Sorry. Could you please expand on the scientific points against atheism? Why do you think the evolution taught at college is biased?
Kent Hovind is a conspiracy theorist. That's a pretty good indicator that he makes claims but lacks evidence to support them. Even fellow creationists criticise him.
In particular AiG (Answers in Genesis) criticized Hovind for "persistently us[ing] discredited or false arguments" and said Hovind's claims are "self-refuting".
Creationist astronomer Hugh Ross, of Reasons To Believe, debated Hovind on the age of the Earth during the John Ankerberg Show, televised nationally on the Inspiration Network in September through October 2000. Ross said Hovind was "misrepresenting the field" of different sciences, and Ross told Hovind: "Astronomers view the credibility of the 'Young Earth' as being much weaker than that for a flat Earth."
If a creationist astronomer is criticising the whole "Young Earth" concept as weaker than the "flat Earth" myth, you know this man isn't credible.
I noted my main ones already, but to list all the little ones I would need to get my text books out and slave at my desk for a week or two to get the majority.
And in my school, we are taught evolution not as a hypothesis, but rather a fact. There's a little anecdote for you.
As to Hovind, that's the first time I hear such things about the guy, given time, I'll look into them. But what do you think is wrong about conspiracy theorists? And did you know of Hovind before I mentioned him, or did you google him?
P.S. I only just realised the cleverness of your username...I feel dumb.
Come and let us discuss atheism.
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Sorry. Could you please expand on the scientific points against atheism? Why do you think the evolution taught at college is biased?
Kent Hovind is a conspiracy theorist. That's a pretty good indicator that he makes claims but lacks evidence to support them. Even fellow creationists criticise him.
In particular AiG (Answers in Genesis) criticized Hovind for "persistently us[ing] discredited or false arguments" and said Hovind's claims are "self-refuting".
Creationist astronomer Hugh Ross, of Reasons To Believe, debated Hovind on the age of the Earth during the John Ankerberg Show, televised nationally on the Inspiration Network in September through October 2000. Ross said Hovind was "misrepresenting the field" of different sciences, and Ross told Hovind: "Astronomers view the credibility of the 'Young Earth' as being much weaker than that for a flat Earth."
If a creationist astronomer is criticising the whole "Young Earth" concept as weaker than the "flat Earth" myth, you know this man isn't credible.
--
Anonymous Post Author
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
I noted my main ones already, but to list all the little ones I would need to get my text books out and slave at my desk for a week or two to get the majority.
And in my school, we are taught evolution not as a hypothesis, but rather a fact. There's a little anecdote for you.
As to Hovind, that's the first time I hear such things about the guy, given time, I'll look into them. But what do you think is wrong about conspiracy theorists? And did you know of Hovind before I mentioned him, or did you google him?
P.S. I only just realised the cleverness of your username...I feel dumb.