I’m not sure what they are, but there is apparently a site offering free hovinds: FreeHovind.Com. Can anybody tell me what a hovind is before I order a free one?
Free Hovinds
Categories:
No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/171.
206 Comments
Leave a comment
About this Entry
This page contains a single entry by Reed A. Cartwright published on March 22, 2007 12:48 PM.
Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.
Categories
- Assault on Science (424)
- Bathroom Wall (13)
- Book Reviews (60)
- Conferences (21)
- Darwin's Finches (1)
- Designoids (8)
- Education and Legal (84)
- Eugenics (1)
- Evolution (520)
- Expelled (69)
- Flyers/Pamphlets (3)
- Humor (136)
- ID/Creationism (65)
- Icons (1)
- Journal Club (28)
- Legal Issues (121)
- Manufactroversy (11)
- Medicine and Evolution (19)
- Metatalk (87)
- MustRead (5)
- News Roundup (27)
- Prebiotic Chemistry (5)
- Question of the Day (6)
- Question of the Moment
- Quote of the Day (14)
- Religion and Politics (11)
- Research News (53)
- Resources for Biologists (19)
- Shoptalk (28)
- Slightly Off Topic (48)
- Steve Steve (69)
- Sticky (2)
- Their Own Words (19)
- Theological Issues with Intelligent Design (9)
- War on Science (38)
- What motivates creationism (20)
I notice one section is dedicated to having a petition for the President to pardon DR Hovind. (after all, Clinton pardoned some really terrible people). However, the pardons by this Administration may be used up by Scooter and possible future former administration aides and staff and officials.
This is a hovind:
http://www.evangelicalright.com/JesusDino.jpg
I think it’s supposed to be something like a centaur.
Free hovinds? Sounds interesting… Even though I ain’t got no purpose for one, it’s free nonetheless! And even though I also don’t know what a hovind is, I’ll still get one, since they are (you guessed it) for free.
I think it must be something like a “free radical”. As in the chant “Free (all) Radicals” in the 60s.
Is is like those free creationist textbooks put out by Harun Yahya? If so, it’s grossly overpriced.
I’m curious, is the site offering these Free Hovinds in any way connected to a solicitor working for a bank in Nigeria?
For some reason, the idea of receiving a “free hovind” reminds me of a line from a Woody Allen movie. To paraphrase, “The food is terrible, but the portions are huge!”
There’s no such thing as a free hovind. But I hear that Dembski will throw one in with an order of Jello.
Mmm. … What flavor of Jello?
I went to the site, and though I didn’t want to register and login, I do have a great idea for their Forum:
They should immedediately start praying that Kent gets sacrificed in prison, so he can be a true martyer! Just like the saints and The Lord God too!
But seriously… If there really WERE a God, there would be a Keep Hovind In Jail Longer Site. And I would be able to click on my computer screen and send him a couple of hundred volts, just for the fun of it.
At the least, you must get the free videos from this site. I downloaded them long ago after I saw them on local TV. I couldn’t tolerate an entire session on TV, so I thought if I had them on my computer, then, I would be able to manage small portions at a time. It is amazing how small those portions turn out to be. It takes but a few minutes before my brains hurt and I begin to feel nauseated. The Junior High School level ridicule, non sequiturs, completely ridiculous science, and enormous leaps of “logic” will soon leave your head spinning. Note the audience’s expressions and you will see evidence of a similar problem.
Hovey you be my woman now. Just pick up the soap.
“Free hovinds? Sounds interesting… Even though I ain’t got no purpose for one, it’s free nonetheless! And even though I also don’t know what a hovind is, I’ll still get one, since they are (you guessed it) for free.”
They may be free, but I hear that the upkeep is pretty expensive. Not to mention their annoying habits and potential side effects (such as causing your head to implode). Get an Irish Setter instead — they are far more intelligent and much better company. They also leave less of a mess.
Here is another site offering free hovinds - the Norwegian telephone book
http://www.gulesider.no/tk/search.c?q=hovind
There are 792 of them with various spelling variants: Hovind, Hovin, Hofvind etc. and including those who have Hovind as a middle name. There are also Hovinds in Denmark but I haven’t checked how common they are there.
Does Kent Hovind have his last name from Scandinavia and, if so, from which country?
It’s a really special flavor that can only be tasted by people who have faith that the flavor exists.
I live in Canada so would I have to pay any kind of a tax on a free hovind?
You won’t like it. It tastes like disappearing ink.
I live in Canada so would I have to pay any kind of a tax on a free hovind?
No, once you are the proud owner of a Hovind, you will ever have to pay tax ever again!
I don’t see why there is so much animosity towards Hovind? Maybe he’s right…throw a stone up a dark alley,and if you hear a squeal,you know you’ve hit something.If so,he seems to have hurt many people(with his stones) who’s names he’s never mentioned .Maybe the thing to do is ask why? If his stones(facts&figures)had no substance…they wouldn’t hurt! If they had no substance,he should have been debated into oblivion by now!!On the contrary,it seems other ways had to be proposed to stop him.I’ve heard a lot of ad hominid attacks on Hovind,but not many concerted efforts to address the points he makes(albeit..some of the points he makes,have been picked up from dubious interpretations) As far as his humor…well he says his seminars are for all ages,so its to hold their attention. I don’t think Hovind utters absolute truth…but then who does?? He condenses quite alot of important information from professional academics,and i think that instead of ridiculing the messenger,the focus should be on addressing the message.
Hovind is a shameless liar and cheat. Why shouldn’t that make honest people angry?
Hovind makes some points?
Bill, pick out your favorite Hovind “point” and check it out on TalkOrigins’ Index of Creationist Claims. I’m sure you’ll find it there, along with a concerted effort to address it.
