Talk:Kent Hovind

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon creationism.svg

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.

Information icon.svg 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.
Icon sociology.svg 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.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Archives for this talk page: , (new)

If Hovind wanted a doctoral degree from a creationist college that is fine but[edit]

Why a diploma mill? Yes I know Hovind's "dissertation" was on par with a middle school level of work and he might have not made it in an accredited college but someone who is not that smart can still pass college course work and earn an actual degree. He could have went to San Diego Christian College, The Master's University, Andrews University or what ever. It just boggles the mind knowing other creationists got actual degrees at the doctoral level in natural sciences when they hold very similar views to Hovind. Yes I know Hovind (probably) has half a brain (That is being nice) but he could have went with a real school.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Because 1) he's an idiot and 2) he doesn't care about the difference. This is good for diploma mills as people like him make them rich! Harry Potter (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Carboj dating[edit]

I've been watching a few rebuttals of Kent Hovind, most of Kent's views on carbon dating dating have been easily rebutted, but I need help debunking (or explaining) these claims on carbon dating by Kent Hovind:

What specifically bothers me is his claim at the very start, that scientists take multiple dates and discard any dates that go against their predictions. It's been really worrying me. Can someone help me? Reg321(talk)

Wife number three[edit] (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: ℕoir LeSable (talk) 06:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

MOre info for you. Source: 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) (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC) and — Unsigned, by: 2600:4040:475e:f600:4c6f:3fc8:33e5:1996 / talk
He's probably a criminal who also tried to shutter this website with legal threats. He holds a special place in our hearts. 🥺 --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 17:41, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The Hovind "Theory"[edit]

Shoud update this with his more recent flood theory (canopy theory)? it is seen in --Dracofulmen (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)