Is Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind) a total joke?
- Thread starter JackH
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
R
everyday experience tells us that soft tissue does not last very long...just do a 'data on your doorstep' thought experiment with this...
suppose one morning you wake up and find a bone sitting on your doorstep...it is cracked open and you can see marrow inside... most likely you will assume that this bone has a very recent source...maybe your neighbor's dog was chewing on it and then discarded it there... what you -wouldn't- assume is that the bone is tens of millions of years old and that some near miraculous process preserved the marrow for all that time...
the more parsimonious explanation for soft tissue found in dinosaur fossils is that the fossils are thousands and not millions of years old...so the young earth creationist explanation actually accommodates this data -more easily- than conventional old earth theories...that makes the soft tissue evidence in favor of young earth theories...
you asked for evidence and this is evidence...any data that can be accommodated more easily by one model than by the alternatives is evidence is favor of that model...
i will also add that schweitzer has reported finding DNA in some of the fossils she has studied...here is a relevant quotation from the abstract of her paper in the bone science journal 'bone'...
"Furthermore, antibodies to DNA show localized binding to these microstructures, which also react positively with DNA intercalating stains propidium iodide (PI) and 4',6'-diamidino-2-phenylindole dihydrochloride (DAPI). Each antibody binds dinosaur cells in patterns similar to extant cells. These data are the first to support preservation of multiple proteins and to present multiple lines of evidence for material consistent with DNA in dinosaurs, supporting the hypothesis that these structures were part of the once living animals."
if schweitzer really has found dinosaur DNA in these fossils then it makes the case for revising the data of dinosaur fossils even more acute...because all studies to date have shown that DNA simply does not last tens of millions of years...
for example there is a nature article from 2012 summarizing a study of moa bones published in the biology journal 'proceedings of the royal society B'...the researchers found that DNA has a half life of 521 years and that all nucleotide bonds in a sample of DNA would break down in no more than 6.8 million years...
that is a tenth of the supposed age of the dinosaur fossils in question...the article even goes so far as to proclaim based on the study and the conventional ages of dinosaur fossils that it is impossible to recover dinosaur DNA from fossils because they are just too ancient...
...and you know how scientifically minded people are supposed to respond when testable predictions fail!
finally regarding the paper in acta histochemica authored by the creation research society's scientists...we all know that young earth creationism is non grata in virtually all of the professional journals...if the authors even so much as suggested that their data implies that the fossil they studied was only thousands of years old their paper would have been rejected solely on those grounds alone...
suppose one morning you wake up and find a bone sitting on your doorstep...it is cracked open and you can see marrow inside... most likely you will assume that this bone has a very recent source...maybe your neighbor's dog was chewing on it and then discarded it there... what you -wouldn't- assume is that the bone is tens of millions of years old and that some near miraculous process preserved the marrow for all that time...
the more parsimonious explanation for soft tissue found in dinosaur fossils is that the fossils are thousands and not millions of years old...so the young earth creationist explanation actually accommodates this data -more easily- than conventional old earth theories...that makes the soft tissue evidence in favor of young earth theories...
you asked for evidence and this is evidence...any data that can be accommodated more easily by one model than by the alternatives is evidence is favor of that model...
i will also add that schweitzer has reported finding DNA in some of the fossils she has studied...here is a relevant quotation from the abstract of her paper in the bone science journal 'bone'...
"Furthermore, antibodies to DNA show localized binding to these microstructures, which also react positively with DNA intercalating stains propidium iodide (PI) and 4',6'-diamidino-2-phenylindole dihydrochloride (DAPI). Each antibody binds dinosaur cells in patterns similar to extant cells. These data are the first to support preservation of multiple proteins and to present multiple lines of evidence for material consistent with DNA in dinosaurs, supporting the hypothesis that these structures were part of the once living animals."
if schweitzer really has found dinosaur DNA in these fossils then it makes the case for revising the data of dinosaur fossils even more acute...because all studies to date have shown that DNA simply does not last tens of millions of years...
for example there is a nature article from 2012 summarizing a study of moa bones published in the biology journal 'proceedings of the royal society B'...the researchers found that DNA has a half life of 521 years and that all nucleotide bonds in a sample of DNA would break down in no more than 6.8 million years...
that is a tenth of the supposed age of the dinosaur fossils in question...the article even goes so far as to proclaim based on the study and the conventional ages of dinosaur fossils that it is impossible to recover dinosaur DNA from fossils because they are just too ancient...
...and you know how scientifically minded people are supposed to respond when testable predictions fail!
finally regarding the paper in acta histochemica authored by the creation research society's scientists...we all know that young earth creationism is non grata in virtually all of the professional journals...if the authors even so much as suggested that their data implies that the fossil they studied was only thousands of years old their paper would have been rejected solely on those grounds alone...
R
actually that was more credit than a lot of evolutionists were willing to give her when her discoveries of soft tissue in dinosaurs were just being publicized...they were accusing her of being a closet young earth creationist because they just couldn't wrap their brains around her data...
which again shows that the 'no special pleading' 'common sense' interpretation of her data is that the dinosaur fossils are recent...
which again shows that the 'no special pleading' 'common sense' interpretation of her data is that the dinosaur fossils are recent...
