Talk:Kent Hovind
|
This Creationism related article has been awarded GOLD status for quality. Please keep this in mind when editing the article. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
|
| ||||
|
Cover Story This article is, among others, randomly included on the Main Page. Please keep this in mind and be sure that your edits are of the quality that this implies. Its front-page abstract can be found here and its editnotice here. |
|
This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. |
Wife number three[edit]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKc1HXuam9k 151.16.217.191 (talk) 11:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Damn, very interesting! This should be included somewhere in this page... hmm... The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 14:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
2020 Lawsuit[edit]
Just learned that Kent Hovind sued the government for over $500 million over unjust imprisonment. Making a note here to add later.
Case No: 3:20-cv-05484, Penascola Division of the Northern District of Florida.
Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2020/06/05/kent-hovind-sues-us-government-for-over-half-a-billion-dollars/?sh=1d7148ff2562 ℕoir LeSable (talk) 06:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
MOre info for you. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biRsShYHDYE&feature=push-u-sub&attr_tag=CkIkTglLi62f5p5-%3A6 User:MitchellTF 21:48, 3 December 2020 (CST)
Why are some people obsessed with Kent Hovind? He's a minor figure.[edit]
Kent Hovind has a small following. And the largest creationist ministries don't take him seriously. So why are some people obsessed with Kent Hovind? Yadsalohcine (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- "some people obsessed"? Explain yourself. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 02:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- For example, Kent Hovind seems to get more attention from many people than the Institute of Creation Research and their impact is greater on the public. Yadsalohcine (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- It's probably because Hovind is such a laughingstock and walking reality TV show. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 03:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- I will give an example of a pathological obsession. The RationalWiki article on Kent Hovind says about one of Kent Hovind's mistakes: "Democrates is the founder of Atomism, rather than Democritus". Is it noteworthy to put misspellings/typos of a person in a biographical article? To me at least, that is entering into pathology and spelling Nazism. It's an indication of pettiness, smallmindedness, uncharitableness, desperation and fanaticism too. It very much comes across as evolutionist fanaticism. I just don't see the level of fanaticism with people who hold most other positions. Yadsalohcine (talk) 05:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- There are dozens of even more minor creationists (and cranks in general) that don't have Wikipedia articles on here (even Hovind has one). Why focus on Kent Hovind and not some other guy? Is it because the article occasionally appears on the front page? (the use of the words "evolutionist fanaticism" are some of the dumbest shit i have ever seen as well)96.255.9.87 (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC) and — Unsigned, by: 2600:4040:475e:f600:4c6f:3fc8:33e5:1996 / talk
- I will give an example of a pathological obsession. The RationalWiki article on Kent Hovind says about one of Kent Hovind's mistakes: "Democrates is the founder of Atomism, rather than Democritus". Is it noteworthy to put misspellings/typos of a person in a biographical article? To me at least, that is entering into pathology and spelling Nazism. It's an indication of pettiness, smallmindedness, uncharitableness, desperation and fanaticism too. It very much comes across as evolutionist fanaticism. I just don't see the level of fanaticism with people who hold most other positions. Yadsalohcine (talk) 05:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- It's probably because Hovind is such a laughingstock and walking reality TV show. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 03:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- For example, Kent Hovind seems to get more attention from many people than the Institute of Creation Research and their impact is greater on the public. Yadsalohcine (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
The Hovind "Theory"[edit]
Shoud update this with his more recent flood theory (canopy theory)? it is seen in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZeZok5iGfU. --Dracofulmen (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Small inaccuracy in the article about the size of the water molecule. Thunderfoot's argument is still perfectly fine, and Hovind is still a moron...[edit]
Quote from the article: and the size of a water molecule ("the smallest identifiable unit into which a pure substance can be divided[28]") is about 10 angstroms End quote.
It is a bit too much. The covalent bond between the H and O atom within a molecule is about 100 pm (1Å). Since water molecule is V-shaped, the longest distance within the molecule (distance between its two H-atom) is about 150 pm. The hydrogen bond, which is between two water molecule is about 200 pm. This is how close can the water molecules be to each other.
A cube with edges of 10Å (1000 pm, or 1 nm) can hold about 2^3=8 water molecules pretty easily.
Sorry for my bad English — Unsigned, by: 188.143.78.129 / talk / contribs