Doesn't seem that way in this thread JS, it really doesn't.

It was specifically written to mock, not refute.

Seems you know the difference.

I did in fact get some of my stuff from Dr. Hovind, but not all of it. So keep searching. even though I thought you and I were going to let it lie. Yet you had to bring me back didnt you.

I have attended many of the good Doctors seminars. I think he is a great man and knows his stuff and is willing to go head to head with anyone who wants to debate him.

He has asked many evolusionist to debate him in a public forum but they refuse.

WRONG. The information I found is FROM a debate with the good Dr. Interesting that all four of your points are directly from his list of 'proofs'. And I don't have to search anymore. There's nothing to find. And you really don't have to come back Dawg. You can do whatever you want to in this thread. Come in. Leave. Whatever.

What difference does it make. Mock and refute in this case turns out to be the same thing. It is what it is. Read it if you want to. Skip it if you don't. Comment on it if you want to. Don't if you don't want to.

And feel free to post your own lists. Post all you want.

Oh I already did. And I mocked it back!

I have been a bit out of the loop today as I have had to take care of some medical stuff, but I have to say that the list that mriff posted regarding the differences between science and pseudo-science is spot-on accurate. In fact, I see the response that it triggered in the list -- circle the wagons and denounce.

Most telling to me is the portion of the list that talks about scientists reviewing/critiquing their colleagues work subject to open debate. When a colleague screws up and publishes something that is fundamentally hosed -- that is blood in the water time. And being willing to look at unorthodox ideas if given a chance. I can state with absolute certainty (a statistician saying that!) that if someone was able to come up with some creation/intelligent design research that met normal standards of scientific rigor (a key requirement) and found data consistent with the intelligent design model that they would get immediate tenure and big bucks. In academia, the novel idea that explains conventional wisdom but trumps the explanation -- think theory of relativity and what that did to Newtonian physics -- is the holy grail. Look at Einstein's status after that earth-shattering discovery; Newton had reigned for years, but was ultimately overthrown in terms of the underlying theoretical explanation. Note, however, that his fundamental teachings were so spot-on that his approach to physics is still the first thing that is taught before the complexity of relativity is introduced to the budding physicist.

Anybody who reads this thread can obviously see who the major advocates for both sides are. That is quite clear. Are both sides guilty of hyperbole and excess? In my opinion we probably are..

At any rate, mriff you were correct. I found that list to be fascinating.

And dogs like to chase to their tails. No surprise at either. ;-)

Oh, right you did. Not a bad effort. But let's break it down a little bit.

Real scientists have big butts. Nope, not this one. I work out and run every day.

And big heads. Nope again.

and often suffer from the God complex. I don't know one scientist who does, and I know a lot of them.

thinking as well they have it all figured out. Real scientists NEVER think they have it all figured out.

when they really are ignoring the big picture, or in layman's terms, they can't see the forest for the tree. It is to their credit that scientists labor over the details. It's a good thing that scientists look at the tree. That helps them stay focused on the research at hand. It's those small contributions to a body of knowledge that makes a difference in the long run. I don't think Pastuer was looking at the forest, do you?

I'll go you one better. I would bet that a Nobel prize would be in this scientists future.
Hey, speak for yourself! :razz:

Hmm, the Good Doctor Dawg? Seems your Dr. Hovind is a tax cheat.

Kent Hovind, xxx8216;Dr. Dino,xxx8217; guilty on all counts

From the article:

A 12-person jury deliberated for 21/2 hours on Thursday before finding the couple guilty of all counts in their tax-fraud case.

Kent Hovind, founder of Creation Science Evangelism and Dinosaur Adventure Land in Pensacola, was found guilty of 58 counts, including failure to pay $845,000 in employee-related taxes. He faces a maximum of 288 years in prison.

Jo Hovind was charged and convicted in 44 of the counts involving evading bank-reporting requirements. She faces up to 225 years in prison but was allowed to remain free pending the couple’s sentencing on Jan. 9.

