Without those bones and those special muscles, the whales cannot reproduce. This has nothing to do with walking on land, it has to do with getting more baby whales.
• Textbook: "Whales once lived on land. Whales were not always sea-dwellers, modern whales show skeletal evidence of previous existence on dry land. Buried deep in a whales' hip muscles, are two small bones, all that is left of the whales' pelvis and hind legs." Kent Hovint: "That's stupid. The male and female bones are very different on whales, check your whale anatomy and rip that page out of your book, it has no business in there."
• The human tailbone is not vestigial, that is stupid.
• Dinosaurs, such as the Apatosaurus, are still alive in Africa today.

[1:25:28 - 1:27:40]
• During the devonian period, 410 million years ago, there were fish with lobe fins. What that means is a short arm where then the fin grows. Well, that's stupid, okay, because the lobe fish are still alive. At first people couldn't believe it because they supposedly became extinct millions of years ago. When it was proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, all people said was "Wow, they survived for millions of years?". They never thought about questioning their basic theory.
• Textbook: "Trilotobe fossils make for good index fossils. If a trilobite is found in a rock layer, the rock layer was probably formed 500 to 600 million years ago." Kent Hovind: "Well, that's stupid, okay? There are human footprints where man squashed a trilotibe. How could humans step on a trilotibe?"
• Trilobite eyes have the most sophisticated eye lenses ever produced by nature.
• The whole thing about index fossils is stupid, okay? There aren't any index fossils.
• The graptolites that are used as index fossils for 410 million years old rocks are still alive today in the South Pacific. They tell kids that dinosaur fossils are index fossils for 70 million years old rocks. Folks, dinosaur blood was found inside the bone. Don't you think it's going to decay after millions of years? There is enormous evidence that men and dinosaur have always lived together.
• Dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible.
• A fresh dinosaur corpse has been found at a beach and the claims about it being the carcass of a whale are false.

[1:27:41 - 1:34:40]
• Evolution is based on two faulty assumptions: 1. Mutations make something new and 2. Natural selection makes it survive, neither of which have been observed.
• Mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.
• Mutations do not produce new information, they only scramble the existing information.
• Nobody has ever seen a beneficial mutation.
• Natural selection doesn't cause evolution, that's stupid.
• Survival of the fittest does not explain arrival of the fittest.
• Some guy said he's got proof for evolution because the flies in the north have 4% larger wings than those in the south. That's stupid.

[1:34:41 - 1:49:48 (End)]
• Stories about Christians who left their religion and became non-believers because they got a higher education at Harvard and other universities or colleges.
• According to a poll/statistic/study, 75% of all children raised in Christian homes who attend public schools will reject their faith by the first year of College.
• Citations from people who claim that evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups and that is has contributed nothing to science.
• Hitler and other dictators were strong believers in evolution.
• No evolutionist is able to provide evidence for the theory he believes in.
• Symbiosis relationships cannot be explained with evolution, the bible can.
• Attempts at trying to explain how a literal interpretation of the bible is possible.
• Consequences of god's existence
The website http://talkorigins.org/ has a profound rebuttal to each of his claims in their archive. I encourage you to do your own research. Thumbsup

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2012, 09:07 AM
RE: A profound rebuttal of Kent Hovind
Promises, promises!

Yeah, let us simmer with frustration at that snake oil salesman in the polyester suits. I recently discovered that his poisonous loins have produced even more evil! Instead of opposing his parents' POV at every possibility, as any decent kid would...

I mean... how do these people fuck? Honestly! Blush
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2012, 09:53 AM (This post was last modified: 23-10-2012 12:39 AM by Vosur.)
RE: A profound rebuttal of Kent Hovind
(21-10-2012 09:07 AM)Janus Wrote:  Promises, promises!

Yeah, let us simmer with frustration at that snake oil salesman in the polyester suits. I recently discovered that his poisonous loins have produced even more evil! Instead of opposing his parents' POV at every possibility, as any decent kid would...

