Fake Fossils Bring Big Money

[Cardinal Carminative]

not really,,

there are many scientist that dispute it and use the evidence to explain why,,
problem is you would ignore them because they are creationist and not one of your selected sources,,

I haven't seen much Creationist peer reviewed science. I've seen plenty of creationists do science very badly, though.

 

[progressive hunter]

I am not aware of that. Care to cite some?

 

[progressive hunter]

I haven't seen much Creationist peer reviewed science. I've seen plenty of creationists do science very badly, though.

thats because they are not allowed to be published,, I think thats called censorship,,

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Kent Hovind is a faker. His "doctorate" is from a diploma mill. He's spent time in prison for tax fraud.

His "witness" for God is nothing but pure unadulterated greed.

And, no, he didn't get anything peer reviewed.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

thats because they are not allowed to be published,, I think thats called censorship,,

Bad science usually doesn't make the cut for publication. It would be like complaining that you can't get your paper on your new perpetual motion machine won't get published in Nature.

 

[progressive hunter]

Kent Hovind is a faker. His "doctorate" is from a diploma mill. He's spent time in prison for tax fraud.

His "witness" for God is nothing but pure unadulterated greed.

And, no, he didn't get anything peer reviewed.

so you choose to ignore the evidence he p[resents and go for personal attacks,, figures

he is one of many that have came to the same conclusion,, its just that their peer reviews are not allowed to be published in your rigged system,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

Bad science usually doesn't make the cut for publication. It would be like complaining that you can't get your paper on your new perpetual motion machine won't get published in Nature.

but yet its published everyday by evolutionist,,

why is it you guys always run from the evidence and use personal attacks and peer review??

 

[alang1216]

Australopithecus was named after Australia???

He doesn't know much about Beatles music either

 

[progressive hunter]

Australopithecus was named after Australia???

He doesn't know much about Beatles music either

still avoiding the evidence and going for personal attacks I see,,

thats a big sign you know youre wrong,,

 

[Hollie]

not really,,

there are many scientist that dispute it and use the evidence to explain why,,
problem is you would ignore them because they are creationist and not one of your selected sources,,

What a total fraud.

 

[Cougarbear]

Wherever there is money to be made there will be someone ready to take short cuts to get it. How many religious artifacts, like the Shroud of Turin, that are floating around?

This also proves that creation scientists should not be discarded by the snooty science people because they also can be special arbitrators in finding false information. More speech, not less is always best. Science should never be "settled." Especially by evolutionists and Democrats.

 

[Viktor]

Kent Hovind is a faker. His "doctorate" is from a diploma mill. He's spent time in prison for tax fraud.

His "witness" for God is nothing but pure unadulterated greed.

And, no, he didn't get anything peer reviewed.

Peer reviewed by whom

Bad science usually doesn't make the cut for publication. It would be like complaining that you can't get your paper on your new perpetual motion machine won't get published in Nature.

Peer reviewed? He is not a scientist, jackass. He is a religious leader. Why don't you stick your ample nose in and review him and see if anybody cares? I will laugh.

 

[Viktor]

Does anyone ever fake a new species of brachiopod?

Does anyone ever fake a new species of brachiopod?

Use the internet big mouth and look it up. I personally don't give a hoot.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Use the internet big mouth and look it up. I personally don't give a hoot.

That was a joke.

Seriously, what is your malfunction?

 

[Hollie]

This also proves that creation scientists should not be discarded by the snooty science people because they also can be special arbitrators in finding false information. More speech, not less is always best. Science should never be "settled." Especially by evolutionists and Democrats.

This proves that there is no such thing as a ''creationer scientist''.

A religious extremist who submits to a ''statement of faith'' is not a 'special arbiter' of anything. He is a religious hack. A ''statement of faith'' is a complete abandonment of objectivity and integrity. Science should never be reduced by the fears and superstitions of religionism.

 

[Hollie]

Leave it to the religious extremist to trot out a creationer hack.

​

#181: Kent Hovind​

Encyclopedia of American Loons

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com

A.k.a. Dr. Dino

Kent Hovind needs no introduction, and plumbing the abyss of his cluelessness is probably not a hygienic enterprise, so we’ll restrict ourselves to the basics (and some examples). Hovind used to be the head of Creation Science Evangelism, a young earth creationist activist group. He also operated a small museum and amusement park known as "Dinosaur Adventure Land". In 2006, during the run-up to Hovind's trial for tax evasion, much of the park was shut down due to Hovind's refusal to secure a building permit. He was convicted on the tax evasion charges and is now serving a 10-year sentence.

