Is Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind) a total joke?

[AgeofKnowledge]

Lol. That was a good one. Kent never fails to entertain. I can hardly wait to see the new video clips starring him that will be circulating on YouTube after his release.

But he does deviate from the standard YEC position which asserts that dinosaurs died out shortly after exiting Noah's Ark.

See: https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/

The percentage of YEC advocates in the U.S. have fallen dramatically to only 39%. See the latest polling data: http://ncse.com/rncse/30/3/americans-scientific-knowledge-beliefs-human-evolution-year-

As you probably know, YEC gained traction amongst Christians in the 20th century as part of a Christian fundamentalist rejection of Marxism (which posited state atheism and Darwinism as its metaphysical worldview) during the Cold War. The "science" of YEC primarily came from several influential Seventh Day Adventist cult members.

So, I was just reading DR. Dino's (Kent Hovind) PhD thesis and in it he said:

"I believe that dinosaurs are not only in the Bible, but the have lived with man all through his six thousand year history."

Now, which one of you YECs can find at least three things wrong with that sentence?

 

[kedge]

Figurative language. Figurative language. Figurative language.

And your point is what?

 

[JackH]

Lol. That was a good one. Kent never fails to entertain. I can hardly wait to see the new video clips starring him that will be circulating on YouTube after his release.

But he does deviate from the standard YEC position which asserts that dinosaurs died out shortly after exiting Noah's Ark.

See: https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/

The percentage of YEC advocates in the U.S. have fallen dramatically to only 39%. See the latest polling data: http://ncse.com/rncse/30/3/americans-scientific-knowledge-beliefs-human-evolution-year-

As you probably know, YEC gained traction amongst Christians in the 20th century as part of a Christian fundamentalist rejection of Marxism (which posited state atheism and Darwinism as its metaphysical worldview) during the Cold War. The "science" of YEC primarily came from several influential Seventh Day Adventist cult members.

Regarding your last paragraph, what is really amusing is that most YECs don't even know that they have Seventh-Day Adventists to thank for much of their science, particularly flood geology.

NCSE is an excellent source for real science. Your link doesn't work but I found the article. As pointed out, it matters how you ask the questions. If questions are posed such that science is pitted against religion, some people are reluctant to choose science even despite overwhelming scientific evidence. And some people get confused about all the YEC lies like there is evidence that humans coexisted with dinosaurs.

Ken Ham is becoming as ridiculous as Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind). I'm just surprised Ham didn't go get himself one of those Cracker Jack PhDs like Dr. Dino and other YEC gurus have done.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Ken Ham has a legitimate bachelor's degree in applied science (and a diploma in education) from a reputable university.

I won't give you a cup of coffee for his "honorary degrees"; however, as those are simply gifted without being earned academically in anyway whatsoever by the institutions that award them.

I'm just surprised Ham didn't go get himself one of those Cracker Jack PhDs like Dr. Dino and other YEC gurus have done.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

The NCSE does publish a great deal of real science; however, the organization itself is fully committed to interpreting that science solely within the context of general evolutionary theory which it teaches as an irrefutable fact in the same way that Ken Ham teaches YEC is an irrefutable fact.

Simultaneously, the NCSE works politically to completely suppress all other legitimate competing interpretations of science while demonstrating institutional bias against the scientists, researchers, and academicians who both engage in the enterprise of science and support legitimate competing models... a behavior that is very unscientific and I will argue undesirable despite it being behaviorally historical as philosophers of science such as Thomas Kuhn were able to successfully document.

NCSE is an excellent source for real science.

 

[popeye]

Regarding your last paragraph, what is really amusing is that most YECs don't even know that they have Seventh-Day Adventists to thank for much of their science, particularly flood geology.

NCSE is an excellent source for real science. Your link doesn't work but I found the article. As pointed out, it matters how you ask the questions. If questions are posed such that science is pitted against religion, some people are reluctant to choose science even despite overwhelming scientific evidence. And some people get confused about all the YEC lies like there is evidence that humans coexisted with dinosaurs.

