Creation evangelist derides evolution as ‘dumbest’ theory [Kent Hovind Alert!]

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Post ^ | 17 December 2005 | Kayla Bunge

[spinestein]

[The "theme park" is a hands on kids activity place in the back yard of his home. Any admission feee (which I think is 5 dollars) goes to support the missionaries that work there.]



Man, this guy is sucking up the money from every possible source. Speaking fees, audio and video tapes, a 5$ per head kid's playground in his back yard. I wonder how much he gets for the "My grandfather was no ape" tee-shirts or the fish eating a caricature of Darwin bumper stickers.

[Coyoteman]

Feathers added to a fossil?

No need to add them. Did you see this handsome specimen in the news a couple of weeks ago?

---

(AP) A new analysis of Archaeopteryx, the earliest known birdlike animal, shows it had feet like dinosaurs--a finding that adds weight to the belief that the birds frequenting backyard feeders today are descendants of mighty ancient carnivores.

While not all scientists agree, many consider Archaeopteryx the first bird, since it had wings and was the first fossil found with feathers.

Details have been lacking on the animals, however, since only a few fossil specimens have been found. The new one, reported in Friday's issue of the journal Science, is the 10th known and one of the most complete. ...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/01/ap/tech/mainD8E7KKLG7.shtml

[Baraonda]

>>"What's so "laughably Luddite?"

>Did you or did you not just call for the burning at the state of scientists (that would be antichrists to you)?

If you have to ask the question it implies you did not understand my statement. If you did not understand it, how can you refer to it as "laughably Luddite" then?

[Baraonda]

What's a Melon Labe?

[Alter Kaker]

This well-authenticated discovery had been in the British Museum in London for nearly 70 years.

Your link doesn't work, and I'd be curious to know what exactly your sources are.

Modern geological dating places this formation at 28 million years old!

Show me the evidence.

[AntiScumbag]

And if the IRS had anything to charge him with, they would of done so already.

You obviously are either able to channel government bureaucrats or suffer from serious reading comprehension problems.

the IRS tried to harrass him

You have a link to proof of a finding of said IRS harrassment?

After all, sycophants have links to everything.

Good luck.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Why would anybody use Haeckel's drawings when much better detailed PHOTOGRAPHS show the gill arches just as good?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html

BTW, you still haven't answer my refutation of your claim that Darwin based his theory on Haeckel. It's simply not true at all.

[Uri’el-2012]

XS>" You would know that the "Theory of Evolution" has never advanced past a hypothetical construct."

CG>I take it you never took (or at least passed) a philosophy of science class. 155 posted on 12/17/2005 10:03:21 AM MST by CarolinaGuitarman

Has it been observed twice, published and independently observed?

b'shem Y'shua

[peyton randolph]

Some biology professors have countered with a how-to DVD on debating Hovind

Nice one. However, I'd change the cover art to the following.

[Senator Bedfellow]

Probably haven't heard of it because whoever you lifted that from pretty much made it up. The Guadeloupe skeleton was not contained in a block of limestone, but buried along with other skeletons, dog bones, and tools, indicating that it was likely a modern post-Columbian specimen. The only one to claim it was millions of years old was an Aussie creationist named Cooper in the journal Ex Nihilo - the museum itself has never dated the specimen in light of the obvious indicators of its age. Oh, and it was on display until 1967, when the museum took it down to make room for other specimens. But other than that, your use of the words "a", "the", and "it" are correct.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Has it been observed twice, published and independently observed?"

Yes, but if you took a philosophy of science class, you would know that direct observation isn't a requirement for a scientific theory. MOST scientific theories have a lot of indirect evidence. Again, next time actually take the class, or study harder.

[Senator Bedfellow]

See #170.

[Full Court]

In a 1997 interview in The Times of London, Dr. Richardson stated: "This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It’s shocking to find that somebody once thought to be a great scientist was deliberately misleading.

It makes me angry. ... What he [Haeckel] did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development.
They don’t. ... These are fakes."

[Full Court]

He doesn't charge speaking fees. And any thing he produces he does not copyright, so that others can copy them and pass them around for free.

[Full Court]

You have a link to proof of a finding of said IRS harrassment?

Babe, they gave the cars back.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

What book was that picture in? And why are you evading the fact that Darwin didn't use Haeckel in developing his theory?

[Full Court]

In 1866 Haeckel predicted that a transitional substance would be found on sea floors, to fill the gap between non-living matter and life. So certain was he that he even named it monera ahead of time. Mud was dredged from the sea floor and called Bathybius haeckelii by Huxley, and monera was proclaimed as a fact.
In 1875 chemists from the boat, HMS Challenger, which did the dredging, determined that the substance was actually gypsum - a rock! This fact was not translated into English and made public until 1971 - nearly 100 years later!
http://www.baptistlink.com/godandcountry/html/faker_haeckel.0

[spinestein]

Good post.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

If Hovind is not rich, then how can he make a $250,000 offer? If he doesn't have that kind of money, then doesn't that make the entire offer bogus from the start?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Your point? That Haeckel made some stupid claims? I have never even heard of the *monera* claim of Haeckel; mustn't have been very popular.

BTW, the origins of life are not part of the theory of evolution.