P
Every once in a while someone will ask me the question, "Where did you get your degree?" While I am not the least bit ashamed of my education, I have learned by experience that they could be asking the question because they have come to the point where they cannot attack the message I bring against evolution so they wish to attack me personally instead. This is called an ad hominem argument. They mistakenly think that by belittling the man they have answered his points and won the debate. When the opponent in a debate begins using ad hominem attacks, it is an obvious signal that they are losing the debate on facts and must resort to other means to try to save face or divert attention. It is also interesting to watch how the evolutionists will spend much time and effort scrutinizing a subject like my degree or credentials yet won’t spend 2 seconds scrutinizing how ridiculous the evolution theory is! They truly strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. Matthew 23:24http://web.archive.org/web/20000903025232/http://www.drdino.com/FAQs/FAQmisc13.jsp
P
Back to the degree question. I took advanced math and science classes at East Peoria High School graduating in 1971. I earned my first 60 (+ or -) credit hours majoring in math and science at Illinois Central College in East Peoria, Illinois. I then transferred to Midwestern Baptist College in Pontiac, Michigan where I double majored in education and the Bible and graduated in 1974. (I took 18-20 hours each semester plus summer school to graduate in 3 years.) While I taught math and science in Christian schools for the next 15 years I took courses at several Bible colleges in my spare time. I finished my Masters (1988) and Doctorate (1991) degrees in education from Patriot University. At the time it was small Christian university in Colorado Springs that offered an extension program for people involved in full time ministries.Creation Science Evangelism
P
I was taking courses from Patriot University (established 1980) while it was a ministry of Hilltop Baptist Church and offered a Ph.D. in education. I spent many years working on my degree and learned a lot - as anyone who has watched my debates with evolutionists or seminar series will testify. Long after I graduated, Patriot became independent of the church, moved their offices into a house and dropped the Ph.D. in their education program. Some ill informed scoffers have even circulated a picture of the house where they are now located. I don’t understand their logic but evidently they think this somehow discredits me.http://web.archive.org/web/20000903025232/http://www.drdino.com/FAQs/FAQmisc13.jsp
P
Patriot allowed students to give offerings to the school instead of a regular tuition payment. Some scoffers have laughed at this idea yet they don’t seem to realize how many thousands have gone through secular schools without using any of their own money via grants, scholarships or their parent’s savings.http://web.archive.org/web/20000903025232/http://www.drdino.com/FAQs/FAQmisc13.jsp
P
Some have ridiculed the size of the school. If Harvard offers a Ph.D. degree program with only 3 or 4 students (this happens at many schools- sometimes with only 1 student), does the small number automatically mean they are not "earning their degree" or that they are attending a "diploma mill" school? Of course not! Nearly all schools offer classes by correspondence.http://web.archive.org/web/20000903025232/http://www.drdino.com/FAQs/FAQmisc13.jsp
P
My 250-page dissertation dealt with the subject of the effects of teaching evolution on the students in our public school system. My 20-year study of the creation/evolutionism subject led me to start Creation Science Evangelism in 1991. I now speak over 700 times each year on the subject, have had 40+ debates and have been a guest on over 3500 radio and television talk shows.http://web.archive.org/web/20000903025232/http://www.drdino.com/FAQs/FAQmisc13.jsp
P
My itinerary is available from my office or on my web site, and any evolutionist interested in a public debate any place they chose is welcome to contact me to arrange a time while I am in their area. Since they think I don’t have a degree, they can call me Kent, Mr. Hovind or even "hey you," if it will make them feel better. http://web.archive.org/web/20000903025232/http://www.drdino.com/FAQs/FAQmisc13.jsp
P
By the way, Darwin’s only degree was in theology yet he is often called a great scientist in textbooks today. Who and what determines who gets to be called a "scientist" and why don’t these scoffers put the same effort into correcting textbooks that call "Reverend" Darwin a scientist?http://web.archive.org/web/20000903025232/http://www.drdino.com/FAQs/FAQmisc13.jsp
R
i guess -i- need to repeat all the evidence -i- already provided...none of which -you- refuted...
you were already shown that young earth creationism and flood geology predated price by centuries...morris may have been inspired by price's exposition of flood geology and young earth apologetics but price certainly was not the originator of those theories...
so to continually misrepresent reality as if young earth creationists 'got their flood geology from the seventh day adventists' is simply dishonest at this point in the discussion...quit it already...
the irony is that this is the one thing you -won't- accept as ancient!
you were already shown that young earth creationism and flood geology predated price by centuries...morris may have been inspired by price's exposition of flood geology and young earth apologetics but price certainly was not the originator of those theories...
so to continually misrepresent reality as if young earth creationists 'got their flood geology from the seventh day adventists' is simply dishonest at this point in the discussion...quit it already...
the irony is that this is the one thing you -won't- accept as ancient!
P
My 20-year study of the creation/evolutionism subject led me to start Creation Science Evangelism in 1991. I now speak over 700 times each year on the subject, have had 40+ debates and have been a guest on over 3500 radio and television talk shows.http://web.archive.org/web/20000903025232/http://www.drdino.com/FAQs/FAQmisc13.jsp