User:Feredir28/Kent Hovind's Creation Seminar: The Age of The Earth

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Kent Hovind's Creation Seminar: The Age of The Earth is Mr. Kent Hovind first young earth creationist seminar. Hovind's intentions in this seminar primarily focus on attacking the age of the earth, though it also includes several other ad hocs and other topics. The program is over 2 hours long, so only the main points will be addressed.

Prologue[edit]

The program begins with Eric Hovind (Mr. Kent Hovind's son) kneeling at the side of a stream, tossing rocks into the water.

Have you ever thought about it? I mean really? What is the is purpose in life? Why are we here? Where do we come from? For that matter, where are we going to go after this life is over? In this seminar, it talks about the age of the earth. Dr. Hovind is going to give solid evidence to show you this earth is not billions of years old. In fact, the evidence points to a literal 6-day creation, like told in Genesis chapter one. Hi, my name is Eric, and we hope you enjoy this incredibly powerful seminar presented by Dr. Hovind. It is called the Age of the Earth. Convicted fraud and pseudoscience charlatan MISTER Kent Hovind will only provide us with over 2 hours of recycled creationist arguments that have been refuted a hundred times. He will blatantly attack science overall using pseudoscience, logical fallacies and multiple dishonest lies (all motivated by the desire to push his biased and dogmatic personal views) rather than legitimate science and actual evidence of any sort. The evidence does not in the slightest say that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, nor was it formed in 6 literal days. As this review will show, everything brought forth by Mr. Kent Hovind holds no weight whatsoever.

Introduction[edit]

Hovind's Introduction RationalWiki Responses
Hi, my name is Kent Hovind. I taught high-school science for 15 years. Now I travel, doing seminars on creation, evolution, and dinosaurs. And I let people know what I believe before we get started. I believe the Bible is the inspired, infallible, inerrant word of the living God. I believe it cover to cover (showing 2 Timothy 3:16 on the slide). And I believe that the evolution theory that is being taught in our schools is one of the most dumbest and most dangerous religions in the history of humanity - and those are the nice things to say about it. So one of my jobs as a Christian, and your job if you are a Christian, is to always give an answer to every man who asks you to give a reason of the hope that is in us (showing 1 Peter 3:15). And I think in the last 200 years, the Christians have not been doing a good job at answering the skeptics. And we have allowed them to take over our schools, our legal process, and our whole thinking process all based on this whole theory called evolution. Folks, there is a war going on. There are 3 things I try to accomplish in my seminars.
  1. I want to strengthen your faith in the Word of God.
  2. If you are not saved, I am going to try to get you converted tonight. (I told you right up front, I'm after you!)
  3. I you are saved and not doing much for the Lord, than I am going to try to make you uncomfortable.

Fair enough? I am going to warn you, every sin in the book is mentioned in my seminars. I think every bodies toe has been stepped on at least once. We recommend steel-toed boots or willingness to move your feet.

What Mr. Kent Hovind will not share is that he home-schooled his kids for 15 years, and his Ph.D. is mail-order. He did not graduate from any university. Kent Hovind is among the many creationists who have phony Ph.D.s.[1]

What Mr. Hovind will not share is that both 2 Timothy and 1 Peter are considered by the vast majority of Bible scholars to be forgeries. Evolution is not a religion at all.[2]

  1. Here, Mr. Hovind aims to spread his evangelical message over scientific fact.
  2. Basically by lying to you.
  3. More accurately, he is after your money. And when the IRS comes after him, he hides in the corner and then caught red-handed for stealing money. This is why Mr. Kent Hovind is currently in prison for tax-evasion.

1. We want to change your worldview. Some people look at the world and say, "You know, it's amazing - a big bang made this from nothing." That's the humanist worldview, based on the evolution theory. Other people look at the world and say, "You know, there is an incredible design - there must be a Designer!" That's the creationist worldview, based on creation. And those two worldviews are at war with each other. Somebody is wrong, and I enjoy showing them who they are. I've done a lot of debates, over 87. 92 debates now I've done at the universities; one here at U.T. Knoxville against Dr. Pigliucci. I've debated him twice; I will be glad to do it again. I don't think he will, but I would be honored. The guys I debate are a lot smarter that I am, but I slaughter them because I am right and they are wrong. It's real simple. Now, how would you answer the four great questions of life? Mr. Kent Hovind has failed each debate for the sole reason that he has failed to prove anything about creationism. Also, Dr. Pigliucci earned his Ph.D. in Philosophy at UT in 2003, he is not a scientist or biologist.

Now throughout this whole seminar Kent uses the word “religion” very openly, and claims that atheism and evolution are both religions. The definition of the word religion is, “Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.” Atheism is exactly the opposite of this definition because it doesn’t believe in any supernatural power or creator. So I wonder why he claims that Atheism is a religion. Also, Evolution doesn’t have anything to do with a creator or supernatural power, it does not encourage nor discourage the belief in such.

As for the "Humanist" worldview mentioned by Mr. Hovind, it is not humanistic at all. The Big Bang does not say everything came from nothing, that is creationism (Mr. Hovind's position). Humanists and rational thinkers do not simply assume things (such as the earth is the center of the universe) simply because science does not know all the answers. Humanism isn’t about throwing in another theory about how we got here; it’s about living a fulfilling life without the need of a big brother figure looking over your back. By totally misinforming the spectators about the philosophy of Humanism, Kent is not only lying to them, he is putting it into their minds that anything other than Creationism sounds too fictitious to be true. This is a propaganda tactic that you will see Kent using very often.

2. Well, that depends upon your worldview. If the evolution story is true, who am I? Well, if evolution is true, we are nothing important that is for sure. Actually, you are just a bit of protoplasm that washed up on the beach. As a matter of fact, you are part of the problem because you are one of the polluters of the environment and the more of you we can get rid of, the better. Right? Evolution is a theory, not a philosophy. This is like asking, “Where’s the happiness in the Theory of Relativity?” You can’t attack evolution on the merit of morality because it simply doesn’t deal with moral positions. If Kent were actually telling the truth, don’t you think all of the Evolutionists would have killed themselves by now, or gone on killing sprees, since us humans are part of the problem and all? Knowing that we evolved from more primitive ancestors is as depressing as knowing that we weren’t born in our present state. The fact that we are the first living organisms on this planet to become aware of their own existence and mortality is a motivation for us to keep surviving. If Evolution were true, our species isn’t part of the problem, it’s an amazing example of the possibilities that Evolution can attain!

3. Where did I come from? Well, if evolution is true, you came from a cosmic burp about 20 billion years ago. Why am I here? What is the purpose of life? Well, if evolution is true, there is no purpose to life so you might as well have fun; if it feels good, do it. Get all the gusto you can get, you only go around once in life, you know? Where am I going when I die? Well, if evolution is true, you are just going to the grave and you are going to get recycled into a worm or a plant. A cosmic burp? Again, making a caricature about the opposition that just isn’t true to persuade the spectators. Kent also really emphasized the word “billion” in an attempt to make it sound as if it were a fairy tale. Again, you can’t attack Evolution on the merit of morality (the purpose to life) because it simply isn’t a philosophy. And what’s so bad about living by the philosophy of “if it feels good, do it.” . . . ? That’s quite a good philosophy to live by in my opinion. The great majority of us have a conscience and abide by it. This is the exact reason that stops most people from doing bad things and encourages most people to do good things. If they do something bad, they feel bad. If they do something good, they feel good! Also, knowing that we are mortal beings is only a greater motivation to cherish every moment you have, because it’s only going to happen once!

4. The Bible says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Now, if that is true that puts a whole different set of answers to those four fundamental questions of life. The devil came to Eve in Genesis 3, "The serpent said unto the woman, yea hath God said ye should not eat of every tree of the garden?" The second thing he said to Eve was, "Ye shall not surely die." Now he is denying what God said. God said if you eat off the tree you’ll die, the devil said, "no you won’t," and that is a common technique the devil often uses, just out right deny what God has said. And the third thing he said to Eve is classic, he said, "Eve, if you eat off that tree, ye shall be as gods."

