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

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

[Senator Bedfellow]

Actually, at this point, scripture isn't in category a either, insofar as no known version is old enough to have been written by the actual eyewitnesses themselves. Perhaps there are still older versions in existence, but for the moment, the earliest known written version of the Gospels dates to almost 100 years after the Crucifixion.

[rollo tomasi]

As a careful historian I would presume Tacitus would consult Roman Archives to come to an historical conclusion, you wouldn't.

Rumors were labeled as rumors but Tacitus did not take this route with Christus. Too bad the the late 20's and 30's AD are lost. Might have had a more detailed account of Pilate's work.

If Christ was just an imaginary friend of Paul I am pretty sure he would not have labeled this Christus character as an actual historic figure. The idea was that Christianity was just a mix of different pagan folklore. Tacitus would have taken Christianity apart had not Jesus existed (Due to the rapid spread of Christianity at the time).

Let it also be known that Tacitus had a disdain of Christianity, yet believed Chritus existed, hmmm.

[Senator Bedfellow]

I'm sure you'll point me to the post where I say that, because Hovind cheats on his taxes, his opinions on evolution should be summarily dismissed. Otherwise, this looks more to me like you seeing something that isn't there. He is, in fact, a fraud and a tax cheat, but anything you infer from those facts is your handiwork, not mine.

[dixiechick2000]

Baptist bump!

Thanks!

[darbymcgill]

My original post was concerning the irony of the ping listers mocking the CREVOs for their numerous straw men all the while claiming Hovind's arguments have no validity while never addressing them specifically for the most part.

Kinda like saying George Bush is a bad president because he says his prayers.

It seems that you are using the same logically fallacy.

[Thatcherite]

The anti-Christs can hide, but can't run away from the stake.

It was a particularly offensive post. At one time I'd have called abuse on it myself. But I've come to realise that such posts should be preserved in their magnificent insanity. They argue against creationism as eloquently as anything produced by Gould, Dawkins, or Darwin.

[PatrickHenry]

Actually, at this point, scripture isn't in category (a) either

Well, perhaps. But my point (not well expressed above) is that if a later commentary is using only scripture as its source material, than it's no more reliable as a "witness" or a "documented source" than would be a commentary written by someone today using scripture. What I had in mind as a strong category (a) source would be the official reports of Pontius Pilate, which are presumably lost.

[Thatcherite]

Perhaps you'd care to cite some of Hovind's arguments (particularly the ones that even AiG says are bogus) so that we can all debate them if you don't think he is being taken seriously enough. Take your pick of them.

[Alter Kaker]

As a careful historian I would presume Tacitus would consult Roman Archives to come to an historical conclusion, you wouldn't.

I'm saying I don't know what Tacitus' source was. Obviously there were lots of Christians running about, Tacitus' conceivably could have just taken their word for his existence. Look, I agree with you that Jesus probably existed, but you have to concede that there really isn't much in the way of historical evidence, especially outside of the Bible.

[shuckmaster]

some of the premises of the original TOE have been debunked

Gimmie one example please. Just one is all I ask!

[darbymcgill]

Gimmie one example please. Just one is all I ask!

Common EVO tactic.... Do your own research...

[Thatcherite]

How long do you think would be long enough then? Give reasons for your answer. Take any well-known fossil sequence, and explain why the dates between the samples aren't long enough, by reference to known rates of allele frequency change. This will require you to debunk the work of those who have shown that measured rates of change are sufficient to account for modern genetic diversity, assuming the physicists measurements of the age of the earth are correct.

[Thatcherite]

Common EVO tactic.... Do your own research...

WRONG! When you make a claim and are asked to back it up you should do so, or withdraw. We aren't going to do your research for you.

[Coyoteman]

Perhaps you'd care to cite some of Hovind's arguments (particularly the ones that even AiG says are bogus) so that we can all debate them if you don't think he is being taken seriously enough. Take your pick of them.

How about the flood and the Grand Canyon? I have been waiting for somebody to support that little gem.

[Senator Bedfellow]

It seems that you don't understand how that fallacy works, so it's not surprising that you can't recognize it. Today, a number of posters have chosen to comment on Hovind's criminal behavior. If those posters had then claimed that his arguments on evolution were invalid because he cheats on his taxes, lies to his neighbors, doesn't help old ladies cross the street, or otherwise engages in unsavory behavior, then those posters would be guilt of the ad hominem fallacy.

Simply pointing out that he cheats on his taxes, which he does, is not in and of itself fallacious. In fact, it can't be fallacious, insofar as it's not even an argument, per se - it's merely a statement of fact.

[PatrickHenry]

When you make a claim and are asked to back it up you should do so, or withdraw.

Quite so. If I were to assert that astrology is bunk, and that its original premises were debunked, I could back that up. Easily.

[Thatcherite]

Placemarker

[PatrickHenry]

Simply pointing out that he cheats on his taxes, which he does, is not in and of itself fallacious. In fact, it can't be fallacious, insofar as it's not even an argument, per se - it's merely a statement of fact.

Right. In fact, Isaac Newton was apparently a genuine creep, and in some ways a total whack job. But that says nothing about his science work. Hovind, on the other hand, is apparently an all-round whack job. His "science" is a joke.

[darbymcgill]

Oh I get it... What was the title of the article?

Tax Expert Debunks TOE.

[Senator Bedfellow]

Ah, I see - so the real fallacy you've spotted here is the "posting on subjects not approved by darbymcgill" fallacy. Hmmm, that one must have been omitted from my rhetoric texts.

The thread's about Hovind; we're discussing Hovind. Who are you to say what can and can't be posted?