Hovind has his doctorate in Christian Education from the diploma mill Patriot University. You can download his dissertation from this site (for instance); it was made public through Wikileaks and has become quite popular, so the server is often overloaded. It’s opening sentence, already established as a classic, is “Hello, my name is Kent Hovind”. In it he claims that “n the twentieth century the major attack Satan has launched has been against the first eleven chapters of Genesis,” and goes on to display his deep understanding and erudite knowledge of modern biology by following it with “[c]hapter nine discusses the “best evidence” evolutionists have for evolution, that is, archeopteryx” and “I believe that dinosaurs are not only in the Bible, but the have lived with man all through his six thousand year history”, not to mention “The idea that evolutionists try to get across today is that there is continual upward progression. They claim that everything is getting better, improving, all by itself as if there is an inner-drive toward more perfection and order.” (More here, and here, and last but not least here)

Point is, Hovind views the manufactroversy between creation and evolution as an epic battle between God and his former chorus director, Satan. Evolution, you see, has been with us from the start: “When the people left the Tower of Babel, they took their false religion of evolution with them.” In fact, most opposition to Christendom concerns evolution: “the Islam religion accepts evolution very readily as a scientific fact because it fits so well with their teaching.”

Oh yes, Hovind believes the earth is 6000 years old, that the flood created Gran Canyon and that humans walked with dinosaurs. In fact Ken Ham, who shares these beliefs, has taken Hovind to task by creating a list of arguments against evolution a creationist should not use. They actually got into a dispute over that, since Hovind recognized several of his own trump arguments on Ham’s list. And that is Ken Ham. Of creation museum fame. When you are too ignorant of science for Ken Ham, then you are, well, rather ignorant. PZ Myers has attended one of his talks, and wasn’t particularly impressed.


Diagnosis: Hovind is a riot of insanity, ignorance, crackpottery, delusion, lunacy and idiocy. Thus, he has had rather far-reaching influence. His jail-time may have halted his career, and he seems to have grown even more unhinged during his time in prison. What happens when he is let out in 2015 will be interesting.

 

[Cougarbear]

This proves that there is no such thing as a ''creationer scientist''.

A religious extremist who submits to a ''statement of faith'' is not a 'special arbiter' of anything. He is a religious hack. A ''statement of faith'' is a complete abandonment of objectivity and integrity. Science should never be reduced by the fears and superstitions of religionism.

 

[Cougarbear]

Keep trying. You just dig yourself into a deeper hole. Science is never settled and more voices are important, not less.

 

[Hollie]

Keep trying. You just dig yourself into a deeper hole. Science is never settled and more voices are important, not less.

That was quite a sidestep. I didn't anticipate you could
cobble together a relevant response.

What science requires is objectivity, not a limitation imposed by fear and superstition.

The inference from "supernatural design" (applied to biology, for exampke). to the supernatural designer gods goal, and thus to supernatural designer gods, is a, you know, leap of faith. If we have no criteria for identifying design goals of supernatural designer gods, other than unfounded claims that they supernaturally created things, we end up with many supernatural designer gods, many goals of the designer gods, many design criteria, and ultimately it is simply a restatement of the evolutionary notion of fitness. A "design" is something that makes an organism fit, that is, able to live and reproduce. But we already have an account of fitness, and it doesn't involve supernatural designers, or even, really, design: It’s called ‘’natural selection’’.

 

[Cougarbear]

That was quite a sidestep. I didn't anticipate you could
cobble together a relevant response.

What science requires is objectivity, not a limitation imposed by fear and superstition.

The inference from "supernatural design" (applied to biology, for exampke). to the supernatural designer gods goal, and thus to supernatural designer gods, is a, you know, leap of faith. If we have no criteria for identifying design goals of supernatural designer gods, other than unfounded claims that they supernaturally created things, we end up with many supernatural designer gods, many goals of the designer gods, many design criteria, and ultimately it is simply a restatement of the evolutionary notion of fitness. A "design" is something that makes an organism fit, that is, able to live and reproduce. But we already have an account of fitness, and it doesn't involve supernatural designers, or even, really, design: It’s called ‘’natural selection’’.

Then stop trying to limit imposing your fear and superstitions. You might find out that creation science uses the same scientific studies and information that secular science does. The interpretation is different, not the science. You are complaining about something that does not exist, supernatural science. You should also understand that creation science isn't trying to prove the God exists either. Only through faith and God's desires to let you know they exist (Father, Son, Holy Ghost). Creation science is simply put using the same information you do starting from a different point of view and seeing if it can fit the Genesis Story. Why would you object to this? How does it affect you negatively? If Creation science turns out to have some or all truth, it would only benefit you.