The idea that man can become a god if we do what the devil says. See, the devil wants you to think, "we started off like an amoeba. Yes, boys and girls, and we are evolving, we are getting bigger and better and stronger and smarter and someday we are going to sail around the universe and discover new life forms like Star Trek." People ask me all the time, they say, "Brother Hovind, do you think there is intelligent life on other planets?" I say no. I taught high school 15 years, I don’t think there is much intelligent life on this planet. I didn’t get to see a lot of it!

Evolution is simply a theory; it doesn’t refer to God one bit. Neither does it state that you will become a god if you believe in Evolution. It’s as if Kent is creating his own cult based on the principles of Evolution, showing why this cult is a serious threat to all humanity, and then deeming Evolution itself to be blasphemy.

Definitions of Evolution[edit]

Hovind's Age of the Earth RationalWiki Responses
Here is a first-grade textbook. Here is what they tell the kids in first grade. Kids "Earth has changed much since its formation 4 1/2 billion years ago." Now just hold on a minute. Is the earth 4 1/2 billion years old? No. But if you tell that to a first grader, he is gonna believe you. First graders believe everything you tell them. They believe bananas are moldy spider legs! I did! And then tell them again in second grade; here is the second grade textbook. "Since its formation 4 1/2 billion years ago, earth has changed." It says, "Life, too, has evolved on earth." Well, there’s that word evolved. That is a very tricky word! There are six different meanings to the word. Now, I have done 87 debates and I think over 7,000 TV call-in talk shows. I learned win the debate on evolution in less than 5 minutes, it is so easy. If someone says do you believe in evolution? simply say "what do you means?" ah, well you know, evolution. "oh, i don't know, what do you mean? Which meaning are you talking about?... Evolution explains the fact of biological change over time; as shorthand for the theory of evolution, which encompasses a much broader range of observations and ideas.

1. ...Are you talking about Cosmic Evolution? That is, the origin of time, space and matter. The Big Bang. No, I do not believe in that. This is gross ignorance, deliberate dishonesty, or both. Evolution does not at all deal with cosmology or astrophysics. Evolution simply explains the diversity of life. It has no say in origins of matter, space, or time.

2. Are we talking about Chemical Evolution? Because according to the Big Bang Theory, the Big Bang made hydrogen. Okay, then how did we get these other elements? You want me to believe that uranium evolved from hydrogen? They will say, well, in stars you get fusion well you cant fuse past iron. Check it out. So how did we get uranium? Huh? This is gross ignorance, deliberate dishonesty, or both. Evolution is only concerned with biology, not chemistry and fusion.

3. You want me to believe in Stellar and Planetary Evolution? That is how stars and planets have formed. Nobody has seen a star form. We see stars blow up all the time, it is called a nova (or supernova if it is a big one) but we have never seen one form. And yet there are enough stars out there right now that we know about that everybody on planet earth can individually personally own 11 trillion of these stars to themselves. Those are the ones we know about> We do not know about those we don't know about. This is gross ignorance, deliberate dishonesty, or both. Evolution has no saying on the topic of planets and stars.

4. Then we get to Organic Evolution. That is the origin of life. No one has a clue on how life can get started from non-living material. You want me to believe that all living things came from - you want me to believe in spontaneous generation, which was proven wrong 200 years ago? No, I do not believe in any of those four. This is gross ignorance, deliberate dishonesty, or both. Evolution explains how life diversifies, not how it began. Since evolution at every level is -by definition- limited to the variation of allele frequencies inherited over generations of living organisms, then it obviously can’t operate where no genomes yet exist. The evolutionary process starts with genetics and can’t start before it. So how the first genes came about may seem similar to evolution, and may even involve a form of natural selection in some way, but it is in fact a very different chemical process called abiogenesis.

5. Maybe you are talking about Macro-Evolution. That is where an animal changes into a different kind of animal. Nobody has ever seen that. Nobody has ever seen a dog produce a non-dog. I mean, you may get a big dog and a little dog, I understand but you are going to get a dog ever time. And it could be that the wolf, dog, and the coyote had a common ancestor, I would not argue about that. But every little kid knows they are the same kind of animal. I will show you, is anybody in hear 5 or 6? (picks out a kid named Rachel, age 6) Here we have a dog, wolf, a coyote, and a banana. Which one is not like the others? The banana! Very good, lets give her a big hand. We have college professors who cannot figure that one out. You see, the Bible says they bring forth after their own kind. See if they can bring forth, they are the same kinds. Simple definition. Can they bring forth? A dog and a wolf can mate and bring forth. A dog and a banana cannot. See Charlie Darwin wrote a book On the Origin of Species, and how the Christian church got lost in the 1800s and did not catch that I don't know. But they did not catch what was happening. They are changing the definition. If they stuck to the word kind we would not have this dumb evolution theory permeating our society. they bring forth, they are the same kind. In the evolutionary perspective, any single ancestral species can diverge into two or more daughter species, each becoming so distinct that eventually either of the new species would be unable to interbreed with the ancestral and/or sister species anymore. But by ignoring fossil forms, the creationist’s perspective has that completely backwards, insisting instead on an illusory sequence of separately conjured “kinds” which must remain forever undefined, and they imagine that evolutionary diversity can only occur by mixing these “kinds” in hybridization. This is another reason they reject transitional fossils, and instead demand some blend only between current “kinds”. Their perspective has no depth.

Macroevolution is properly defined as the emergence of new taxa at or above the species level. The only time creationists will use the proper definition is when they are as-yet unaware of the fact that speciation has already been directly-observed and documented dozens of times –both in the lab and in naturally-controlled conditions in the field. In fact, we’ve seen it so many times we’ve had to categorize recurrent types of macroevolution we’ve seen so often repeated. Once creationists find out about all this, their first reaction is to use the excuse that some newly evolved species of fruit fly or fish somehow still doesn’t count because it’s “still” a fly or it’s “still” a fish. Well of course it is! Evolution couldn’t permit them to be anything else. Creationists demand that the new species be so different from their parents that one can’t even tell they’re related. The irony there is that evolutionary theory never suggests that one “kind” of thing ever turned into another, fundamentally-different “kind” of anything, not unless you ignore all the intermediate stages –which of course creationists do.

Mr. Hovind's example of presenting a coyote, wolf, dog and banana is of course entirely misleading. Bananas are of course very distantly related to canines, but they are both eukaryote. What if Mr. Hovind included a wolf, dog, coyote, and an aardwolf, see if the child (or even Mr. Hovind) would get it. The aardwolf looks just like a fox, but genetically it is more related to cats.[3] Or how about Mr. Hovind shows only the skeletal remains of a dog, wolf, coyote and a bear. It is difficult to tell the difference (see for yourself: dog and bear), the reason is because dogs and bears actually share a common ancestor - all fully proven genetically, morphologically, and shown through the fossil record.

Lastly, we have what is called Micro-Evolution. (Labeling the previous five as "Religious - Not Science" on the slide) This is variations within the kinds, ah now this one happens. So if you want to talk about variations, I agree that this one happens. The first five meanings of the word are purely religious. So I am telling you folks, if you are going to get into a discussion of evolution, you better define what you are talking about or you will never get anyplace. Because when I say the word "evolution" I am thinking of these five up here, but when the atheist says the word "evolution" he is thinking of the sixth definition. And he does not understand how I cannot see it and how he does see it because we have not defined the terms. That's the problem. The teachers are told to "stress that the earth is billions of years old, make sure the kids believe this" (highlighted from Holt General Science Teacher's Edition, 1988, pg. 381.) Now I happen to be of the low-fashion, I think in science classes we should be teaching science. You know, things we can observe, study, and test. The only reason creationists cling to these “micro” and “macro” distinctions is so they can have some excuse to accept “small scale” evolution, which they begrudgingly admit cannot be denied even with the greatest faith; while still denying “large scale” evolution where their exact parameter of “how large” must remain illusive to prevent it ever being disproved. Of course that means “large scale” evolution can mean whatever they want it to at that moment. Frank Sherwin from the Institute of Creation Research recently defined macroevolution as “the origin of every kind of animal”, and later on in the same discussion, he changed his definition to “the origin of all life”. He knows he’s using the terms incorrectly. He simply doesn’t care, and neither does Mr. Hovind!

