can you tell me what you think about this guys views on creation and evolution?

Question

i personally have a strong opinion on what this guy is saying, but im not going to pick best answer based on who i agree with. please go to the link, or if the link doesnt work, go to youtube.com, type kent hovint, why evolution is stupid. the video is like an hour and a half, but soooo informative and interesting. just wondering what creationist and evolutionist thought about it and why. please no rants or anything, if you have input, please jsut put your opinion nicely, i dont have to agree, i just want to know what you thought and why you agree or disagree with him. im genuinely interested, but please be serious and be nice. i know its long, sorry :/ its very interesting though, i hope you watch it. thank you!! five stars best answer

Answer 1

Charles Darwin failed miserably in his quest to validate his argument on Evolution.



God created the Heaven and Earth as the Holy Bible declares (Genesis 1:1). Don't put faith in theories. Have faith in God.



Charles Darwin did not use good logic in his famous book, "The Origin of Species."



W.R. Thompson, a Canadian entomologist(entomology-study of insects) of international repute, wrote in his introduction to the centennial edition of Darwin's Origen, "Darwin did not show in the Origin that species had originated by natural selection; he merely showed, on the basis of certain facts and assumptions, how this might have happened, and as he had convinced himself he was able to convince others.



Chapter 4 of the Origin, entitled "Natural Selection; or the Survival of the Fittest," occupies 44 pages in the 1958 mentor edition. In this chapter Darwin used the language of speculation, imagination, and assumption at least 187 times. For example, pages 118 and 119 contain the following phrases; "may have been," "is supposed to," perhaps," "If we suppose," "may still be," 'it is probable," "will generally tend," "may" "will generally tend," 'If," 'if...assumed," "supposed," "supposed," "probably," "It seems, therefore, extremely probable," and "We may suppose." Is this really the language of science? No, it is not.



Of Darwin's speculative arguments Thompson wrote, "....Personal convictions, simple possibilities, are presented as if they were proofs, or at least valid arguments in favor of the theory....The demonstration can be modified without difficulty to fit any conceivable case. It is without scientific value, since it cannot be verified; but since the imagination has free rein, it is easy to convey the impression that a concrete example of real transmutation (change of one species to another) has been given."



Source: Thompson, W.R., Introduction to The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, E.P. Dutton and Co., New York.



Have faith dear friends in God, not theories.



Genesis 1:1

Isaiah 45:18

Colossians 1:16

Hebrews 11:1-6

Genesis 2:1-3

Exodus 20:8-11

Psalm 14:1

Answer 2

Sorry, but my doctor has advised me to avoid anything involving Kent Hovind at all costs, because the sheer stupidity of the man could potentially cause my brain to liquefy and dribble out my ears.



EDIT:



"by the way, i know he is in prision. he is in prision for fraud, but when he asked for the court to point out one law he broke, they could not do so"



Not correct. They pointed out (quite easily) what laws he broke, with regards to tax fraud. He pretended he didn't understand, and tried to get away with it that way.



"also, to the person who said the light years disproves the earth being six thousand years old, the being of God transends time and space. if God is real and creation is true, it would take no time flat for God to light up the sky instantly"



The only way that makes sense is to assume that God made the light from distant stars in such a way intentionally, so that it would APPEAR the universe is older than it actually is. This would mean God is intentionally deceiving humans. Deceiving. Funny, isn't that what the Devil's supposed to do?

Answer 3

Creationists are dishonest. Simplest way I can put it.



Their arguments rely on either logical fallacies, lying, or over simplifications. The only people who fall for their arguments are the people who aren't informed on the subject.



Eg: If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?



At first, this seems like a good argument, but anyone who knows anything about evolution knows that we didn't evolve from monkeys, but we share a common ancestor.



Also, they claim to be astrophysicists, biologists, etc however they get their degrees from fake universities like Liberty University, not Harvard or Yale, or any other good university.



Creationists are the masters of deception.





Over 95% of scientists accept evolution, and after 150 years, there has been 0 evidence against it, but mountains of evidence in support of it.













Try presenting some of his "arguments" on here, we can pick them apart easily.













A perfect example of how dishonest they are: http://www.aolnews.com/2010/04/29/ex-colleague-expedition-faked-noahs-ark-find/

Answer 4

Kent Hovind is...to put it lightly, a big source of misinformation. I didn't watch that specific video because I don't have an hour and a half to kill today (I've got a cultural anthropology final tomorrow that I need to study for), but I have watched other Kent Hovind videos and found them mostly interchangeable.



Kent Hovind calls himself a doctor, but he got his PhD in "Christian Education" from a non-accredited correspondence school called Patriot University. Does that honestly sound to you like he's qualified to speak on the subject of biology? His opponents include people who have spent their entire lives studying evolution--how can he measure up in terms of knowledge and understanding of the subject that he so readily criticizes? I mean, honestly, the man believes that humans existed alongside dinosaurs. He thinks the universe is six thousand years old.



Don't get me wrong, Kent Hovind is a funny guy and I'm sure he's made many people happy by converting them to Christianity. But he really should not be getting involved in scientific matters.

Answer 5

I'm afraid Hovind is utterly dishonest.



He delibrately lies and twists the truth to suit his agenda.





Some creationists are honest in their beliefs, but Hovind is just in it for the money.

He's a very bad advertisement for Creationism (as if Creationism wasn't bad enough in itself)



(and it's tax fraud, he's in prison for. If he says any different, that's just another example of his lies)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind#Legal_problems

Answer 6

Kent Hovind... haha. Sorry, but he doesn't deserve a nice comment. He's not only completely ignorant about biology; he also believes in all sorts of crazy conspiracy stuff. The guy is insane. Oh yeah, and like someone said, he's in jail too.

Answer 7

Kent Hovind is a dumbass who got his degree from a fake university.



He's also currently in federal prison for tax evasion and other charges.

Answer 8

Kent hovind is in prison for fraud.



And his "doctoral dissertation" reads like it was written by a 5th grader.



go to youtube.com, type "why do people laugh at creationists".

Answer 9

Believe it if you will, Scientists have discovered planets many millions of light years old, pretty much destroyed Genesis, the backbone of the bible



http://www.bing.com/search?q=Scientists%2C%20debunk%20genesis&pc=conduit&ptag=AA86C9977A80442CA91F&form=CONBDF&conlogo=CT3210127&ShowAppsUI=1