Just for Gee Whiz

It was recently brought to my attention (as in, like, twenty minutes ago) that there's a particularly interesting seminar series available on DVD that I haven't re-watched in years: Creation Science Evangelism by Dr. Kent Hovind.
I don't remember a lot of it, but it offers some interesting and applicable counters to the theory of evolution. So, I'd recommend it to anyone who's interested in this sort of thing, even if you don't believe in young-earth creation. As long as you don't mind a little bit of Dr. Hovind's country sass slipping into his presentation, and him touching upon a few of the more sensitive subjects.

I'm probably going to place this series on hold at my library again soon, it's just really interesting.

Comments

[Fireheart 1945]

YEC! YEC!

[Amethyst_Dawn]

4853822
I beg your pardon?

[Fireheart 1945]

4853827

Young Earth Creationist/Creationism

[Amethyst_Dawn]

4853845
Ooooh, gotcha.

[Super Soldier]

I’m certainly not going to watch this. Also evolution is a scientifically and historically proven fact. Or did I just not properly understand what was written in this blog post?

[Amethyst_Dawn]

4853913
I'm afraid I have to strongly disagree. Macroevolution is a theory with no proper scientific grounding, and has been proven inaccurate a numerous amount of times, yet it is still taught as if it's an absolute fact in schools around the world for reasons that are beyond me.
I won't dare to pretend that I have all the answers to any questions you might have, and that's why I highly recommend this series. Even if you don't believe in the creationist teachings, it can present a thought-provoking point of view based off of years of genuine scientific research... if you're able to keep an open mind about other people's beliefs.

[Super Soldier]

4853944
Well I hate to break it to you but Dr. Kent Hovind has been proven as a fraud with the things he says so i'm not going to trust this guy. Also where has Macroevolution been proven as not scientifically accurate?

[Amethyst_Dawn]

4853962
By whom?

[Super Soldier]

4853963
By his critics and other people including scientists. Also where has macroevolution ever been proven wrong? In fact what you just said makes it come off as if you don't understand evolution.

Here's something from Wikipedia that proves my point:

Criticism from creationists

In a rare case of open dissent within the movement over the substance of creation science,^[54]Answers in Genesis(AiG) published a 2002 position paper titled: "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use".^[55]After Hovind issued a point-by-point rebuttal,^[56]Carl Wieland,Ken Ham, andJonathan Sarfatiof AiG wrote that the claims made by Hovind were "fraudulent" and contained "mistakes in facts and logic which do the creationist cause no good."^[5][45][55]In particular, AiG criticized Hovind for "persistently us[ing] discredited or false arguments" as well as "fraudulent claims" fromRon Wyatt,^[45]and described one of Hovind's claims as "self-refuting".^[57]Rancorous disagreements resulted in AiG splitting into U.S. and Australian chapters in 2005. The Australian branch, renamedCreation Ministries International(CMI), maintained content critical of Hovind on their website, while the U.S. branch, led byKen Ham, removed it.^[58]In 2009, CMI said that they had relaxed their stance because CSE's revamped website had removed some of Hovind's claims to which they objected.^[45]

Greg Neyman, an old-Earth creationist who runs the Old Earth Ministries website^[59](renamed fromAnswers in Creation), writes that Hovind's articles about humans and dinosaurs coexisting are unsupported by evidence and that they "embarrass the young earth creation science community as a whole".^[60][61]

To theOrthodox Jewishcreationist, Hovind's approach relies upon a strict literal reading of theKing James translation. Where Jews interpret the Hebrew throughTalmudandMidrash, Hovind relies on a direct reading of English. For example, Hovind claims that the worddinosaur, which was introduced to English in 1841, refers to what previously had been calleddragon. Dragon is used wheretannin(Hebrew:תנין‎) appears, but it meansserpentorcrocodile.