But the fact is he doesn’t get to conveniently redefine what these terms have always meant to the scientists who invented those words in the first place. According to Universities actually teaching this subject, microevolution is variation within species, and macroevolution is variation between species. The different breeds of dogs are an example of microevolution, while the different species of wolves and foxes, panthers and felines, horses and zebras, or llamas and camels –are all examples of macroevolution. Each set is definitely biologically closely-related, but they’re each different species, not different “kinds” of the same one.

There is not much point in quoting a middle-school textbook to show Mr. Kent Hovind is wrong, but misinformation is misinformation. Keeping in mind that the book is outdated, here is the full paragraph from the Teachers book: Introduce the concept of one million of something, and then expand to one billion. (See "Motivating your Students") Stress that the earth is thought to be at least 4.5 billion years old thus it is necessary to divide up time into manageable unites called eras. As you can see (which was also visible on Mr. Hovind's slide) it is not stressing that the teachers spoon-feed students that the earth is old, just that it is important to divide up long periods of time into segments in order for young children to understand it.

Laws of Thermodynamics[edit]

Hovind's Age of the Earth RationalWiki Responses
1. Kent Hovind explains what the 1st Law of Thermodynamics as 'energy and matter cannot be destroyed.' The second tells us that 'everything tends towards disorder.' 1. Kent forgot to include in the first law description that energy and matter can change from one to another. The first law is actually proof against creationism, which promotes the belief mater and energy cam from nothing ex nihlio. The second description is wrong. "The 2nd Law states: for every thermodynamic change in a system some amount of heat is irreversibly absorbed by the system."[4] Entropy involves loss of potential to do work. Disorder is used to describe entropy to grade school students and it is a term avoided by physicists due to it misrepresentation of what entropy truly is.

2. But the evolutionists say, "now wait, Mr. Hovind, you do not understand, see if you add energy you can overcome the second law of thermodynamics." They will say that the earth receives energy from the sun and therefore the 2nd law does not apply because the earth is an open system. But, you see the universe is a closed system. For the earth to receive any energy from the sun, the sun has to lose it. 2. Those scientists are right that the second law can be overcome. This is why heating water makes it easier to dissolve substances in it. You add back to the system the energy lost its entropy. "The sun has to lose it"...which it does. The sun is gradually consuming the hydrogen in its core through fusion reactions.[5]

3. Secondly, adding energy is destructive unless there is a mechanism to utilize the energy. The sun does add energy to the earth, I agree, but it is destructive. There is only one thing on earth that can use the sun's energy and that is chlorophyll. If it weren't for chlorophyll and plants, the sun's energy would make the earth like the moon. 3. Thankfully, plants do not consume much of the sun's solar radiation or the earth would be an ice ball, and everyone would be dead. In addition, somehow the phrase "There is only one thing on earth that can use the sun's energy and that is chlorophyll" is implying that the photovoltaic cell in your solar-powered calculators are made from chlorophyll.

Unknown Berkerly Professor about Origins[edit]

Mr. Hovind's next discourse with an unknown professor. Strange, while Mr. Hovind cannot remember the professor's name or profession, he can recount the conversation word for word.

1. I do not know if any of you folks down here in San Diego have ever heard of Berkeley, but Berkeley is not Bible college. This professor and I sat down and we started talking about creation and evolution. I said, "tell me sir, if you believe in evolution, how did the world get here?" He said it came from the Big Bang. And so the professor started of with one of those answers that look like it came straight from the textbook. He said, (more reading from the slide than actually retelling from memory) 'well, Mr. Hovind, I believe about 18 to 30 years billion years ago (that's a long time folks) all the matter in the universe was concentrated into a very dense, very hot region that may have been much smaller than a period on this page.' I said, "Prof., what happened to your dot?" He said , 'well all the dirt in the universe was drawn into this little tiny dot and it was spinning, it spun real fast and then faster and faster and then one day it exploded. Boom. Big Bang. And these pieces flew off and they became the galaxy, sun moons, stars and finally people.' 1. The line Hovind paraphrased from is from a middle school science book, all the while Mr. Hovind keeps giving the impression he is recalling a story he had with a professor. Would a distinguished university professor actually quote a grade school textbook? Also, the part were he said that all the matter was condensed to a small point and then spun around, that was a section of the text that was describing the creation of a nebula and then the collapse of a nebula to form a star. Even on the highlighted slide Hovind presented in this seminar reveals that this description was regarding a nebula, not the origin of the universe. There was nothing in that description that dealt with the Big Bang, except Mr. Hovind saying "...it exploded. Boom. Big Bang." From then on, Hovind is wrong. The Big Bang was a rapid expansion of space-time not an explosion in the sense of a bomb.[6]

2. In the law of physics known as the conservation of angular momentum. You see if a spinning object breaks apart in a frictionless environment (which the Big Bang would have been) all the fragments would have fly off will spin the same direction. That is because the outside is moving faster than the inside. The Prof. said, 'yer, I know about the conservation of angular momentum.' I said well good sir, then I have one question fr you: if the universe began as a swirling dot (big Bang, like you said) would you please explain to me why two -and possibly three- of the planets are spinning backwards. 2. Simple, the Big Bang did not result in planets and stars "flying" out of an explosion. First, it was a rapid space-time expansion.[7] Second, the Big Bang resulted in a universe composed of plasma which after reactions would finally condense as planets and stars.[8] The orbit assumed by planets is dependent on gravitational forces exerted by larger objects in the area. Direction depends on the position of formation relative to pre-existing gravitational forces.

3. And the Prof. said he did not know where the matter came from. So I said, well sir, tell me where the laws came from. You know, who runs the universe with these laws? Gravity, inertia, etc. Who is the law-giver? 3. Laws are written by man to explain observations. Newton developed the following: law of universal gravitation, centrifugal force, and law of inertia. How did Hovind forget Newton?

Age of Earth based on...[edit]

Here, Mr. Hovind tries to argue that the age of the earth cannot be billions of years old because certain things should not exist if the clock was counted backwards.

1. The earth is turning, we are spinning around about a 1,000 mph at the equator. But the earth is slowing down. It used to be going faster. 1. True, however, the rate of this slowing down has changed dramatically over time.[9] Fossilized corals place the length of day, 310 million years ago, at 20 hours which is close to the mathematical estimate of 22.7 hours.[10] Current models place the length of day at 14 hours for the nearly formed earth.[11] Furthermore, most leap-seconds are the result of error in the atomic clock.[12]

2. But as the moon is going around, it is getting farther and farther away. We are slowly losing the moon. It can't be billions of years old...According to Walt Brown in his book, he says 1.2 billion years ago the moon would be touching the earth. 2. Math Check: Rate of moon recession: 3.8 cm/yr and Distance from moon to earth: 3.85x1010 cm. Therefore, 3.85x1010 cm / 3.8 cm/yr = ~1.0x1010 yr. That's 10 billion years. The earth is only 4-5 billion years old. See the problem?

3. Comets are flying around through space. But comets are constantly losing material, but this scoffer said 'oh, but don't you know that in the 1950's the Dutch astronomer named Jan Oort proposed (hoped, wished, prayed) that a great spherical shell of comets existed at the remote frontiers of our solar system.' He said that this Oort cloud, as he called it, is 50,000 Astronomical unites (AU) away. See, there is a problem with this. No one has ever sen the Oort cloud. 3. First of all, this has nothing to do with the age of the earth. While no direct observations have been made, several large objects have been observed at the distances beyond the Kuiper Belt. Sedna was discovered in 2003. It's orbit takes it out to about 937 AU, and it is hypothesized to be part of the inner Oort cloud.

