First faulty statement, “I’m Dr. Hovind. My PH. D is in …”
4/24/2006 12:51:15 PM
Where do the Pacific, Atlantic, or Indian Oceans have H2O molecules in them?
4/24/2006 3:45:55 PM
Well, let's start at the main page of drdino.com:
(from the bottom of the page, the rest of the main page is \"news\" articles)
\"Creation Science Evangelism was started in 1989 by Dr. Kent Hovind.\"
lie #1. Kent Hovind is no doctor.
\"Kent Hovind is one of the most requested speakers on the Creation and Evolution topic in churches and Universities all over the world.\"
Lie #2. Speaking at a university at the request of a student organization (if indeed he has done such), and being requested to speak by a university are two different things. The context of the statement implies that he has been asked to speak BY a university, which is, to the best of my knowledge, wholly untrue.
\"Dr. Hovind served as an educator for many years teaching Biology, Anatomy, Physical Science, Mathematics, Earth Science, and many other sciences.\"
Lies number 3, 4, 5,6,7,8,9, and 10.
3 is a repeat of number 1.
4 is his claim of being an educator, rather than his actual position of miseducator
5 is that he knows any biology TO teach
6 is ditto that for anatomy
7 is ditto that for physical science
8 is ditto that for mathematics
9 is ditto that for earth science
10 is ditto that for [m]any other sciences.
\"Dr. Hovind has debated the Creation and Evolution controversy over 100 times all over the world, in many large Universities, and on thousands of radio talk shows.\"
Lies number 11, 12, and 13.
#11 is again a repeat of number 1.
12 is the claim that he's debated evolution at 'many large universities'.
13 is that he's spoken on \"thousands\" of radio talk shows.
4 sentences, 13 lies. And he didn't even try to actually talk about science in those four. Let's find someplace where he does...
4/24/2006 6:26:39 PM
Okay, from http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=60
Opossums, Redwood Trees, and Kidney Beans
Author: Dr. Kent Hovind
\"The theory of evolution teaches that living things are becoming more complex as time progresses.\"
Lie #1. Evolution teaches that phenotypes which are advantageous to successful reproduction will be selected for, be they simple (say, cyanobacteria) or complex (say, eukaryotes).
\"Because the chromosomes in living matter are one of the most complex bits of matter in the known universe\"
Not strictly a lie, but without specifying the measure of complexity being used, this is a meaningless statement.
\", it would seem logical to assume that organisms with the least number of chromosomes were the first ones to evolve and those with the most chromosomes are the end result of millions of years of evolution\"
Here's where it really becomes lie #2. If chromosomes are complex, what does that say about genomes, which are composed of chromosomes? Also, are all chromosomes equally complex? What if two chromosomes have different numbers of genes? Or base pairs? Further, and again, evolution does not make the claim that the number of chromosomes should increase over time; only Kent Hovind does that!
\"experimenting to increase complexity in living organisms. From the chart, it is \"obvious\" that we all started off as penicillium with only 2 chromosomes, and that we slowly evolved into fruit flies.\"
This is another lie; the chart only shows that penicillium has fewer chromosomes than fruit flies. Indeed, all the chart discusses at all is number of chromosomes. However, it has the title \"The Evolution of Species by Means of Increasing Number of Chromosomes -or- The Preservation of Complex Life Forms in the Struggle for Life\", which is a lie, and a non-sequitur. The first part of the title is a lie (while an increase in number of chromosomes can happen, it is not, in and of itself, a means by which the rates of reproduction for a population can be increased), and the second title is completely unrelated to evolution.
\"After many \"millions of years\" we turned into tomatoes (or house flies) and so on, until we reached the human stage with 46 chromosomes.\"
More lies. We were never tomatoes, nor were we house flies, nor has science claimed such. We share common ancestors with both, but we never either. Hovind has been corrected on this to his face, numerous times, so it's not that this one could even be simple ignorance.
\"One of our ancestors must have been one of the identical tripletsâ?”opossums, redwood trees, and kidney beansâ?”with 22 chromosomes each.\"
Again, Hovind is the only one making the claim that identity is based on number of chromosomes - a concept which is contradicted by his own examples of substantially different organisms with the same number of chromosomes. As he attempts to claim that it is SCIENCE which makes the claim, this is another lie by Hovind.
\"If we are allowed to \"continue evolving\" we may someday be tobacco plants and maybe we may even become carp with 100, or maybe even the ultimate life form, a fern with 480 chromosomes!\"
Evolution would not predict a transition from any given clade to any clade which predates it, such as animal -> plant, or vertebrate -> fish. More lies by Hovind.
\"Donâ?™t you believe it! God made this world and all life forms, as recorded in the Bible.\"
Another lie. Even if God made the world, and all life, it was NOT according to the literal six day account of genesis. Unless he put a lot of effort into fooling people into thinking otherwise.
4/24/2006 6:43:13 PM
Not familiar with Gish or Ham, but Hovind is a criminal. I'm inclined to distrust anything coming out of his mouth.
1/5/2007 3:02:04 AM
Ummm... practically everything that comes out of their spew hole.
Remember, Hovind was the product of a fundie diploma factory that sells titles to anybody with the cash.
1/5/2007 6:58:10 AM
If Hovind, Gish or Ham came in soaking wet and told me it was raining, I'd get a second opinion.
1/5/2007 7:12:54 AM
Lillian Gish? Well, she mostly did silent films, so I guess you've got a point.
As for Hovind's faulty statements, I'm gonna go with "Not guilty".
2/3/2008 1:10:06 AM
Gee, where to begin?
2/21/2011 5:01:00 PM
Just about everything they ever said in a public setting.
2/21/2011 5:02:00 PM
the bases of their "arguments" are solely based off of their belief that the bible is true and the only way.
therefor... super fail.
2/21/2011 6:15:12 PM
Dammit, noself and lisamariefan beat me to it!
Although we could start back when he actually manage dot get his degree. Has to be something amiss there.
2/21/2011 6:24:19 PM