Kent Hovind, PhD - his "thesis" is online

[zenzero]

Friends,
No wonder starting a university is paying.
Does anyone know, how much a startup university [on line type] will cost and how much to maintain per year and pay back period?
Do get mails for Phds but always delete them before even opening.
Love & rgds

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Thanks for that document, it is good. Kent has a great point in that common descent is not observable, therefore is not science and shouldn't be taught in a science class. It should be taught in a religion class along with other religions. He also lays out a good case for a young earth starting on page 89, using science of all things.

:ignore:

 

[Metempsychosis]

It should be taught in a religion class along with other religions.

He can carry on "raping" Dharmic traditions.

 

[Magic Man]

You know it's going to be good when it starts out with:

Where in the world did the idea come from that things left to themselves can improve with time?

It's nice of him to tell you right off the bat that he doesn't even understand the theory of evolution. I mean, you could guess as much from the fact that he's a creationist and a Bible literalist, and from his introduction, but it's nice of him to be so obvious right from the start.

I think I'm going to get myself a PhD. It seems simple enough. Just say a bunch of stuff that doesn't have to be true or even based on reality, as long as it's what a creationist would want to hear. Pretty soon, I'll be changing my screenname to dr.mball1297.

 

[fantome profane]

Thanks for that document, it is good. Kent has a great point in that common descent is not observable, therefore is not science and shouldn't be taught in a science class. It should be taught in a religion class along with other religions. He also lays out a good case for a young earth starting on page 89, using science of all things.

Man of Faith, have you ever though about getting a PhD yourself? Judging from what I have seen you post here on this forum I think you are more than qualified to get one from Patriot Bible University. That is assuming you can afford the $150.

Then we would all have to call you Doctor of Faith. Think about it.

 

[Salad]

I have read a shocking doctoral thesis written by an Oxford student. The style of writing was terrible, the argument had no flow and made little sense. Sometimes I wonder if the examiners find an essay difficult to read they believe that it surpasses their intelligence and therefore must be an excellent piece of writing?!

I might add that obtaining a real PhD requires a lot of determination hence why many people struggle to complete a full doctorate. However, it does seem that it is more of a test of character then academic intelligence.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I have read a shocking doctoral thesis written by an Oxford student. The style of writing was terrible, the argument had no flow and made little sense. Sometimes I wonder if the examiners find an essay difficult to read they believe that it surpasses their intelligence and therefore must be an excellent piece of writing?!

I might add that obtaining a real PhD requires a lot of determination hence why many people struggle to complete a full doctorate. However, it does seem that it is more of a test of character then academic intelligence.

It's both if you're at a real school.

Remember, having a PhD does not keep one from saying something stupid (except for me).

 

[Man of Faith]

Man of Faith, have you ever though about getting a PhD yourself? Judging from what I have seen you post here on this forum I think you are more than qualified to get one from Patriot Bible University. That is assuming you can afford the $150.

Then we would all have to call you Doctor of Faith. Think about it.

Somehow I don't think you would still take me seriously.

 

[Nepenthe]

Thanks for that document, it is good. Kent has a great point in that common descent is not observable, therefore is not science and shouldn't be taught in a science class. It should be taught in a religion class along with other religions. He also lays out a good case for a young earth starting on page 89, using science of all things.

Hovind lifts all of his young earth "evidence" from the godfather of YEC nonsense, Dr. Henry Morris (I'd say plagarized but Hovind does credit Morris and at the end of the day does it really matter who steals the others "intellectual" property when it's between those two idiots?). Hovind starts with "Here are just a few of the evidences of a young earth given by Dr. Morris"... then lists the reasons but only numbers 1 and 2.

But here's his steel trap mind in action:
Page 89: "The influx of cosmic dust to the earth indicates that the earth is less than 10,000 years old."
This is a classic creationist argument going back to 1971 by Harold Slusher, but was committed to the creationist hive mind by Henry Morris in his book Scientific Creationism. It's an argument that's as glaringly false as a televangelist's hairpiece. The actual rate of dust accumulation derived from spacecraft measurements and meteorite influx is about 66 cm over the entire 4.5 billion year history of the planet (assuming the rate was constant- which it likely wasn't- but also ignoring the compression of cosmic dust which would be further compacted).
Here ya go; everything you need to know about the dust accumulation and the age of the Earth:
Meteorite Dust and the Age of the Earth

Page 89: "Radiometric decay produces helium which has to escape into the the atmosphere. <snip> The percentage of helium in the atmosphere indicates a very young earth."
Not true. The rate of helium dispersal from the atmosphere is balanced by the radioactive decay in the crust and mantle. Helium is extremely light; thermal escape and ionization of helium along the earth's magnetic field lines accounts for the scarcity of helium.
See these references for details:
Helium escape from the terrestrial atmosphere: The ion outflow mechanism
How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Hovind's 'Proofs'