4. Your kids are going to be taught that Red stars evolved into small White Dwarf stars, and they will tell you that it takes billions of years for this to happen. But it does not take billions of years. All the ancient astronomers describe Sirius as a red star (Egyptian hieroglyphs, Cicero, Seneca, Ptolemy). I know it is a binary star, but today it is known as a White star, a dawrf binaary star. It does not take billions of years for this to happen, it happens in a few thousand years. 4. Again, this has no bearing on how old the earth is, just the ages of stars. However, Mr. Hovind is also wrong here. Early observations of Sirius occurred by viewing it close to the horizon. At this angle, the atmosphere gives it a red appearance in much of the same way the setting sun appears red. Furthermore, Sirius is a binary star. Sirius B is a white dwarf; Sirius A, which is visible without a telescope, is not. Pre-telescope era observers would only have been able to view Sirius A.

5. Jupiter is cooling off rapidly. 5. Again, this has nothing to do with the age of earth. True, but due to its massive size and the rate of heat radiation, the heat coming from Jupiter still fits well within the estimation of the heat generated from its initial formation.[13] The core of Jupiter is cooling at a rate of one millionth of a Kelvin per year or a little less than two millionths of a degree Fahrenheit per year.

6. Saturn has rings around it, but they are moving away from the planet. They are unstable. They cannot be billions of years old. 6. Once again, this has nothing to do with the age of the earth, rather it is about the age of rocks orbiting Saturn. Saturn came before the rings. Data currently shows that the rings may only be a few hundred millions of years old, and the result of a moon that crossed the Roche limit (distance at which the planet's gravity pulls apart the moon).[14] It is also theorized that Saturn's moons shepard the rings and stopped them from drifting off.

7. The galaxies are spinning, but the stars in the middle are going faster than the stars on the outside. If they were billions of years old, the galaxies would have lost their spiral shape by now. 7. Blimey, this has nothing to do with the age of the earth. But as usual, Mr. Hovind is wrong again. Spiral arms are generated by density waves, which are most likely the result of tidal forces from neighboring galaxies. Furthermore, the spiral shape appears to be energetically favored which explains their maintenance over time.[15]

8. Did you know that the earth is like a big magnet? Magnets constantly lose their strength. The earth's magnet has lost 6% of its strength in the last 150 years. Well the earth's magnetic field is getting weaker, which means it used to be stronger...If you made the magnetic field 30 or 40 times stronger than it is now, the heat generated would destroy everything. You could not have life on earth with a lot stronger magnetic field. So if the earth is billions of years old, the evolutionist has to have an answer for that. He says well the magnetic field is reversing, it is in a cycle. Well, we have never seen that; we have seen it decline and that is all we have seen. Now if you want to pretend or imagine that it is reversing, you are welcome to. If you want to use the jumbled up lines at the bottom of the Midatlantic Ridge for your evidence, you are welcomed to do that, but that is not conclusive proof that the magnetic field is reversing at all. There are lots of other explanations for those magnetic lines at the bottom of the earth and Midatlantic Ridge. We have seen the magnetic field decline, which could indicate that your earth is not billions of years old. 8. The "decaying electric core" model has been obsolete for many years. Furthermore, measurements used to support the theory only used dipole field measurements. The dipole field is only part of the earth's total magnetic field.[16] The actual evidence supports the dynamo model.[17] This model allows for magnetic reversals which have been documented.[18] Finally, the dipole field has been observed too increase.[19]. As for Mr. Hovind's logic that the earth's magnetic field is weakening, lets show why this is absolutely ridiculous. Yesterday, the temperature was 1 degree warmer than today. This overwhelming and obvious evidence must mean that the earth is cooling. Trace it back, last year the earth must have been 365 degrees hotter. Based on world-wide experience (and common sense) this did not happen. The earth's magnetic field does shift, and what is the real mystery is how Mr. Kent Hovind is so easily willing to shamelessly lie to the audience. Polar reversals have been documented worldwide, not just at the Midatlantic Ridge, but at many oceans and lava flows. The claim that the stronger magnetic field would not allow life is demonstrably false. First proposed by creationist Thomas G. Barnes (another creationist with a phony PhD), which he claimed that a stronger magnetic field would not allow life to survive more than 10,000 years ago. Unfortunately, he failed to provide any evidence for his idea, furthermore his speculation that the field strength is and always will be declined by experts as totally meaningless, because w can and have actually measured the historical field strength and proved that it fluctuates.

9. All over the world we find petrified trees, standing up running through multiple layers. 9. A single local flood is capable of depositing several feet of sediment. The trunks of trees buried in such a manner can remain for decades before rotting and being buried by successive local floods.[20]

10. By the way, how many of you have gone into a cave and a guide said, 'don't touch the formations, they take millions off years to form.' Have you eve heard ta before? If you go to Carlsbed, you will see 250 million years...m, then why are there 50 stalactites growing under the Lincoln Memorial? 10. It depends on the mineral that composes the growing stalactites. Limestone (calcium carbonate) is only slightly soluble in water and requires acidic water. Deposition is therefore very slow, especially considering hat water must seep through the soil ad limestone rock about the cave.[21] Concrete, on the other hand, creates a large amount of calcium hydroxide. Calcium hydroxide is several hundred times more soluble in water than calcium carbonate.[22] When you take into account that these rapidly forming stalactites occur near leaking pipes, their rate of formation cannot be used to correlate natural stalactite formation.

11. Here s a picture of Niagara Falls, notice the textbook says, 'the rocky layers above Niagara Falls has been eroding for nearly 9,900 years.' It is actually moving back 4.7 feet a year according to the museum guide. I have a question, if the earth is millions of yeas old, why hasn't it moved back all the way to Lake Eerie by now? 11. First as Mr. Hovind stated, Niagara Falls has not been in existence for millions of years. The Falls did not occur until the end of the previous Ice Age some 7-10,000 years ago.[23] Second, this has no impact on the age of the rest of the earth, only the age of Niagara Falls.

12. Shara desert has a prevailing wind pattern. The wind almost always blows the same way. No this crates a problem, because the hot air that comes from the desert and kills the trees next door, and that area becomes desert. The process is called desertification. Well, Sahara desert is growing about 4 miles a year. They just finished quite a big study just outside Sahara Desert and said, 'you know folks, we think Sara is about 4,000 years old.' 12. True, the Shara Desert is only a few thousand years old.[24] But it has nothing to do with the age of the earth as a whole, just the Sahara Desert.

13. Did you know that sometimes when they drill into the ground they find oil? The oil is in incredible pressure down there, from 20,000 psi. Well, the rock can't handle that pressure. Thw oil pressure is way above the level of the surrounding weight of the overlying rock. 13. Rocks are not elastic. When pressure exceeds the breaking point, the rock breaks.[25] It does not wait around for thousands of years as Mr. Hovind says; it simply breaks.

14. He said, do yo use these rings on here? Dark, and light, and dark, and light? Sort of like tree rings. I said yep, I see them. They said, 'well you see Mr. Hovind, what happens up in Greenland,when the summer melts the snow a little bit, and it refreezes and it makes clear ice. It shows up dark here. In the winter, the snow packs, it does not get a chance to freeze or melt, and so it shows up light here, compressed because it h air bubbles in it.' So they said was these are annual ring and thy represent summer, winter, summer, winter, and so on. And they said they have counted these annual rings in the deepest hole we have eve drilled, which was 10,000 feet, and there were 135,000 annual rings. I said "ah fellas, aren't you assuming those are annual rings? See they did not know about the law of lost squadron. When some airplanes ran out of gas during WWII and landed in Greenland... I talked to the guy who dug a plane out, his name is Bob Cardin, I said "Bob, explain this to me now. Those planes were in the ice for 48 years, they were 260 feet down, that is 5 1/2 feet a year of ice on top of the planes. The deepest hole drilled was 10,000 feet, if you divide that by 5.5 you get 1,824 years. Now I know the deeper layers get squished and glacier fern and all that stuff, but 4,400 years is plenty of time for all the ice to form the north and south pole. So I went and met Bob, and I said Bob explain this to me, what are these ice rings? I said when you melt it down to get to the air plane, did you notice rings in the ice? He said 'yeah, there are many hundreds of them.' I said, well how do you get hundreds of annual rings in 48 years? He said, those are not annual rings, they do not represent summer, winter, summer, winter, etc. They represent warm, cold, warm, cold and you can get 10 of those in one week up there in Greenland. Now either he is ignorant, or he is a liar. I hope his just ignorant because ignorance be fixed. Stupid is forever. 14. The lost Squadron landed close to the shore of Greenland on an active glacier. The planes were founded over 2km from where they originally landed.[26] Ice core samples are not taken from an active glacier. Stable ice fields in the interior of Greenland receive very little precipitation per year.[27] Stable Antarctic ice fields receive almost no precipitation.[28] Furthermore, the depth of the ice core is not used to determine the age. Layers in the ice cores are counted first by visual inspection of hoar fro and dust layers and later by differences in electric conductivity.[29] Melt layers are rare and easily distinguished.[30]

