Views: 162


You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by Jared Lardo on December 28, 2009 at 12:15pm
The biggest hole in Hovind's dissertation that I remember is that in the part where he repeatedly accuses evolution of being a religion he says that he can't prove creationism, as he holds it on faith, and that evolution is held on faith and likewise lacks proof:

"Don't fall for the statement that evolution is a proven fact. It is absolutely not. It is their religion versus my religion. I will quickly admit that what I have is a faith. I cannot prove creation and you cannot prove evolution. If we approach it on the common ground that both ideas are religious, it will make a lot more sense. It is not science versus religion. Don't let them use that phrase when they talk about the controversy of creation versus evolution. It is not science versus religion; it is religion versus religion. Both of them are simply religious beliefs." (page 67)

He later says that there exist "proofs" of creation:

"The very existence of
short period comets is one of the proofs of a young earth.
" (page 90)
"Lord Kelvin used the changing spin rate of the earth and with his mathematics proved that because of the changing spin the earth could not be billions of years old." (pp 100 - 101)

Self-contradiction, much, eh?

In addition to his self-contradiction, he executes a major failure in math skills on the last page when he says "If you were to draw up the population growth on a chart you would see that it goes back to zero about five thousand years ago." If you draw up any equation that models the population versus time, where the population experiences doubling at a periodic rate like he says the human race experiences, it will reach zero at exactly NEVER, or at about negative infinity. If anything, Hovind indicates with his shite math that the earth is infinitely old.

On pages 91 and 92 Hovind rambles lightly about how stars are bullshit and nobody knows dick about them. After misrepresenting the accuracy of parallax, he mentions another technique for measuring distances to stars: "The other method that used is called the "Red Shift" method. We will discuss this in more detail later." Contrary to his own statement, he mentions redshift nowhere else in the document. Actually, he first says that there are three main methods of measuring the distances to stars: "There are two, maybe three methods of determining how far away the stars are.", but he completely neglects whatever this third technique is--presumably it's the use of Cepheid variable stars, which must have been so far beyod Hovind's reading level that he ignored it, hoping no one would notice.

On page 89, he says, regarding the amount of helium in the atmosphere and how that supposedly relates to the age of the earth "Evolutionists are searching for a way for the helium to escape into outerspace to eliminate this evidence for a young earth, so far no method has been found." He completely ignores or is ignorant, there, of basic physics.

Reading that was like an hours-long version of watching 2girls1cup; though it was gross, I'm glad that I did.



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service