He will have time in Jail to refine his creationist arguments? I personally think that the archaeology schools are the worst. They say the geologic column is calibrated by the strata and the strata is calibrated by the geologic column. Hovind talks of studies that have been done to see how many radiologic measurements are thrown out because they don't match up with the obviously uncalibrated scenario noted above and it is an astounding 80%!! It is pure fantasy. That kind of reasoning would get those archaeologists an "F" in philosophy 101 but it is spoken of like it was established fact!! Hovind, a high school science teacher, and a political kook, can make arguments that make so called "science" truly laughable. This evolution thing will eventually be classified with the other kooky origin myths. The physicists are at a point where they have to either prove multiple universes or give it up and admit intelligent design are they not?? Philosophers are writing of the despair of philosophy because they have not figured out how a person can be happy through philosophy. People will not go for the simple answers, many of them prefer anything but the simple answers. I like the simple answers, and I am not a dumb guy, I'm a Mensa member for that matter, but I don't chase complicated answers when simple ones are at hand, why mess up a day for myself?
A tax cheat too. See the filings at: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind-decision.html Also, his academic credentials come from a diploma mill and his dissertation is on the danger of teaching evolution in public schools. THis is the guy behind drdino. Re the column calibration, Dr Dinos quote: Unfortunately the geologists date the rocks as the paleontologists tell them to. Then the paleontologists use the geologists' dates as evidence for the age of the fossils! That's not science. That's just a game played by dishonest scientists! " The reality is far different including the fact the dating of the column was originated by creationists in the early 19th century and is not done as stated by Hovinid. Seneca
i have been. he does make science laughable. to the clueless. but that is the target audience isnt it.
the simplest answer throughout history has always been "goddidit". where would we be if we still believed demons caused disease as a judgement from god and never advanced to the point of figuring out that germs cause it?
Once we get a theocracy we can start burning the heretics at the stake. You have to be willfully blind and ignorant to not see the evidence of evolution. But that's what religion does to the brain. bt
Well, there's lots of evidence that points to adaptation of various species to environmental changes, but not much at all that points to evolution.... Here's an example - ask an evolutionist about how complex organs can develop, like say, eyes....and they have no answer to it. Or how did wings develop? Did the 'pre-birds' have wing stubs? And what possible good would nonfunctional wings serve to give them a survival advantage? More like dead weight... Really, belief in evolution requires the same amount of 'faith' that a creationist needs, for neither can be proven..... yet.
man it never ends. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14756332&dopt=Citation The evolution of the eye is a matter of debate ever since Darwin's Origin of Species. While morphological comparisons of eye anatomy and photoreceptor cell types led to the view that animal eyes evolved multiple times independently, the molecular conservation of the pax6 eye-specifying cascade has indicated the contrary - that animal eyes evolved from a common, simple precursor, the proto-eye. Morphological and molecular comparative approaches are combined here in a novel Evo-Devo approach, the molecular comparison of cell types ("comparative molecular cell biology"). In the eye, the various types of photoreceptor cells, as well as pigment and lens cells, each require distinct combinations of specifying transcription factors that control their particular differentiation programmes, such as opsin expression in photoreceptors, specific neurotransmitter metabolism, or axonal outgrowth. Comparing the molecular combinatorial codes of cell types of animal extant eyes, their evolutionary histories can be reconstructed.
Creationists often use this false arguement; that evolutionary theory must have a functional component, it does to a degree, with the classic darwins galapoga's finches for example, but the vast majority of "evolution " has to do with sexual selection, NOT function . Of course creationists rarely mention this aspect of darwins work, presumably because it has naughy words in it.