15. Population growth. Mr. Hovind claims human populations can only ever increases and overpopulation is completely false. Mr. Hovind says "the world's population could fit inside the city limits of Jacksonville, Florida, twice, that one city has 25 billion square feet. You could easily crowd everybody in there, probably three times." Mr. Hovind also believes that anyone who advocates population control or reduction of population growth (such as through abortion or birth control) is literally working for Satan. 15. This argument would be valid if humans reproduced like bacteria and lived several thousand years. However, certain forces like death, famine, war, natural disasters, disease, and many others contribute to the loss of populations. Overpopulation is not a work of evil or demonic forces, nor does it claim that the world cannot fit x number of people on earth. It deals with an unstable population and consumption of resources.

16. Oldest Language is 6,000 years old. 16. Mr. Hovind misrepresents the oldest writing is about 6,000 years old. If Hovind's Biblical chronology occurred the oldest writing should only date to the Tower of Babel (4,000 yo). References modern calendars (Jewish and Chinese) as proving a Young Earth but claims older calendars (Egyptian) which contradict his argument are wrong.

Evolution and the Fall of Society[edit]

You know we’ve been teachen’ the kids that they’re nothing but animals and today a lot of them act like animals. Even Barbara Reynolds figured it out and she is a liberal journalist. She said, "Your kids go ape in school, here’s why—he’s being taught evolution." "Guess what, Johnny? You’re an animal! And you share a common heritage with earthworms!" Ah, you mean, I am just an animal? Huh, okay (shows a picture of a punk-rocker with a Mohawk and spiky hair while smoking). What do you expect!? Have you noticed the rock n' roll music these days are full of death and destruction and blood? The Bible says he that hate me love death (Proverbs 8:36). That's the problem, kids today are taught there are no absolutes. By the way, if evolution is true, that is exactly correct. I have asked this question to evolutionists all over the world and never had one answer this simple question. I will say sir or mam, if evolution is true, how do we tell right from wrong? How does anybody tell right from wrong if evolution is true? They say there are no absolutes. One professor I debated said there are no absolutes, I said are you absolutely sure? Blew his little brain out. Evolution does not teach that humans are animals; biology in general does (and so does the Bible, in Ecclesiastes 3:18-21). More specifically, humans are a species of primate, which is a category of mammal, which is a category of vertebrate, which is a category of animal. This was known more than 2000 years ago. Even ancient philosophers like Aristotle described man as a "rational animal." Evolution is true, but how is that relevant to figuring out what is right or wrong? Cell theory says we are just muli-cellular organisms, which is a fact, but it does not have any significance is figuring out right from wrong.

Yes there are absolutes "Thus saith the Lord..." and the Lord said ye shall not make any cuttings into thy flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you (Lev. 19:28) Many people say that they just do not know, I understand maybe they just do not care what god's word says (shows a picture of a person who pierced practically everywhere on their face and dark make-up all over their eyes.) God told us what to do and we are not doing it (showing several pictures of tattoos, piercings, and punk rockers with dyed hair). For someone who bashes others for not defending their beliefs, Mr. Kent Hovind does a poor job at defending his own. All he has done here is show a few unattractive photos to appeal to emotions than present a proper argument. The claim that there are moral absolutes really lacks any proof. For instance, if getting tattoos lands a person in Hell, then that means all the Jews who were victims at death camps who had numbers tattooed onto their arms against their will were all Hell-bound. Overall, this argument presented by Mr. Kent Hovind is no more valid that quoting verses from the Koran or Diantics.

By the way, a lot of teachers do not realize they can teach Creation science in a public school. It is perfectly fine to teach Creation in a public school. Perfectly fine! Now, it is not okay to try to convert the kid to be a Baptist or Buddhist or Catholic, but it is okay to teach, "Hey kids there must have been a designer, your universe is incredibly designed, there must have been a creator—has to be." That is called Creation Science. Now, Biblical Creationism would be different. That you cannot teach in the school system—in the public school system. But regular scientific Creationism is perfectly fine. There has never been a law against teaching creation science. There are great books on that available; we have them at our ministry if you want to get one of those. You ought to give one to every public school teacher in your district. Let them know they can teach Creation science. Wrong, the Supreme Court ruled that teaching the Bible in public schools is permissible as long as it is taught in a secular manner, such as history or literature studies. But Creationism is anything but secular, and isn’t looking to be taught in theology classes. In fact, there have been repeated rulings by the Supreme Court declaring it illegal to teach Creationism in public schools. Try to see the difference between Creationism and the Bible. Creationism is a religion (a fundamental form of religion) and the Bible is a book.

From the creationist’s perspective, the method or mechanism of creation which these mystical beings use is nothing more than a golem spell where clay statues are animated with an enchantment. Or its an incantation in which complex modern plants and animals are "spoken" into being. That’s right, magic words which cause fully-developed adult animals to be conjured out of thin air. Or a god simply wishes them to exist; so they do. That’s it! There really is nothing more to it than that; pure freakin’ magic –by definition. Remember that the next time you hear anything from a creation “scientist”.

Creationists contend that they don’t believe in magic. But “speaking” anything into existence is an incantation, and the Bible is full of spells of one sort or another. Animating golems, or conjuring interdependent systems, and causing complex organisms to appear out of thin air -are each logically implausible and physically impossible according to everything we know about anything at all, yet this is exactly what religiously-motivated pseudo-scientists actually promote!

How do we test these ideas? How can we tell them apart from any of the thousands of fables men have concocted for the ghosts and gods of other religions? How can we tell whether any of this is even real, and not something someone just made up? Because despite anyone’s assertions of personal conviction, it is impossible to distinguish miracles from subjective impressions imagined out of nothing. In the realm of fantasy, it’s easy to demonstrate psionic talents, astral entities, and magical manifestations. Until they do that in reality too, then science has nothing but nature to work with.

They don’t want to do science. They want to undo science! They try to segregate experimental science from historical science, ignoring the fact that both are based on empirical observations and both can be checked with testable hypotheses. Worse, they want to redefine science in general so that astrology, subjective convictions of faith, and excuses of magic can supplant the scientific method whenever necessary in defense of their beliefs. They’re only open to critical inquiry so long as that is not permitted to challenge the sacred scriptures nor vindicate any of the fields of study to which they’re already opposed. In short, everything science stands for, -or hopes to achieve- is threatened by the political agenda of these superstitious subversives. Stating anything as definitely true when there is insufficient evidence to back it –is dishonest. Making such positive proclamations without any evidence at all is a matter of faith. And promising in advance to forever defend an unsupportable a-priori preference even against an avalanche of evidence against it -is apologetics, which is all creation “science” really is.

Folks it can be done. What’s happened, though, the ACLU wants teachers to believe they cannot teach Creation in the public schools. That just is a lie. By the way, encase you don’t know, ACLU stands for the America Communist Lawyers Union. The stated purpose of the founder was to advance communism. That’s the purpose of the ACLU. Now maybe all the lawyers involved don’t know that. But that is the stated purpose of that organization. They want to advance communism around the world. Because all they get is information from the ACLU which is the ‘American Communist Lawyers Union’. They want you to think you cannot talk about Creation in the classroom, yes you certainly can talk about creation in the public school. See what the ACLU does is that they threaten to sue the schools for teaching creationism (they do not sue them, but they threaten to sue them). Then the principle gets all the teachers together and say "okay, we have got to stop teaching creationism or they will sue us." Now the courts say that creationism can get taught, the law says it can be taught, but the principles says it can't. That is where it is all breaking down to folks. So then they go about teaching kids that you slowly evolved from slime and here you are. Any you can see how this teaching will ruin a kids faith in the Bible. Anybody that ruins a child’s faith in the Bible, better read what Jesus said about it in Matthew 18: "Whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and he were drowned in the depth of the sea." Anyone that teaches evolution is in trouble when they face God. Do not get mad at me, you take it up with Jesus, He is the one that said it and you are going to stand before Him one of these days if you are teaching that dumb theory to your students. That’s right; anything or anybody that disagrees with you must have sold their souls to the devil and are secretly communists.