Ken Ham is becoming as ridiculous as Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind). I'm just surprised Ham didn't go get himself one of those Cracker Jack PhDs like Dr. Dino and other YEC gurus have done.

HMMM,then according to your template,If YOUR heroes of your evo cult have any chink in their armor,your entire investment falls like a house of cards in a tornado?

Looks like your deal is ,and has been rubbish from the get go.

But hey,if "attack the messenger" works IN YOUR MIND then go for it.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Microevolution is observable in every major origins worldview including YEC; however, YEC advocates don't call it that very often. They refer to it as "mutation-selection working together to change the percentages of genes in a population," as an example (AIG defines it that way).

The reason why they don't often use the term "microevolution" is because they don't want to portray themselves in any way whatsoever as aligning with macroevolution which can be defined as the extrapolation of microevolution to account for all changes in body designs, speciation, appearance of new phyla, etc...

Also, non-scholarly evolutionists (e.g. macroevolutionary advocates) in the general population become recalcitrant in discussions involving the term as many of them ignorantly refuse to even recognize a theoretical demarc between the two terms despite leading scholarly evolutionists (e.g. macroevolutionary advocates) formally recognizing that “micro” and “macro” evolution can be “de-coupled” and that great variation within kind (“micro”) by itself occurs (and can theoretically occur apart from macroevolution).

Now, with that understood, the chinks in macroevolutionary theory are actually gaping holes and a great many scientists, researchers, and academicians (including Nobel Prize winning scientists) have switched from macroevolution to old earth/progressive creationism as a result of scientific advances fitting competing models.

For example, Nobel Prize winner in chemistry Dr. Richard Smalley became an advocate of the RTB scientifically testable creation model after reading 'Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off' by Dr. Fazale Rana (Ph.D. in chemistry with an emphasis in biochemistry at Ohio University, where he twice won the Donald Clippinger Research Award and postdoctoral work at the Universities of Virginia and Georgia).

HMMM,then according to your template,If YOUR heroes of your evo cult have any chink in their armor,your entire investment falls like a house of cards in a tornado?

Looks like your deal is ,and has been rubbish from the get go.

But hey,if "attack the messenger" works IN YOUR MIND then go for it.

 

[JackH]

Microevolution is observable in every major origins worldview including YEC; however, YEC advocates don't call it that very often. They refer to it as "mutation-selection working together to change the percentages of genes in a population," as an example (AIG defines it that way).

The reason why they don't often use the term "microevolution" is because they don't want to portray themselves in any way whatsoever as aligning with macroevolution which can be defined as the extrapolation of microevolution to account for all changes in body designs, speciation, appearance of new phyla, etc...

Also, non-scholarly evolutionists (e.g. macroevolutionary advocates) in the general population become recalcitrant in discussions involving the term as many of them ignorantly refuse to even recognize a theoretical demarc between the two terms despite leading scholarly evolutionists (e.g. macroevolutionary advocates) formally recognizing that “micro” and “macro” evolution can be “de-coupled” and that great variation within kind (“micro”) by itself occurs (and can theoretically occur apart from macroevolution).

Now, with that understood, the chinks in macroevolutionary theory are actually gaping holes and a great many scientists, researchers, and academicians (including Nobel Prize winning scientists) have switched from macroevolution to old earth/progressive creationism as a result of scientific advances fitting competing models.

For example, Nobel Prize winner in chemistry Dr. Richard Smalley became an advocate of the RTB scientifically testable creation model after reading 'Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off' by Dr. Fazale Rana (Ph.D. in chemistry with an emphasis in biochemistry at Ohio University, where he twice won the Donald Clippinger Research Award and postdoctoral work at the Universities of Virginia and Georgia).

Dr. Smalley and Rana make a whole lot of sense to me, not that I agree with everything they have said.

The evolution of the horse is interesting. Answers in Genesis appears to be in denial on the issue, while Old Earth Creationists would likely call it microevolution and the scientific consensus seems to be macroevolution.