[Amethyst_Dawn]

4853964
No credible sources? Proper names to be given? Titles, evidence of any sort whatsoever? Interesting.
I'm not sure how someone can be proven as a fraud for stating scientific theories based off of research, while also providing references for his research. I won't say whether I agree 100% with his conspiracy theories or not, but his scientific reasoning is rock solid. I know a lot of people tend to criticize him for his research, but there have been several instances throughout history where well-researched individuals were laughed out of their fields before their theories were proven to be more factual than first assumed.

[Super Soldier]

4853968
At least tell me where macroevolution has ever been disproven. Also do you take what is said in the Bible as literal like dr. Kent Hovind does?

[Super Soldier]

Okay, I just realized that I was acting out on emotion and completely forgot that everyone has different ideas about religion. I realized this when I showed my mom the conversation we had in this comment section and she said "Please stop with your emotional reaction," which is what made me realize this. I don't want to lose our friendship over this. And know that this conversation made me really anxious. My reaction made me anxious. Everyone thinks differently about these sort of things especially religion and i accept and respect your point of view. The next time I see a blog post similar to this I'll have better control of my reaction. Sorry.

[Amethyst_Dawn]

4853964

In a rare case of open dissent within the movement over the substance of creation science, Answers in Genesis (AiG) published a 2002 position paper titled: "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use".

This is actually interesting to look into, so I'll give credit on providing an article from a trustworthy source.

After Hovind issued a point-by-point rebuttal, Carl Wieland, Ken Ham, and Jonathan Sarfati of AiG wrote that the claims made by Hovind were "fraudulent" and contained "mistakes in facts and logic which do the creationist cause no good." In particular, AiG criticized Hovind for "persistently us[ing] discredited or false arguments" as well as "fraudulent claims"

Interesting that a few of the articles linked in this wikipedia page are missing...
Also, I feel like I should point out that the scientific community is always, always disagreeing with and attempting to discredit amongst themselves, no matter what field of study it is. So I'd take incidents like this with a particularly large grain of salt.

To the Orthodox Jewish creationist, Hovind's approach relies upon a strict literal reading of the King James translation. Where Jews interpret the Hebrew through Talmud and Midrash, Hovind relies on a direct reading of English. For example, Hovind claims that the word dinosaur, which was introduced to English in 1841, refers to what previously had been called dragon. Dragon is used where tannin (Hebrew: תנין) appears, but it means serpent or crocodile.

About that... "crocodile" is an english word derived from latin in the early 1300s, if I remember correctly. Given how the development and translation of language works, and is sometimes extremely faulty and/or results in a word losing the original definition, it's entirely possible that "kokedrille" was also used to describe other creatures that resembled modern-day crocs and gators.
As for serpent, well, let's just see how the dictionary defines serpent...

ser·pent
ˈsərpənt/
noun
noun:serpent; plural noun:serpents
1. a large snake.
2. a dragon or other mythical, snakelike reptile.

Huh, interesting.

[Amethyst_Dawn]

4853969
For the first part, allow me to refer you to what I've said earlier:

I won't dare to pretend that I have all the answers to any questions you might have, and that's why I highly recommend this series.

I don't remember a lot of it, but it offers some interesting and applicable counters to the theory of evolution.

For the second part: yes, I do absolutely believe in literal readings of the Bible, with the obvious exceptions of what are clearly metaphorical passages, mostly being the descriptions of the events in the book of Revelations.

4853974
Hey, don't worry about it. If anything, I appreciate these kinds of conversations, as long as it's kept calm and respectful. Which, as far as I could see, you were being. I'm sorry if I've triggered anything, that's not my intent at all, and I'm definitely not petty enough to let a difference in beliefs separate me from a friend.
If it means anything to you, I took no offense or insult from anything said below. And if I seem to be irritated at all, I'm just naturally a bit tactless and snarky, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

[Super Soldier]

4853977
Thank you. Also know that what I'm about to ask is a joke but i still want a full and honest answer from you. Are you a Flat Earther?

[Amethyst_Dawn]

4853980
You're welcome.
And definitely not, my friend.

[Super Soldier]

4853988
Don't take this the wrong way but I'm glad that you're not stupid enough to believe in that. In fact you're definitely smart for that.