Can creation "science" be taught in schools? Absolutely not. Mr. Hovind is simply lying or delusional. Why can't creation "science" be taught in schools, because it it not scientific and purely religious. For instance, in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, it was shown that creation science (or intelligent design) is religion masked as science with no evidence to support creation science at all. Due to its religious nature, the Supreme Court ruled that teaching it violates the Establishment Clause and thus cannot be taught in schools. Creationist try to get around this by pushing to teach the strengths and weakness of evolution, but their views are biased towards evolution and not any other scientific field, and is continuously lost in court cases across the United States. So it is not principles that say teaching creation science is forbidden, it is the Constitutional law that does.

A VERY important note to all readers and viewers of Kent Hovind: it is very wise to not listen to individuals like Mr. Kent Hovind who has no law degree of any kind, as well as a convicted fraudster who served time in federal prison for tax evasion.

But you know, it has not always been this way. Back in the 1930’s or 50’s, the average textbook only had two to three thousand words about evolution. It was not mentioned much. In 1963, it jumped up to 33,000 words; 1963 is when prayer and Bible reading was taken out of the American school system. Anybody remember that? Madeline Murray O'Hare? A few got out, brought evolution in, same time.
  • In 1963 is when we saw a dramatic rise in premarital sex in every age group.
  • 1963 is when sexually transmitted diseases began to climb; this is for kids 10 to 14 years of age.
  • Unwed birth rates for girls 10 to 14 years of age have increased 100%. The pregnancies are up 553%; most of them are being aborted—murdered. We will talk more about that on tape number 4. Things have changed folks.
  • Right now, 1/3 of children being born are from couples that is not married. Illegitimate children. ow listen carefully, if you are one of those, God loves you and can use you in a powerful way. You know Timothy should never have been born (quoting 2 Timothy 1:2), the Jews weren't supposed to marry anybody outside the Jewish race. Timothy's mother married a Greek. Timothy was the result, and he said "God I want to serve you" and God said okay Son i will take you. So if your parents messed up, listen carefully: you shut your mouth and quit your whining and go serve God with your life. No excuses.
  • There has been a 725% increase in unmarried couples living together. God's word has not changed. "Whoremongers and adulterers, God will judge," Hebrews 13:4. He said Thou Shall Not Commit Adultery (Exodus 20:14) and Jesus said if you even look at a woman with lust you have committed adultery in your heart (Matthew 5:28). By the way ladies, that is why it is important how you dress. Okay, my daddy always used to say 'if you are not in business, don't advertise.'
  • 1963 is when divorce rates began to go up. I remember as a kid I did not know anybody that was divorced. Man, when you got married, you got married for life. You better pick slow, you are going to be stuck for a long time.
  • 1963 is when violent crimes began to increase, you know there has been almost a 1000% increase in violent crimes since ‘63? Folks, I am not that old, but I remember the days when you did not have to lock your house. Anybody else remember those days? It was that way was it not? You never took the keys out of the ignition, Man you might lose them, you left them in there all the time. And if you go to the average High School, half of the pick-up trucks in the parking lot had a loaded rifle hanging in the back window, and nobody got shot in school back in those days. You probably did not hear about this but the kids in Columbine who shot everybody were strong believers in evolution. They did the shooting on Hitler's birthday on purpose. They show Isaiah just because he was black, Hitler hated black people, we covered that on video 4. They shot Rachel and Cassey just because they were Christian, and right after the shooting Rosie O'Donnell and got on her program and said "see, we need more gun control." Uh, Rosie, those kids broke 18 gun laws by going into that school. Two more gun laws would not have slowed them down. See Rosie cannot figure it out, but one guy did figure it out and put it on the entire cover on his spare tire. I saw that and I said I have got to get a picture of this, it explains it all. He said "Blaming Guns for Columbine is like blaming spoons for Rosie O'Donnell being fat."
  • The SAT scores have dropped off since 1963 tremendously. A couple of years ago they had to "dumb down" the SAT tests.
  • Teen suicide rate has increased dramatically.
All of these things didn’t start at exactly after the Bible was taken out of schools, you can’t be that specific with statistics. They all started to happen around the early 1960′s. The early 60′s were a time of great Revolution and change for our society. A time in which great speakers like Martin Luther King, Jr. strived for racial equality. A time in which the National Organization of Woman strived for gender equality. By the way, Kent neglected to mention that 1963 was the year that President Kennedy was assassinated sending a shockwave throughout America. 1962 was when we had the Cuban missile crisis. The early 60′s were a time of Cold War tension and the U.S. and U.S.S.R. were a button away from wiping out the human race. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize what’s responsible for the great changes of statistics that Kent gives. This is even going under the assumption that the statistics are accurate! Oh, and one more thing, I doubt that the result of keeping or taking out the Bible from schools would have any effect on the divorce rate! Primarily because I doubt that many married couples attend high school! But let’s take a closer look at the statistics that Kent presents.
  • If you look at Mr. Hovind chart, the rise in premarital sex was already rising before 1963.
  • For the sexually transmitted diseases beginning to incline: First of all, STDs began to rise before 1963. Kent neglects to mention that the birth control pill was invented in 1960. It sent a message to all of the young females that they could have all of the sex they wanted and never have a baby. But more likely was the continuation of abstinence only programs, where many kids are not taught safe sex and thus are unprepared for the consequences of unprotected sex.
  • Look at the steady rise before 1963.
  • Guess what, Timothy is not who he says he is. The bast majority of critical bible scholars agree that 2 Timothy was written by a forger.
  • There is nothing wrong with unwed couples living together.

For violent crimes beginning to increase in 1963: assuming that violent crimes began to increase in the early 60′s, if his statistic is accurate, this would be expected from all of the 60′s Revolutions taking place. But notice his slides, that violence was already escalating before the 1960's!

  • For divorce rates going up in 1963: keeping or taking out the Bible from schools has no affect on divorce rates so quickly since most senior high school students in 1963 won’t get married until many years afterwards. The divorce rate only began to start to rise above normal in the late 60′s. It only rose slightly in 1963. This is all according to his statistic. But let’s look at other countries. In 1996, our divorce rate was 49%. Canada close behind at 43%. The United Kingdom at 53%. That’s according to the Human Development report, 1999, United Nations. What does this tell us? It tells us that the cause of our divorce rate being almost 50% is from an international source because all other western countries are roughly around 50% as well. The Bible being taken out of our countries public schools have absolutely no effect on our divorce rate and absolutely no effect on other countries divorce rates. Thus, the Bible being taken out of schools must be eliminated as a possible cause.
  • For unwed birth rates beginning to climb in 1963: Actually if you take a closer look at the statistic, unwed birth rates were actually at a low in 1963! Lower than years before it! It gained a slow and steady increase afterwards, according to Kent statistic. But according to the Center for Disease Control, National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics Reports, vol. 49, no. 10, Sept. 25th 2001, “Teenage childbearing has been on a long-term decline in the United States since the late 1950s, except for a brief, but steep, upward climb in the late 1980s through 1991. The 2000 rate (49 births per 1,000) is about half the peak rate recorded in 1957 (96 per 1,000).” That’s right, birth rates are actually declining.
  • In a debate with Griesmaier, Griesmaier countered that European countries have a lower violent crime rate and a lower rate of church attendance than the United States, Hovind took issue with the countries (which included England, France, and the Netherlands) in his opponent’s example. “Those decreased murder rates were all from countries with socialistic governments and total gun control,” said Hovind. “I’ll take my gun, thank you.”[31]
  • As with SAT scores dropping dramatically since 1963, other statistics say somewhat of the contrary. According to the U.S. Dept. of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics 2001, in 1966-1967, the average SAT verbal score was 543 with 200 being the minimum and 800 being the maximum. In 2000-2001, the average SAT verbal score was 506. A decrease, but not at all an incredible drop off since 1963 as Kent puts it. But in 1966-1967, the average SAT mathematical score was 516. In 2000-2001, the average SAT mathematical score was 514. Not at all a dramatic decrease. This wouldn’t even amount to a 1% decrease.
  • And last but not least, Kent makes the claim that teen suicide rates have gone crazy. Well, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, from Health, United States, 2002, the average suicide rate was 12.5 in 1960 and 10.6 in 2000. Again, decreasing and not increasing. Where Kent is getting his statistics from remains a mystery, but they seem to have quite a few contradictions with actual statistics.