The position of YECs on a young earth, dinosaurs coexisting with humans, and a global flood destroys their credibility on other issues, in my opinion. And there is outright distortion of the truth at websites like Answers in Genesis.

I might change my mind if Ken Ham proves, as he has recently promised, the dinosaur fossils he has are not millions of years old but less than 6,000 years old.

LOL.

You YECs who believe that should send him a check right now to finish his Noah's Ark theme park.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I hear you Jack. There are many world-class scientists aligning with old earth/progressive (not exactly the same thing but we'll lump them together for the purpose of this discussion) creationism.

YEC, not so much. Certainly there are YEC advocates with respectable credentials; however, their attempts to prove YEC (including advocates with respectable credentials like Jason Lisle) are faulty to the point of failure in my estimation.

I would say the best scientist who comes the closest to the YEC viewpoint, without demonstrating any faultiness whatsoever with respect to science, is the eminent [emphasis added] emeritus Dr. Edgar Andrews. If you haven't yet read his book, "Who Made God?," you should.

 

[Tintin]

Lol. That was a good one. Kent never fails to entertain. I can hardly wait to see the new video clips starring him that will be circulating on YouTube after his release.

But he does deviate from the standard YEC position which asserts that dinosaurs died out shortly after exiting Noah's Ark.

See: https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/

The percentage of YEC advocates in the U.S. have fallen dramatically to only 39%. See the latest polling data: http://ncse.com/rncse/30/3/americans-scientific-knowledge-beliefs-human-evolution-year-

As you probably know, YEC gained traction amongst Christians in the 20th century as part of a Christian fundamentalist rejection of Marxism (which posited state atheism and Darwinism as its metaphysical worldview) during the Cold War. The "science" of YEC primarily came from several influential Seventh Day Adventist cult members.

This is simply not true. Some biblical creationists are Seventh Day Adventists, but they weren't instrumental in the movement.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

OE/progressive scientists usually state that whales and horses are not macroevolutionary candidates because their smaller populations and large body sizes equate to longer generation times and fewer progeny per adult which means its less likely new functions from beneficial mutations result and more likely that a downward spiral to extinction does.

In their models, horse and whale species manifest no realistic probability of evolutionary advance nor can they survive any longer than several million years before experiencing complete extinction.

But it is for this reason that they do NOT ascribe variations in the fossil record to microevolution. Their models propose that the Creator had a particular purpose in the ecosystem for each of the many apparent transitions for whales and horses but due to a rapid extinction rate [for the reasons above] frequently created new species as replacements. This act of progressive creation is where the term 'progressive creationism' came from. The fossil record does confirm this observation.

But further note that creatures such as cockroaches, with long extinction times, manifest either no transitions or very few. From the viewpoint of OE/progressive creationism, God seldom needed to intervene to preserve them.

Naturalistic models predict transitional forms among tiny-bodied simple life-forms vastly outnumbering those among large-bodied complex life.

OE/Progressive creation models predict the reverse: far more "transitional" forms for large-bodied complex life than for tiny-bodied simple life.

The evolution of the horse is interesting... Old Earth Creationists would likely call it microevolution and the scientific consensus seems to be macroevolution.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Oh yes they were too. Read 'The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism' by Dr. Ronald L. Numbers.

No one is denying that more recent flood geologists and people involved in the scientific enterprise who advocate for YEC have conducted their own research and published their own assertions apart from and not dependent on the early Adventists. Nor have I stated others were not involved early on besides Adventists. They were.

However, it's simply not true to say that Adventists such as George McCready Price were not instrumental in the movement early on in the 20th century (before men like Morris and Whitcomb came to the forefront) because they were and that's what I asserted.

This is simply not true. Some biblical creationists are Seventh Day Adventists, but they weren't instrumental in the movement.

 

[JackH]

Oh yes they were too. Read 'The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism' by Dr. Ronald L. Numbers.

