Kent Hovind Is Out Of Jail ...

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

... and hitting the ground running.

He's been out about a month, but already has probably 2 dozen videos uploaded on his new YouTube channel. He is at it in full force, preaching Creationism and accusing Evolution of being a religion.

Hovind is no Doctor, but he isn't stupid either. He is rather knowledgeable on many topics, having picked up adequate scientific knowledge that he knows what he is telling others are absolute lies.

• An assertion he makes is using the law of conservative momentum to try to dissuade others from believing the Big Bang Theory. He states that in an explosion, or ejection from a point of centrifugal force, the objects expelled remain circling in the same direction. With this being the case, why are there planets and galaxies rotating in different directions? The problem is, the "big bang" wasn't an explosion; it was an expansion; and Mr. Hovind knows this. Because it was an expansion and not an explosion, he knows that the law of conservative momentum does not apply. Yet he speaks otherwise.
• He quotes the definition of "evolution" to be "change over time". He "divides" evolution into many "periods" of evolution: Cosmic, Chemical, Biological, etc. He places all of these under one umbrella in order to confuse his listeners. He knows that the theory of evolution is defined (and very loosely) as: "
  biology : a theory that the differences between modern plants and animals are because of changes that happened by a natural process over a very long time." Of course he knows this as he was once a HIgh School science teacher; but redefines the theory anyway, and does so deceptively.
• He postulates that if evolution were true, we should have birds hatching from reptile eggs. Hovind is smart enough and educated enough to know that this is not how evolution works; yet he states otherwise and does so dishonestly.
• He postulates that scientists believe that life emerged from a rock; but no scientist of which I am aware makes any such claim that life emerged from dirt or inorganic material. Again, he lies.

It is a shame, really; when he gets on a roll, Hovind is actually an engaging and entertaining speaker. Even though I know much of what he states is pure BS, I still find his delivery humorous and engaging. It's a shame that his talent for public speaking is used to willfully lie to those who trust him.

 

[Parsimony]

An assertion he makes is using the law of conservative momentum to try to dissuade others from believing the Big Bang Theory. He states that in an explosion, or ejection from a point of centrifugal force, the objects expelled remain circling in the same direction. With this being the case, why are there planets and galaxies rotating in different directions? The problem is, the "big bang" wasn't an explosion; it was an expansion; and Mr. Hovind knows this. Because it was an expansion and not an explosion, he knows that the law of conservative momentum does not apply. Yet he speaks otherwise.

That's a new one to me. What makes him think that the Big Bang had any net angular momentum in the first place?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Uh, no. Hovind is an idiot in every sense of the word.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

That's a new one to me. What makes him think that the Big Bang had any net angular momentum in the first place?

Because something went "bang" and "exploded" ... LoL ...

See right about 9 minutes into this video for Hovind's misapplication of angular momentum in relation to the Big Bang (LoL, I actually like his delivery; he's a good speaker, LoL):

 

[UpperLimits]

It's a shame that his talent for public speaking is used to willfully lie to those who trust him.

Can an insane man be accused of "lying" if he speaks of matters from his distorted perspective? After all, isn't it the fact that we recognize the distorted perspective that we call him "insane" in the first place?
To say that Hovind "willfully lies" is to imply that he knows, or believes, otherwise to be correct. I'm not so sure that's the case. I think he speaks of what he "knows."

 

[outhouse]

I think he speaks of what he "knows."

We know he lies. Were pretty well aware of exactly why he was put in prison as a dirty criminal.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

We know he lies. Were pretty well aware of exactly why he was put in prison as a dirty criminal.

He seemed to truly believe he could get out of paying taxes. I think the question was is that really lying or not, since he thought he was speaking on a position of honesty. A lie is intentionally telling a falsehood with the intention to deceive. Considering how poorly based in science his ideas are, and considering that even other YECs criticize his ideas, it's difficult to say with confidence that he is lying. There is no questions as to whether or not he is an idiot (he did spend about a decade in prison because of one of his idiotic ideas), we have evidence to know that his grammar is atrocious, but without clear and definitive evidence it can't accurately be judged if he is lying or not.

 

[outhouse]

ideas, it's difficult to say with confidence that he is lying.

He has been caught red handed in the past. Over 5 years we have researched him well enough to know what he is guilty of.

 

[outhouse]

http://noanswersingenesis.org.au/kent_hovind's_lies.htm

http://www.svetnauke.org/584-kent-hovind-creationist-liar-and-evil-evil-evil


http://www.oocities.org/kenthovind/lies/chromosome.htm

http://www.oocities.org/kenthovind/lies/index.htm

 

[Ouroboros]

Can an insane man be accused of "lying" if he speaks of matters from his distorted perspective? After all, isn't it the fact that we recognize the distorted perspective that we call him "insane" in the first place?
To say that Hovind "willfully lies" is to imply that he knows, or believes, otherwise to be correct. I'm not so sure that's the case. I think he speaks of what he "knows."