Evolutionary Fairy Tale[edit]

Look, if I told you, if you kiss a frog, it will turn into a prince, you would say, "No, Hovind, frogs do not turn to princes." How many of you ladies got your husband by kissing a frog? Let me see. Only two. See, it does not happen much anymore. Oh, but in the textbooks it does. Yes boys and girls, start off with an amoeba and over billions of years, it slowly turns to a frog. And over a few more million years it turns into a prince. Same fairy tale, frog to prince, but new magic ingredient! Instead of a kiss, nope, they now have a super-duper, high-powered magic ingredient called billions and billions of years. How many have ever heard that expression before, billions of years ago. It is in all the textbooks, it is on the TV programs, it is on Carl Pagan’s—Sagan’s—show, Cosmos. Billions and billions of years ago, it is in the magazines you read, it is in National Pornographic—Geographic I mean—billions and billions of years ago, just like it is some kind of factor of science. Don’t you dare question this, folks, or you will be excommunicated from the temples of higher learning. They even start the kids off in kindergarten. Here is a fourth grade textbook, "Many millions of years ago...". Just like it is a fact. Because it is a fact. To deny this is to either be entirely dishonest or willfully ignorant, but unfortunately for Mr. Kent Hovind he is just a pathological liar.

If there is a view here that resembles a fairy tale, it is creationism. Mr. Kent Hovind says even children recognize fairy tales (magic kisses poofing things into being), but here Mr. Hovind is whole-heartily believing that a magic man poofed everything into being magically through an incantation.

Time is not "magical" as Mr. Hovind is implying, nor does it forbid us from observing evolution. We observe speciation (MACRO-Evolution) today, we see their taxonomical changes in transitional fossils, and we can map out their history through genetic maps.

It is to obvious that it does not really need pointing out, but clearly Mr. Hovind did not get both Carl Sagan and National Geographic names wrong by accident. This is simply immature and childish.

Now kids, here is what you need to do, when you are in school and some teacher says, "Millions of years ago," just say, "Excuse me teacher, were you there?" They will say, "No, of course I wasn’t there." And say, "Teacher, do you know the earth is millions of years old or do you believe the earth is millions of years old? is this something we can observe, test and demonstrate in a laboratory? Or is this something people believe?" They are going to say well, everyone believes that the earth is billions of years old. Ah, no they don't. Most of Americans think that the earth is less than 10,000 years old and God made it. Only 4% are atheistic. I think that 4% ought to go start themselves their own private school and teach evolution to anybody that wants to pay and come lean it, and you ought to get it out of our public schools in my unbiased opinion. One textbook author said "the results of this and other similar surveys are startling because evolution has been a settled issue in he science for nearly 150 years." Shh, maybe it is settled in his little brain. It is true that slightly more than half (55%) of the scientists believe in evolution.(Source: Washington Times Aug. 31. 1998) Those are the ones that have not been to my seminar yet. But even if a bunch of scientists believe in something, that does not make it true. There was a time when the scientists taught that the planets go around the earth. There was a time when scientists taught that big rocks fall faster than little rocks -that was taught for 2000 years and it is not true, they fall at the same speed. They used to teach if you were sick, you had bad blood. They took out your blood and you would get better. That is how George Washington died (Showing a slid of a artistic rendering of George Washington in 1979 "was bled twice by his doctors before he died. They believed in the doctrines of humors"), they had a whole bunch of places to take your blood out - you could tell where they were because they had a white pole with red stripe around it. The barber was the blood letter, still is today sometimes. And right beside George Washington wen they bled him to death, the Bible had told him that life of the flesh is in the blood (Lev. 17:11) Man, if they had read that verse, he might still be alive toady. Well, he would have lived longer. If this response were a valid challenge to evolution, it would equally invalidate creationism and Christianity, since they are based on events that nobody alive today has witnessed. Was Mr. Kent Hovind at any of the events recorded in the Bible? No, but he thinks he does not have to because he believes it out of hand without considering anything about its contents or how it came to be. You can believe whatever you like. As long as you admit that it is a belief, you don’t have to defend it. But if you assert your belief as a statement of fact, then you do have to defend it! Stating anything as definitely true when there is insufficient evidence to back it –is dishonest. Making such positive proclamations without any evidence at all is a matter of faith. And promising in advance to forever defend an unsupportable a-priori preference even against an avalanche of evidence against it -is apologetics, which is all creation “science” really is.

Not once throughout this entire seminar did Mr. Kent Hovind present any evidences to defend his beliefs. He cannot even defend his beliefs in history. But getting to that in just a moment. Was anybody there to witness evolution? Yes, because "there" is here. Events in the past leave traces that last into the present, and we can and do look at that evidence today.

Also, while it is true that the majority of scientists accept evolution (which is 95%, not 55%. 55% of scientists believe that life evolved naturally without the assistance of a divine being, while 40% do accept evolution and also believe in God. This question had been asked for the past 15 years, and the numbers remain consistent) although Mr. Hovind is correct that major acceptance does not make it true. What really matters is what the evidence says - and the evidence strongly supports evolution, not creationism.

Now to history, scientists did not teach the earth was flat. Ancient astronomers could determine that the earth was round by observing its circular shadow move across the moon during lunar eclipses. There is some suggestion that the Egyptians knew of the earth's spherical size and shape around 2550 B.C.E. (more than a thousand years before Moses). The Greek philosopher Pythagoras, who was born in 532 B.C.E., defended the spherical theory on the basis of observations he had made of the shape of the sun and moon. Despite all this evidence, Christianity taught that the earth was flat, immobile, and center of the universe. Many apologists will deny that Christianity taught the earth was flat, but flat-earthism was heavily supported by the earliest Christian father figures; such as Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ephraim Syrus, Athanasius of Alexandria, Diodorus of Tarsus, Epiphanius of Salamis, Hilary of Poitiers, and Severianus of Gabala.[32]

Finally, regarding Leviticus 17:11 supposedly revealing cosmic wisdom bestowed upon humanity that blood is the source of life, this is why this is totally wrong.

  1. The view of blood as the essence for life predates the Bible. The Code of Hammurabi from Mesopotamia (about 1727 B.C.E., before Leviticus was written) has a phrase which translates, "to pour out his life-blood like water." In the Enuma Elish, blood was an essential ingredient which mankind was created from. Ugaritic and Egyptian sources also note the importance of blood.
  2. That blood is essential to life is not hard to figure out, especially to a culture of people like the Israelites who slaughter and/or sacrifice livestock.
  3. Blood is not the essence of life. We would not survive long without lungs, lymph, muscles, nerves, etc. either.
  4. Some animals are dependent without blood, such as jellyfish and sponges. Therefore, blood is not magical or required for life, disproving Leviticus 17;11 right there.
  5. Blood is manufactured in the bone marrow, and without this blood would not be possible. This seems to show that blood is not magical and not the essence for life.