I mean... how do these people fuck? Honestly! Blush
I'm currently watching it and summarizing the contents of different sections. I'll probably get finished with it within this day.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2012, 10:39 AM (This post was last modified: 21-10-2012 12:08 PM by Vosur.)
RE: A profound rebuttal of Kent Hovind
In the meantime, here's an eleven-part response to Kent Hovind's speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XdvYgJzYh4

It's also interesting to read up more about Kent Hovind himself. He's been sentenced to 10 years of prison because of fraud. Ironically enough, his arguments against the theory of evolution have been criticized both by the scientific community, as well as by the YEC community. Futhermore, Kent Hovind has refused to participate in written debates with several scientists.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2012, 01:32 PM
RE: A profound rebuttal of Kent Hovind
(21-10-2012 10:39 AM)Vosur Wrote:  In the meantime, here's an eleven-part response to Kent Hovind's speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XdvYgJzYh4

Excuse me?
I'm not a masochist.
And, sorry, but I can't afford to waste that much time on a fraudster.

Quote:It's also interesting to read up more about Kent Hovind himself. He's been sentenced to 10 years of prison because of fraud.

But how much of that did he actually serve?

Quote:Ironically enough, his arguments against the theory of evolution have been criticized both by the scientific community, as well as by the YEC community. Futhermore, Kent Hovind has refused to participate in written debates with several scientists.

Of course, the last thing a con man wants is that his victim has a chance to think criticically about the tsunami of arguments, however fake, that he unleashes on him. S.O.P. for fraudsters.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2012, 01:44 PM
RE: A profound rebuttal of Kent Hovind
(21-10-2012 01:32 PM)Janus Wrote:  But how much of that did he actually serve?
All of it. He's supposedly going to be released in 2015.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2012, 04:42 PM (This post was last modified: 21-10-2012 04:46 PM by Vosur.)
RE: Kent Hovind - Creationism refuted
Alright, I'm done with the summary. I'll get to the refutation later this week. Well, most of it is a misrepresentation of the actual science anyway.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2012, 04:46 PM
RE: Kent Hovind - Creationism refuted
I now understand why this old man did this.




Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2013, 01:45 PM
RE: Kent Hovind - Creationism refuted
I'm no chemist, but I'm pretty sure elements don't evolve. Hypothetically, there are an unlimited amount of elements that can exist, if you keep adding protons and electrons to preexisting elements. Helium is just Hydrogen with an extra proton (basically). Again, I'm no chemist, but I'm sure that the intense heat and energy from the Big Bang smashed atoms of Hydrogen (default matter) into each other creating the different elements. (I'm not a chemist.)

[Image: ezgif_save_1.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2013, 10:16 PM
RE: Kent Hovind - Creationism refuted
(25-08-2013 01:45 PM)Teen-skeptic-go! Wrote:  I'm no chemist, but I'm pretty sure elements don't evolve. Hypothetically, there are an unlimited amount of elements that can exist, if you keep adding protons and electrons to preexisting elements. Helium is just Hydrogen with an extra proton (basically). Again, I'm no chemist, but I'm sure that the intense heat and energy from the Big Bang smashed atoms of Hydrogen (default matter) into each other creating the different elements. (I'm not a chemist.)


As far as my layman understanding goes...

It was the intense heat that kept basic matter from forming immediately after the Big Bang. It took a while for things to expand and cool off enough for energy to condense into quarks and gluons, then cooling further before forming protons and neutrons, before cooling enough to allow the formation of Hydrogen. The heavier elements aren't products of the Big Bang, but rather from Super Nova. Supper massive stars that measure their life spans in only the millions of years can combine Hydrogen into Helium, and Helium into heavier elements. If the star has enough mass to create enough gravity and pressure, it can combine elements through nuclear fusion up until Iron; at that point the process breaks down. It requires more energy to be put into Iron to fuse it than you get out of it, and the star's fusion engine at it's core shuts down. This happens within a fraction of a second, the tug-of-war between gravity crushing down on the core and fusion blowing it apart finally ends; gravity wins. The core collapses into a Black Hole and blows off it's outer layers in a Hyper Nova, and may also induce a Gamma Ray Burst that fire from the star's former rotational axis. During the intense heat and pressure of the Hyper Nova, the higher elements above Iron are created and dispersed throughout the galaxy. This is why the heavier elements like Gold and Titanium are so rare, and the heavier the element, the rarer it is.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: