That just isn’t biblical. I t was supposed to be 40 days of rain.
Science does back him up on the ice crust/flood .Lake Aggasiz, a glacial lake in Canada broke through an ice dam in the waning years of the last ice age flooding the Atlantic Ocean then the Mediteranean, breaching the Bosporous Sill and creating the Black Sea. This event is often speculated as the basis for middle east flood myths.
I guess that he’s the only one who actually knows what he believes. Ask him:
[[ADDRESS DELETED]]
Yes, it’s written poorly. But the much bigger problem is that it’s not anywhere close to the quality of research and analysis of a PhD dissertation. It’s just ramblings. Nothing more. No matter how good the writing could be, you do not get a doctorate for your personal musings and opinions. (at least you shouldn’t).
I’ve [some what belatedly] removed Kent Hovind’s address from this post. SoulFrost, this is not the kind of thing we do here. scamatristry is looking for answers from Straight Dope users. And I don’t think Kent Hoving is answering a lot of his mail right now - although I guess he has lots of time to do so. 
Yeah, I started wondering afterward if that was cool to do. After it stayed up for a couple of days, I figured it was ok. Should have reported it myself and asked. Sorry, and thanks for taking care of it.
Nice. I should sue Kent Hovind for hundreds of millions of dollars for the mental anguish and suffering his very existence causes me!
Yes. Yes, it absolutely could.
Ah, the innocent distant past of ten years ago, when biblical literalism and creationism still seemed like the height of absurdity…
Heh. Around here on one of the radio stations on Sunday afternoons there’s a YEC radio show. Fascinating, I can never quite get myself to change the channel if I land on it.
For Kent and other creationists, Biblical truth is the only truth. Everything follows from that. If science disputes Biblical truth then science must be wrong. It doesn’t matter that the entire Earth could not logically be covered in water during the great flood, Kent will construct a fantastic story to explain it and his Bible truthers will be blissfully happy.
Geez, I had broccoli for dinner tonight.
Now I’m starting to doubt evolution. :eek::smack:
Since this thread started, I met someone worse than Hovind in believing crap. She is not only a YEC, but a flat earther and a believer in just about every conspiracy theory out there. Not for a con, but out of genuine belief.
Yes, if any part of the Bible was shown to be false her entire worldview would fall apart. That explains the flat earth part. But most importantly, she has 0 logical reasoning ability. I’m in a critique group with her, and in her book San Jose just got nuked but one of her characters checks into an airport hotel as if everything were normal. She did not see how this made no sense. There are many other examples.
Charlie Kaufman: How could you have somebody held prisoner in a basement and… and working at a police station at the same time?
Donald Kaufman: [pause] Trick photography.
-Adaptation
I doubt it.
I don’t know either man (and Chick is dead), obviously, but Hovind is, plain and simple, a con-man and a crook who made enormous amounts of money. He did not like to share his money with the government, so he did not pay taxes, and hid assets and income from the taxing authorities.
He spent a significant amount of time in prison.
Chick, on the other hand, was a lunatic. And, it seems to me, genuinely believed the insane (and often unintentionally funny) crap he put out there.
He didn’t seek personal fame (in fact, was famously reclusive) or riches. He had all the usual fundamentalist bees in his bonnet, along with a really bizarre obsession with the Catholic Church, and the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits) in particular.
There are plenty of Christians who really do believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, including the creation account(s) in Genesis. And there are more Christians (like me) who don’t.
Hovind wasn’t a fundamentalist. Or even a Christian. He was a con man.
Chick was, I think, a Christian. He genuinely believed what he was preaching, as loony as it was. I think he was probably somewhat unbalanced (not that I’m a psychologist or anything).
ETA: Sorry, sorry, I just realized I responded to a zombie that had been resurrected. My fault.
On the other hand, even though the post to which I responded is ancient history, I didn’t resurrect the thread, it’s alive now, so I’ll let it stand.
I am not sure if you are still interested to read this, but since your responders seem to be all anti-Kent Hovind and Creationism, I thought I would try to show his reasoning based on objective scientific evidence.
In geology, much study has been done on rock erosion. For instance, University of Texas has a report from an analysis of 3,770 erosion-pin measurements between 1978 to 1983 which on average gave a net erosion rate of 0.14 cm (1.4mm) a year. Measurements of-course were taken of different kinds of rocks. But without getting bogged down into details, fact is this gives a good figure to work from. Over a thousand years, this works out at the rock would erodde 1.4m. over a million years, 1,400m.
If rocks erode, anything on the surface will naturally disappear (plants, sealife, ferns, etc.). So, how can dinosaur footprints survive 65-250 million years? Atheist scientists delude themselves to believe rocks after rocks keep shielding these footprint rocks.
The second one is the discovery of sock tissue in dinosaur bones.
Again, blood and DNA and soft tissue immediately harden and disintegrate immediate the creature dies. But it doesn’t matter what, atheists refuse to permit the idea that this means the creature died only thousands of years ago, not millions.
The third brief reply is to do with DNA. It simply is not possible to argue evolutionary processes made DNA molecules. There is too many facts such as the complex but inherent neat shape and balanced electrostatic atomic bonds, and coding of the bases to explain the systems approach of a DNA molecule. Junk DNA which atheists claimed were in the DNA molecule, turned out to be functional. So a basic atheist evolutionary premise has been disproved.
The fourth one is the nature of life. It simply cannot be created. All - all experiments on living tissues are on already living things. Cannot make a molecule come alive.
The fifth is to do with astronomy. It is a false claim that stars get made over millions of years because cannot make a star from star dust. By definition these do not have the energy required to constitute a star. So where does the energy come from?
I will have to leave it at that. Atheist scientists will of-course disagree. Ask them to disprove my claims in the lab. Make a protein molecule come alive from mere amino acids!
[Discourse Obligatory Text]
Hi Becket. You are relying on certain sources which you have accepted uncritically. There are numerous other sources that you can access on the internet that will explain to you the problems with each of your arguments.
Bear in mind that reading about the counter arguments only from the same sources from which you obtained your arguments in the first place may and probably has lead you astray. To be blunt, the sources you have relied on tend to be misleading about the actual reasons your arguments have problems.
My suggestion is to read up on those problems and see if your arguments still make sense. If so by all means come back here and discuss. Based on long experience I can say that:
you may not be interested in considering your own arguments critically. If so really all you are doing is repeating a script blindly, and you are wasting your time here. To be able to engage with this community takes far more thought.
If you know you are just proselytising and don’t actually believe your own arguments, then you are being deceptive and maybe need to re-evaluate whether your behaviour fits with what your own religion says about honesty.
If you are prepared to read up about the problems with your own arguments from non-young earth sources, and consider them carefully and discuss anything you don’t understand, you may be able to get assistance here which may be of use to you.
By the way, most religions including most Christian religions accept evolution. Not just “atheists” as you seem to assume. You should bear in mind that much of what you have been told by your religious community may be untrue.
There is nothing “objective” or “scientific” in the arguments you present. What you choose to believe is your own affair, but these simplistic statements do not validate you.
If you truly believe in an omnipotent deity, he/she/it could make the universe work however he/she/it wanted it to. It is blasphemous for you, presumably a person of faith, to say that creation has to occur in the manner and on the time scale of your choice.
Protein molecules are not “alive.” Living things grow, metabolize food, and reproduce (Life | Definition, Origin, Evolution, Diversity, & Facts | Britannica). A protein molecule (e.g. gluten or myosin) does none of these things. But hey, if your all-powerful deity wanted a “protein molecule to come alive” I guess he/she/it could do it.