Dating fossils[edit]

If you went scuba diving and found a treasure chest full of gold coins, and I asked you the simple question, when did the boat sink? You said, "I don’t know?" Well, look at the dates on the coins. If there is a coin in there from 1750, you ought to be able to figure out that the boat sank after 1750. How many can figure that out with no help? Okay. When you go looking for coins, you look for the youngest coin - this is called the limiting factor. And there are several ways you can do this to show that the earth is not billions of years old. Let’s apply that same logic to fossils. If you find a fossil, I have got a table full of stuff for the kids to play with, right here is a real dinosaur toe bone. A toe bone from a dinosaur. You should notice two things about this toe bone immediately: number one, it does not talk. Number two, it does not have a date stamped on it. This does not say "Made by a dinosaur in 70 million B.C. in Taiwan." It doesn’t say that! So how do you tell the age of a fossil? So how do you tell the age of fossils, how do you tell the age of the earth? Go get a shovel full of dirt out of the yard and tell me how old it is. Get out in space and look at the world and just look at it and tell me how old is it? Look, the only way to tell for sure how old something is, is to ask the guy who made it, he ought to know. And the Bible says pretty clearly that God created the heaven and the earth. In Colossians it says that Jesus created the heavens and the earth (Colossians 1:16), that is just one of the verse that shows that Jesus is God almighty in the flesh. Jesus said in Matthew 19, "Have ye not read that He which made them at the beginning, made them male and female." By the way, it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Same thing in Mark 10 [verse 6], it was the beginning of the creation when God made them male and female. This is not only laughable but obnoxiously ridiculous. First of all, Mr. Hovind's logic is based on the presupposition that the Bible is true without even verifying any of it. His argument would just be effective as looking to the Koran or a copy of Dianetics to figure out the age of the earth. Unfortunately, this is totally the wrong way to discover anything. Rather, through the scientific method and collected data and evidence, we can calculate the age of the earth. Radiometric dating shows the earth to be 4.5 billion years old. If the earth is old, then radioactive isotopes with short half-lives should have all decayed already. That is what we find. Isotopes with half-lives longer than eighty million years are found on earth; isotopes with shorter half-lives are not, the only exceptions being those that are generated by current natural processes. Loess deposits (deposits of wind-blown silt) in China are 300 m thick. They give a continuous climate record for 7.2 million years. The record is consistent with magnetostratigraphy and habitat type inferred from fossils.[33] There are vasts amounts of other evidences that all indicate a very very old earth, not once has a single test shown anything even remotely close to 10,000 years old.

Well, if that was the beginning, than we can calculate the age of the earth because the Bible says that death came by sin (Romans 5:12). You know why we have death and suffering all over the world today? It is because of Adam's sin. The bible clearly tells us by man came death, in Adam all die (I Corinthians 15:21-22). Man brought death into the world according to Scripture. Now according to evolution, death brought man into the world. Absolute opposite. And the Bible says that Adam was the first man (1 Corinth. 15:45), real clear about the topic. And Eve was the mother of all living (Gen. 3:20). So that makes it pretty simple. So, according to Mr. Hovind and his interpretation of the bible, death did not exist before man came into the picture. This cannot be the case for numerous reasons. For instance, several species of animals have a strict diet of eating other animals to survive, otherwise they would starve and die. This means, they must have killed other animals. That is the definition of being an animal, and we are no exception. Death has always been a part of nature, and if the Bible does say that it never was for eons of time until man came to be, then it cannot be any more wrong.

See Also[edit]

External Links[edit]

Footnotes[edit]

  1. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html
  2. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html
  3. http://sysbio.oxfordjournals.org/content/54/2/317.full.pdf+html
  4. Laidler, Keith J. (1995). The Physical World of Chemistry Oxford University Press
  5. Thompsom, M.J. (2004), Solar Interior: Helioseismology and the Sun's interior, Astronomy and Geophysics, v. 45, p.4.21-4.25.
  6. Dodleson, Scott (2003). Modern Cosmology. Academic Press.
  7. Dodleson, Scott (2003). Modern Cosmology. Academic Press.
  8. G. Gamow, "The Origin of Elements and the Separation of Galaxies," Physical Review 74 (1948), 505.
  9. Rosenberg, G. D. $ Runcorn, S. K. (Eds), 1975. Growth rhythms and the history of the earth's rotation.
  10. Willey Interscience, New york. Wells, J. W., 1963. Coral growth and geochronometry. Nature 197: 948-950
  11. Thwaites, William and Frank Awbrey, 1982. "As the World Turns: Can Creationists Keep Time?" Creation/Evolution, Issue IX (Summer 1982), pg. 18-22 National Center for Science Education, P.O. Box 9477, Berkeley, CA 94709-0477
  12. NIST Time and Frequency Division, n.d., Frequently asked Questions
  13. Chassion, Eric and Steve McMillan. 1993. Astronomy Today Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632, p. 269-288
  14. Cuzzi, J. N. and P. R. Estrada, 1998. Compositional evolution of Saturn's rings due to meteoroid bombardment. Icarus 132(1): 1-35
  15. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE380.html See also, Calberg, Ray, Debra M. Elmegreen, Bruce G. Elmegreen, Jerry Sellwood and William Lee Bell. 1999. Ask the experts: Astronomy: What process creates and maintains the beautiful spiral arms around spiral galaxies?
  16. Barnes, Thomas G. 1973. Origin and Density of Earth's magnetic field, ICR Technical Monograph No. 4 El Cajon, CA:ICR
  17. Elassar, Walter M. 1946-1947. "Introduction effects in terrestrial magneticism." Physical Review, series 2, vol. 69, pg. 106-116; vol. 7 pg. 202-212
  18. Gee, J. S. et al. 2000. Geomagnetic intensity variations over the past 780 kyr obtained from near seafloor magnetic anomalies. Nature 408:827-832
  19. McElhinny, M. W., and W. E. Senanayake. 1982. "Variations in the Geomagnetic dipole I: The Past 50,000 years" Journal of Geomagneticism and Geoelectricity 34:39-51
  20. Dunbar, and Waage. 1969. Historical Geology. (3rd Edition) John Wiley & Sons, p. 126-130
  21. Polyak, V. J., W. C. McIntosh, N. Gien and P. Provencio, 1998. Age and Origin of Calsbed Cavern and related caves from 40Ar/39AR of alunite. Science 279:1919-1922. See also Sasowski, I. D., 1998. Determining the age is not there. Science 279: 1874.
  22. Moore, George W. and Nicholas G. Sullivan. 1978. Speleology: The study of caves Zephyrus Press, Inc. Teeneck
  23. Darlymple, G. Brent. 1991. The Age of the Earth Standford University Press, Standford, California, p.66-70
  24. The Times Atlas of World History. 1978. Edited by Geoffrey Barraclough Hammond Incorporated, Maplewood, New Jersey 07040
  25. Jensen, P.J. and K. Hammer. 1993. Minimal Requirements for Exponential Growth of Lactococcus lactis. Appl Environ Microbiol. 59(12):4363-4366
  26. Seely, Paul H. 2003. The GISP2 ice core: Ultimate Proof that Noah's flood was not global. Perspectives of Science and Christian Faith 55(4):252-260.http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Seely.pdf
  27. Bamola, J.M., D. Raynaud, Y.S. Korotkevich, and C. Lorius. 1987. Vostok ice core provides 160,000 year record of atmosphere CO2, Nature. 329:408-411
  28. Bamola, J.M., D. Raynaud, Y.S. Korotkevich, and C. Lorius. 1987. Vostok ice core provides 160,000 year record of atmosphere CO2, Nature. 329:408-411
  29. Bamola, J.M., D. Raynaud, Y.S. Korotkevich, and C. Lorius. 1987. Vostok ice core provides 160,000 year record of atmosphere CO2, Nature. 329:408-411
  30. Bamola, J.M., D. Raynaud, Y.S. Korotkevich, and C. Lorius. 1987. Vostok ice core provides 160,000 year record of atmosphere CO2, Nature. 329:408-411
  31. Griesmaier v Hovind Debate (October 2005)
  32. Schadewald, Robert. 1999 (Oct. 24, 16:15). "Re: Wells speech at Burlington Edison High School", USENET post to talk.origins, Message-Id <3.0.1.32.19991024161523.01174958@gold.tc.umn.edu>.
  33. Ding, Z. L. et al., n.d. Rearrangement of atmospheric circulation at about 2.6 Ma over Northern China: Records of evidence from grain size loess-red clay sequences