Page 90: "The very existence of short period comets is one of the proofs of a young earth."
Yes, short period comets may last for a mere 5 to 10,000 years, but the lifetime of a comet is measured in orbits, an orbit measures each time the comet actually passes by the sun and loses tons of itself due to vaporization, an event called the ablation process. But the major problem with the creationist stupidity is that comets are regularly replenished- see the Kuiper Belt and the Oort cloud as major verified sources.
See here for more:
How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Hovind's 'Proofs'

Page 91: "The declining spin of the earth is another fact that indicates a young earth."
No yet again. This is another common creationist argument based on a misinterpretation of the original source information. The spin of the earth is 0.005 not the one second a year creationists often use as their model.
Here's an excellent article detailing the origins of the creationist claim and explaining why it's yet another example of their dishonesty, ignorance or both:
As the World Turns | NCSE

Page 91: "...the earth's declining magnetic field is a powerful indication that the earth is extremely young."
This argument is based on Dr. Thomas G. Barnes and his book Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field. Barnes was a quack phycisist who made several silly fringe claims including denying relativity and several fringe arguments supporting creationism. Not to mention a controversial honorary Sc.D from Hardin-Simmons, a Baptist university in Texas. Barnes' research was just plain sloppy, filled with errors and simply false. Barnes was simply a crackpot pseudoscientist. Read up on his errors here:
Creation Science and the Earth's Magnetic Field

Somehow I don't think you would still take me seriously.

Yes, your posting record justifies your assumption.

 

[Alceste]

I couldn't read any further than...

"INTRODUCTION

Hello, my name is Kent Hovind."

...without peeing myself. I had to stop reading.

Great find.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

The illustrious Dr. Dino (now a guest of the US Federal Bureau of Prisons) has posted his doctoral thesis.

Aside from the religious nonsense it contains the most striking thing about it is how to fails to meet ANY accepted standards of scholarship.

"Creation scientist" indeed.

The problem is not really his "thesis" or its "quality". the problem is rather that this quality is exactly the one that his followers are capable of understanding. this and no more

 

[thedude82]

I've read portions of this before...never had the whole thing in front of me before. Very good find. During college I used to harass Kent Hovind via email, I actually got a response I wish I still had it saved, he admitted to not having all the answers, but dodged every good question I had. Basically saying that because we don't know everything we can't know anything. I bet he's enjoying jail.

 

[JeLy]

My favorite thing about this leak is that Coughlan666 made a response video about it. It is hilarious.

The beginning sounds like an ad for eHarmony, not a fricken doctoral dissertation.

 

[Smoke]

My favorite thing about this leak is that Coughlan666 made a response video about it. It is hilarious.

Always include the link. I'm curious but lazy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99RHnjEbtCs

 

[JeLy]

Always include the link. I'm curious but lazy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99RHnjEbtCs

Pfft - that wasn't so hard. Will remember next time.

 

[Troublemane]

We all sprang from monkeys. But this guy [Hovind] proves not all of us sprang far enough. :trampo:

 

[no-body]

Sounds like this guy is a "Dr" in the same way Hunter Thompson is a "Dr"

The population of the earth today doubles regularly. If you were to draw up tthe population growth on a chart you would see that it goes back to zero about five thousand years ago. If man has been here millions of years like evolutionists teach, where is the population?

Heh

...and the single illustration was apparently cut out of a science book with scissors and fastened to the thesis with glue or tape.

Beautiful.

 

[Malleus_de_Philosophia]

I read through about the first 10 pages and I had to go get tissues to wipe my eyes from the laughter. It's clear as day that he doesn't have a clue what evolution is nor science for that matter but when he asserts that science and evolution is a religion, I really have to wonder, does he understand what the definition of religion is? After all, his gibberish is to twisted beyond belief, I find it hard to believe that his definition and concept of what a religion is isn't twisted also. At first when I read it I thought it was a prank someone was pulling but after I read the title, I realized that this was something real. The way he argues against evolution is pretty much like saying "OK, this is creationism and we will disprove evolution, which is... umm... hmmm... well I don't really know but it's something sciency and sciencey stuff is bad, so umm yeah it's bad and YAY I win".

You know, if his stuff (I cant bring myself to call it a thesis nor a paper) is accepted for being a thesis, I'm willing to bet that a monkey on crack using a typewriter could fare just about the same or maybe even a bit better. Poor man though, posting his stuff just to have himself humiliated.

What I find even sadder is that there probably are people out there who not only think this guy has some brains but also is something they can understand. I can just imagine how it'd be like tossing him into an intro class on evolutionary biology... .

This guy receives my stamp approval EPIC FAIL.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You guys are awesome...or maybe crazy for reading as much as you did.... I found it very difficult to get through the first page. He starts off with (Hi my name is.....)....Well, it's not Slim Shady.

 

[Smoke]

Pfft - that wasn't so hard. Will remember next time.

It was worth finding it myself, though. I love that guy, and I had never heard of him before.