You are WRONG the only thing that came from his site was the first stuff I posted back on page one or two About the Dinasours

Further on the 'Good Doctor':

Kent Hovind, who often calls himself "Dr. Dino," is a charismatic proponent for young-earth creationism who enjoys enormous popularity with audiences (and web forums participants) from around the United States. He runs Creation Science Evangelism and offers (U.S.) $250,000 to anyone who can prove to his satisfaction that evolution happened. It should be noted that many of his fellow young-earthers consider him to be an embarrasment and that many of his arguments can be found in Arguments we think creationists should NOT use published by the young-earth creationist organization Answers in Genesis. Nevertheless, many people are directly or indirectly getting their facts on evolution from him and his influence among "rank and file" creationists cannot be doubted.

Ok, but your four points from your ealier post are specifically listed in his 'proofs'. Coincidence? I suspect these 'proofs' are passed around by the creationists.

He is still a good Christian man.

Gee they fail to pay taxes and get charged but Obamas Cronies get a slap on the wrist and get to remain in office wow. Just goes to prove the Demorats and Obama is crooked thanks for proving that fact Mr Scientest.

This is what I said you were wrong about Dawg. They don't refuse to debate him. The information that I posted was from a debate with the good doctor.

LMAO! Man, I just can't keep up with you Dawg. Your logic (?) prevails yet again. :?

Source: Debating Dr. Dino -- Debunking Kent Hovind

A good summary of why most scientists won't debate 'the good doctor'.

snip

I am embarrassed by the invitation by anyone in any way associated with USAO to Kent Horvind, a “young-earth creationist” who calls himself “Dr. Dino.” I am proud of the fact that no one at USAO accepted the “challenge” to engage him in a debate. Allowing oneself to be drawn into a debate with someone who claims to be a scientist but argues that the earth is 6000 years old gives a stamp of legitimacy to the promulgation of nonsense and is as absurd as offering a platform to a member of the Flat Earth society. I believe that legitimate cases can be made both for an accidental origin of the universe and a so-called “intelligent design,” and that listening to Richard Dawkins (The Blind Watchmaker) or Stephen Gould and Carl Sagan – were they still alive – debate John Barrow and Frank Tipler (The Anthropic Principle), or Paul Davies (The Mind of God) would be a valuable learning experience. I am also convinced that evolution need not be viewed as incompatible with creation (why should God not be considered capable of creating through natural processes???). I have published articles on the compatibility of evolution and Christianity both in the U.S. and in Germany, and have lectured at the Zygon Center for Religion and Science at the Lutheran School of Theology in Chicago.

Ken Hovind, alas, is neither a scientist nor a scripture scholar. He bases his hypotheses concerning the origin of the cosmos and life on earth not on anthropology, astronomy, chaos theory, microbiology, paleontology, quantum physics, or the study of mitochondrial DNA but on a literal interpretation of the account presented in the Judeo-Christian Book of Genesis which reflects a common-sense pre-scientific paradigm of interpreting observed phenomena and explaining the unknown in terms of inferred supernatural agency. By accepting the a priori TRUTH of that which he is trying to establish and arranging data to support the biblical account, his argument becomes circular and hence, fallacious. I am tempted to point to Galileo who cited the astute observation of the sixteenth century cardinal and church historian Cesare Baronius that "the Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." Clearly, some four hundred years ago, Baronius would have rejected Hovind’s approach. He understood, even then, that scripture is not a science text!

In addition, Hovind, and the “young-earthers” in general are not even accepted by other representatives of so-called “creation science” (often, alas, not in fact, a science, but an attempt to pass religious dogma off as science), because they are so devoid of professional scientific integrity that they make even academically legitimate attempts to reconcile scripture and contemporary cosmology suspect.
/snip

How does him getting convicted of paying taxes affect his being a good Christian man.

hell your President appointed two seperate tax evaders to public office. They are still considered good men and can hold office.

Your Pope was part of the Nazi youth and hes still the Pope.

Waht makes Dr. Hovind any different, Ill tell you what it is, he doesnt agree with you. So that in turn makes him a bad guy.

Hahaha I love it. Do I need to start posting about scientest that have done wrong or do you want to just go on and on.

So lets do this again.
Do you believe the flood happened?
Do you believe the Bible is Gods word?
Do you Believe that Jesus Rose from the dead?

Do you believe God has anything to do with evolution.