No one is denying that more recent flood geologists and people involved in the scientific enterprise who advocate for YEC have conducted their own research and published their own assertions apart from and not dependent on the early Adventists. Nor have I stated others were not involved early on besides Adventists. They were.

However, it's simply not true to say that Adventists such as George McCready Price were not instrumental in the movement early on in the 20th century (before men like Morris and Whitcomb came to the forefront) because they were and that's what I asserted.

Another YEC (Tintin) in denial.

Henry Morris got much of his flood geology and his book The Genesis Flood from George McCready Price and his book The New Geology. Price got his flood geology in part from an Ellen G. White vision. Henry Morris founded Institute for Creation Research.

YECs have spouted the talking points of this flood geology right here on this thread. And most of them don't even know where it came from.

YECs should be thanking Ellen G. White and her visions in their prayers.

 

[JackH]

Most fossils are a result of the Great Flood, so it makes sense that there are dinosaur, animal and human bones all mixed together at times, or in different layers etc. Most would have been trying to escape the Flood. They would not be having a lovely stroll in the park with each other.

This is the sort of logic that must have come from an Ellen G. White vision.

 

[kedge]

I might change my mind if Ken Ham proves, as he has recently promised, the dinosaur fossils he has are not millions of years old but less than 6,000 years old.

You would be wasting your time, Mr Ham nor any other human being won't be able to prove with absolute certainty on anything regarding "how old or young the earth or dino bones are" with any measure of accuracy at all simply because all age dating methods are tentative, it's all unproven assumptions. Waste of time.

 

[JackH]

You would be wasting your time, Mr Ham nor any other human being won't be able to prove with absolute certainty on anything regarding "how old or young the earth or dino bones are" with any measure of accuracy at all simply because all age dating methods are tentative, it's all unproven assumptions. Waste of time.

This is simply not true.

(Sorry, I was imitating a YEC named Tintin.)

What's up with this "absolute" business?

In the 1950's, real scientists said the Earth was around 2 billion years old.

Now real scientists say it's older.

Fifty years from now real scientists will probably say it's even older.

But I doubt real scientists will say the Earth is around 6,000 years old.

I go with what the vast majority of real scientists say at any given time.

And when I see the Hamster riding a real T. rex at his museum instead of that fake one with the saddle, I'll change my mind on that subject.

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Another YEC (Tintin) in denial.

Henry Morris got much of his flood geology and his book The Genesis Flood from George McCready Price and his book The New Geology. Price got his flood geology in part from an Ellen G. White vision. Henry Morris founded Institute for Creation Research.

YECs have spouted the talking points of this flood geology right here on this thread. And most of them don't even know where it came from.

YECs should be thanking Ellen G. White and her visions in their prayers.

i guess the hovindists have pretty much all given up...but their 'contributions' were useless anyway...mainly because they don't know what they are talking about and can't recognize when other people don't know what they are talking about either...

maybe i will try to add some things to the debate...but if it becomes too predictable i will probably quit out of sheer boredom...

so regarding this assertion that young earth creationism and flood geology virtually originated in seventh day adventist circles...this is patently false...

although morris was influenced by price...young earth creationism and flood geology actually predated price by a wide margin...

for example...a century before price came along george fairholme was advocating for flood geology...a century before that johann lehmann was interpreting strata within the framework of a global flood...

and yet another several decades prior to that john woodward proposed a theory of rock strata and fossil sequences that was virtually identical to those of price and morris many years later...

going even further back you have martin luther and early church fathers like augustine and chrysostom attributing fossils to the biblical flood...

all price did that was actually -new- was to attempt to link already existing notions of flood geology and seventh day adventism into a coherent apologetic...

in any case...as inaccurate as it is...your argument is also a fairly obvious fallacy...namely the ad hominem fallacy of guilt by association... as an example of how it is invalid reasoning someone could point out that darwin viewed some races as superior or inferior and then argue that modern day evolutionists are the intellectual heirs of the nineteenth century racists and eugenics advocates...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

I hear you Jack. There are many world-class scientists aligning with old earth/progressive (not exactly the same thing but we'll lump them together for the purpose of this discussion) creationism.

