Natural History

Posted in creationism, exotic pets | Tagged Kent Hovind, young earth creationism | 22 Comments

22 Responses

1. on March 30, 2012 at 11:45 am Ogre Magi

   Is he out of Jail now?

   
   
   • on March 30, 2012 at 12:37 pm retrieverman

     No. Thank dog!

     
     
2. on March 30, 2012 at 12:27 pm massugu

   What I think is most interesting is that he keeps going back to subjects that are not part of Evolutionary Theory, such as cosmology and geology. It also bugs me that he keeps saying that evolution is not observable, when there are scads of current examples of evolution in action. Doesn’t he ever wonder why he catches a cold or the flu, even though he’s had it before? Does he ever wonder why antibiotics, herbicides and pesticides stop working after a time? Isn’t he aware that most evolutionary scientists also believe in a supreme being and find no conflict between the two concepts?

   
   
   • on March 30, 2012 at 12:41 pm retrieverman

     Kent has a whole list of the different forms of evolution, but only one of those types he lists actually is what evolution says it is.

     Creationism does talk about all of those things, so of course, he uses creationism’s more comprehensiveness to attack evolution.

     
     
   • on April 1, 2012 at 8:10 am Bob Brenchley

     I know a lot of scientists, many of them involved in the study of evolution, I don’t know a single one that believes in a supreme being.

     
     
3. on March 30, 2012 at 2:56 pm Pris

   LOL at #2! I’m having a slow day.

   
   
4. on March 31, 2012 at 12:29 pm Rathunters

   I am grateful that I live in Sweden, religious muppets are endangered and I hope that with more use of our god-given common sense, they’ll be extinct soon! ;-)

   
   
   • on March 31, 2012 at 12:31 pm retrieverman

     I believe his grandparents came from Norway, so I’d be scared.

     These people control one of the major parties in the US, and they could hold power. We have nuclear weapons.

     
     
5. on April 20, 2012 at 6:19 am Animus

   Hovind doesn’t represent mainstream creationist opinion. He used arguments for years which creation scientists rejected, and is an embarrasment to them.

   Massugu: antibiotic resistance isn’t an example of evolution.

   Bob: you must know that many scientists past and present are creationists. They are in the minority, but in the history of science, the majority has frequently been wrong.

   
   
   • on April 20, 2012 at 9:55 am retrieverman

     You’re full of shit.

     And very stupid.

     Ken Ham and the Moonie Jonathan Wells are hardly more credible.

     You’ve just proved to the world what an ignorant fool you are!

     So suck it!

     
     
   • on April 21, 2012 at 11:08 am Bob Brenchley

     I know of no reputible scientist today who is a creationist – by definition no scientist (some who applies the scientific method) can be a creationist.

     Kent Hovind is not a scientist and has proven, time after time, that he is totally ignorant of science.

     
     
     • on April 21, 2012 at 11:15 am retrieverman

       Creationism is usually quite dishonest in how it portrays the actual scientific facts. Most of these people, like Hovind, are very ignorant of what the science actually says. And, of course, they use their ignorance about evolution to denounce. The problem with Hovind is that he uses this to create a whole series of strawmen arguments, which he then easily knocks down. The nonsense shoots out of his mouth like a machine gun, and it’s next to possible to rebut them so easily. He is a very good salesman. Unfortunately for him that sort of tactic doesn’t work in a court of law….

       
       
       • on April 21, 2012 at 6:37 pm Bob Brenchley

         As they found out in Dover a couple of years ago :)

         
         
   • on April 21, 2012 at 11:10 am Bob Brenchley

     Animus: “antibiotic resistance isn’t an example of evolution.”

     Duh! Then what is?

     
     
   • on April 21, 2012 at 12:05 pm Dave

     Someone doesn’t know Darwin was mocked for his theories by majority of scientists and naturalists until the DNA strand was discovered.

     
     
     • on April 21, 2012 at 12:13 pm retrieverman

       It wasn’t DNA. It was Mendelian genetics that made Darwin work.

       
       
       • on April 21, 2012 at 12:18 pm Dave

         Yes, but there were credible skeptics well into 1950s.

         
         
         • on April 21, 2012 at 6:40 pm Bob Brenchley

           Not amoung real scientists.

           
           
       • on April 21, 2012 at 12:23 pm Dave

         http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hershey%E2%80%93Chase_experiment

         
         
     • on April 21, 2012 at 6:39 pm Bob Brenchley

       Mocking Darwin stopped LONG before DNA was discovered.

       
       
6. on April 7, 2013 at 2:28 pm gil

   i study biology and evolution

   :i have a very strong evidence for design in nature

   a) we know that a self replicate robot that made from dna need a designer

   b) the cat is a self replicate robot

   a=b= the cat need a designer

   ?plus: if a self replicate car cant evolve into an airplan, how can a bacteria can evolve into human

   about the similarity argument: a 2 cars of honda can look very similar to each other. but this is because they made by the same designer- honda company

   
   
   • on April 7, 2013 at 3:13 pm retrieverman

     You obviously don’t have a degree in biology, or your professors were substandard to allow you not to understand how evolutions.

     Also, you didn’t read the Comment Guidelines on Creationism.

     
     

Comments are closed.