That's an interesting point. He might be completely delusional and think he's telling truths, so you might be right, in his little world, he probably doesn't think he's telling lies.

 

[outhouse]

he probably doesn't think he's telling lies.

Because convicted criminals are known for being honest


I believe it is impossible for any YEC to be honest, as they lie to themselves more then others.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

From the OED:
1.
a. An act or instance of lying; a false statement made with intent to deceive; a criminal falsehood. Phrase, to tell (†formerly to make) a lie. †Also, without lie, no lie, truly (often as an expletive in Middle English poetry; cf.
"Intent to deceive" is a part of what a lie is. We don't have strong evidence to suggest Hovind deliberately lied, but we have plenty to suggest he believes some kooky things. But, even if it's not kooky (such as the myriad of commonly held misconceptions and fallacies widely believed to be true) there is a difference between believing something that is false and lying.

 

[outhouse]

"Intent to deceive" is a part of what a lie is.

Its not up for debate and I posted a small handful of examples to substantiate the claims of his dishonesty.

What he is guilty of is beyond simple willful ignorance.

Felons do not exist for being honest characters of good moral standing.

 

[outhouse]

Addendum: Kent Hovind's
300 Creationist Lies

http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9639.htm


How many more examples do you need? there is no shortage here

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Addendum: Kent Hovind's
300 Creationist Lies

http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9639.htm


How many more examples do you need? there is no shortage here

It's still not evidence that Hovind deliberately spread misinformation with the intention of being deceitful. Being wrong is not telling a lie.

 

[outhouse]

It's still not evidence that Hovind deliberately spread misinformation with the intention of being deceitful. Being wrong is not telling a lie.

Being a felon just about requires dishonesty thank you. You have not refuted any example I have provided, You have not shown him just to be in error

 

[Skwim]

He seemed to truly believe he could get out of paying taxes. I think the question was is that really lying or not, since he thought he was speaking on a position of honesty. A lie is intentionally telling a falsehood with the intention to deceive. Considering how poorly based in science his ideas are, and considering that even other YECs criticize his ideas, it's difficult to say with confidence that he is lying. There is no questions as to whether or not he is an idiot (he did spend about a decade in prison because of one of his idiotic ideas), we have evidence to know that his grammar is atrocious, but without clear and definitive evidence it can't accurately be judged if he is lying or not.

I've always considered it a combination of ignorance and lies.

 

[UpperLimits]

From the OED:
1.
a. An act or instance of lying; a false statement made with intent to deceive; a criminal falsehood. Phrase, to tell (†formerly to make) a lie. †Also, without lie, no lie, truly (often as an expletive in Middle English poetry; cf.
"Intent to deceive" is a part of what a lie is. We don't have strong evidence to suggest Hovind deliberately lied, but we have plenty to suggest he believes some kooky things. But, even if it's not kooky (such as the myriad of commonly held misconceptions and fallacies widely believed to be true) there is a difference between believing something that is false and lying.

That would be precisely the point I was making.
Ya know, I always find it interesting how some people absolutely refuse to discriminate between differences and insist upon using broad condemnations - that is, of course, until it comes to points that THEY believe to be true. Then, just watch the finer discrimination come out from hiding!

 

[UpperLimits]

Being a felon just about requires dishonesty thank you.

No. It just requires one to step afoul of the law.

 

[Skwim]

It's still not evidence that Hovind deliberately spread misinformation with the intention of being deceitful. Being wrong is not telling a lie.

[Hovind] filed a fraudulent bankruptcy petition in 1996 claiming to have been a full time evangelist since 1989. There is also the question of "academic years, versus "calendar years." For example, Hovind's first teaching was at a church school he started in 1976 and left in 1978. That could be counted as 3 calendar years, but only 2 academic years: Sept. 1976 to June 1977, and Sept. 1977 to June 1978. Even giving Hovind the broadest interpretation, and allowing him the sham title of "science teacher," 1976 to 1989 is not 15 years.
source


Hovind claims to possess a masters degree and a doctorate in education from Patriot University in Colorado.

According to Hovind, his 250-page dissertation HERE was on the topic of the dangers of teaching evolution in the public schools. Formerly affiliated with Hilltop Baptist Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Patriot University is accredited only by the American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions, an accreditation mill that provides accreditation for a $100 charge. Patriot University has moved to Alamosa, Colorado and continues to offer correspondence courses for $15 to $32 per credit. The school's catalog contains course descriptions but no listing of the school's faculty or their credentials. Name It and Frame It lists Patriot University as a degree mill
source


Kent Hovind said:
"In order to make Africa and South America fit for the Pangea theory they put in the textbooks, they shrank Africa 35 to 40 percent. The Pangea theory is just pure boloney."

Obviously his claim is false. No scaling or skewing of the continent is required for it to fit neatly into the North and South American continents. An easy way to see this is to look at an animation of the fragmentation of pangea and the movement of the continents to their present locations based upon paleomagnetic data:
source