YEC, not so much. Certainly there are YEC advocates with respectable credentials; however, their attempts to prove YEC (including advocates with respectable credentials like Jason Lisle) are faulty to the point of failure in my estimation.

I would say the best scientist who comes the closest to the YEC viewpoint, without demonstrating any faultiness whatsoever with respect to science, is the eminent [emphasis added] emeritus Dr. Edgar Andrews. If you haven't yet read his book, "Who Made God?," you should.

young earth creationists...hovindists excluded...tend to be far more responsible with science and scripture than old earth creationists...who usually just end up inventing a new creation mythology that contradicts both...

here is how i would rank the various schools...from most credible to least credible...

young earth creationism
intelligent design
atheistic evolutionism
gap theory
progressive creationism
day age theory
theistic evolutionism

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I will personally vouch for Tintin 100% as a genuine Christian who consistently demonstrates both a HIGH standard of integrity and intellect. Honestly, he's one of the best Christians on CC not to mention one of the most beloved. Don't disrespect his person as it's unwarranted.

Now he does; however, align with the YEC viewpoint. That's not a problem for me. I just share and expect everyone else to do the same.

You're assertions here are correct but, like I said in my previous post, there were other YEC science voices early on in the 19th and 20th centuries in addition to Price.

For example, read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scriptural_geologist

^ As you can see there certainly were other voices advocating for YEC science in the 19th century besides Price.

I haven't read nor qualified 'The Great Turning Point' by YEC advocate Dr. Terry Mortenson yet but that would be the YEC position on that point.

If you want to look at that topic from the naturalist viewpoint, a resource like John M. Lynch's seven-volume 'Creationism and Scriptural Geology' would be recommended.

The problem with both of the above resources; however, is that even though each is considered the 'gold standard' by their side, they both represent polarized historiographies that have ordered everything to support their own viewpoint... a reflection of how deep the enmity is that exists between the advocates of these two viewpoints.

Another YEC (Tintin) in denial.

Henry Morris got much of his flood geology and his book The Genesis Flood from George McCready Price and his book The New Geology. Price got his flood geology in part from an Ellen G. White vision. Henry Morris founded Institute for Creation Research.

YECs have spouted the talking points of this flood geology right here on this thread. And most of them don't even know where it came from.

YECs should be thanking Ellen G. White and her visions in their prayers.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

False. Old earth/progressive creationism has a long and well documented history that extends into antiquity just as YEC does.

No new creation mythology was invented. Rather, scientifically testable creation models were developed by theologians, philosophers, scientists, researchers, and academians (who were and are genuine Christians that signed statements of faith adhering to the orthodox essentials of the Christian worldview) upon the creation viewpoint to test whether or not the viewpoint was, in fact, true or not.

It's unhelpful Rachel to make such patently false assertions while demonstrating such animus [emphasis added] against genuine Christian theologians, philosophers, scientists, researchers, and academians (whom include people such as Charles Hodge, A.A. Hodge, John Gresham Machen, William G.T. Shedd, Benjamin B. Warfield, Gleason Archer, R. Laird Harris, James Montgomery Boice, Francis Schaeffer, R.A. Torrey, Edward J. Young, John Ankerberg, Bill Bright, C. John Collins, Chuck Colson, Paul Copan, William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, Wayne Grudem, Hank Hannegraff, Jack Hayford, Walter Kaiser, J.P. Moreland, J.I. Packer, Nancy Pearcey, Vern Poythress, Earl Radmacher, Lee Strobel, Dallas Willard, etc... just as a sampling and without delving into antiquity) whom don't adhere to your own viewpoint that the earth is six thousand years old, that's what the bible teaches, that's what every church father taught, and anyone who disagrees lacks integrity and fabricating newfangled mythologies that contradict both.

That's just pure unadulterated ignorance and animus on your part.

than old earth creationists...who usually just end up inventing a new creation mythology that contradicts both...