On the outside chance that you don’t find it, or if you just want to give the Panda’s Thumb regulars an opportunity to have some fun, then bring it over here. We’ll happily address any Hovind “point” that you think may have been ignored.
By the way, if a liar and a tax fraud is called a liar and a tax fraud, that’s not an ad hominem attack. (It may be an ad hominid attack, but that’s a completely different issue.)
We all look forward to your Hovind advocacy. Please bring his “points” over here one “point” at a time. Wait until one is debunked before you bring the next.
Oh this site is priceless!
I especially like the “Latest Official Blogs” postings, like the one named “Update from Bunk Three”.
You could simply not make this kind of stuff up! Nobody would believe you!
Meanwhile, out from bunk three pour ever greater gems of Ken’s undaunted wisdom, like this one …
Yup, that one came right out of the clear, blue sky there, Ken.
But fear not, gentle readers, even in the absence of out fearless Ken, somehow his team soldiers on…
Hosting? Does that mean paid admissions? If Saturday is the busy day there, that means that Erick has a thriving theme park there, “hosting” maybe 200 visitors a week.
I’ll put money down that “Eric” makes damned sure that he checks the numbers twice when he sends in a check for the payroll taxes every single week, probably by certified mail with a delivery confirmation requested .
I followed their link to the site they acknowledged as the source of their dinosaur images.
Strangely enough, the artist sorts his work by the Era, Period and Epoch they come from. He also gives dates like “270 million years ago (Early Permian)”.
You have to admire the flexibility of a mind that can rationalise away such facts in order to hold on to concepts that amount to nothing more than wishful thinking.
Reminds me of exactly the same joke, some years ago, concerning the song Free Nelson Mandela by the Specials AKA.
Mind you, I’m certainly not doing any sort of comparison between Hovind and Mandela…
Well yeah. He throws stones at reason, so people who value reason don’t like him.
Yes, he’s hurt a lot of people. He’s actively participated them in steering them away from the last two or three centuries of progress in understanding how the universe works in favor of his interpretation of a fairytale. That’s hurting people. He’s also lied and cheated in several different directions at once, not the least of which was his attempt at defrauding the government.
The “substance” of his stones is to mislead people. He has been “debated into oblivion”; nobody who understands anything about how science, or even simple logic, works takes his ideas seriously. Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean that nobody at all gives his blatherings any credence.
Then you’re clearly not one of the people who has kept up with rpogress. It’s exactly the kind of appeal to ignorance that makes Hovind and his ilk capable of continuing to be taken seriously by some while intentionally either lying outright or lying by omission. The fact is, there’s not a single point that Hovind has ever made that hasn’t been addressed, usually on multiple occasions and frequently by very reputable people. The problem isn’t, therefore, that his points haven’t been addressed, it’s that you don’t know that they’ve been addressed.
Hovind thinks he does, absolutely.
The message is a steaming pile of manure delivered by an individual whose ethics have landed him a decade-long prison sentence. He applies the same ethical standards to his arguments regarding evolutionary biology. Just as he withheld money owed to the government, he withholds facts from his audiences. He doesn’t condense any “important information from professional academics.” Not a shred of it. What he does is attempt to advance a long-disproven idea (I won’t even stoop to calling it a hypothesis, since it can’t be tested) through the most disreputable of methods.
Hovind is nothing more than a common criminal and liar. It speaks volumes about his remaining supporters that they’re willing to give him a pass on this when the man essentially made his living by making promises in the first place. One thing I will say for him; as con-men go, he has a tremendous talent for picking out his pigeons.
Funny site. They have only 6 signatures on the petition so far. You think we could name them? Were YOU one of them, bill?
I got a grin out of an apparent creationist ignoramus using the word “hominid”. Thanks, bill.
The substance of his stones is, like i said, his facts and figures…and he certainly was not debated into oblivion. He was still debating (if he could find someone who would debate him)up until his problems. There are plenty of people who understand science&logic who refute Darwinism!! And if you want to talk about logic…If you believe the Big Bang theory (in a Darwinian sense).Then you believe all the matter&energy (as well as space and time) came into existence out of nothing, from nowhere & for no reason! Breaking at least two very fundamental laws…Cause&Effect and the first law of Thermodynamics (energy can neither be created or destroyed).Then you have to believe that instead of exploding and expanding “forever”, it “arranged” itself into matter, then “arranged” the matter into a clockwise Universe (a neat trick!) just right for humans. Breaking the second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy: every thing breaks down into less complex forms).All without outside intelligence!.…Does that seem logical to you??! These LAWS have never being observed to have been broken, so it takes assumption to believe otherwise. Of course you have to except it weather it seems logical to you or not, because you have a bias’s toward the idea of a Creator. Just like i, as a Christian, have a bias against a theory that excludes design by a Creator. The trick is(and no i haven’t succeeded in accomplishing it yet)is to set the bias aside, and look at the facts. Like those mentioned above, which without a prior bias would be inconceivable to believe they happened by pure random chance. Not just the insurmountable odds (probability weighs heavily against evolution)it has to overcome, but also with the breakdown of reason needed to believe it. You can start with those two Brian (matter from nothing & and complexity from chaos).…but Please, before you start with multi-universes,bubble-universes,and all the rest of the contorted logic needed to escape the conclusion of a Creator…Be aware in your examples of what can be SHOWN to be true, and what is ASSUMED to be true
The substance of his stones is, like i said, his facts and figures…and he certainly was not debated into oblivion. He was still debating (if he could find someone who would debate him)up until his problems. There are plenty of people who understand science&logic who refute Darwinism!! And if you want to talk about logic…If you believe the Big Bang theory (in a Darwinian sense).Then you believe all the matter&energy (as well as space and time) came into existence out of nothing, from nowhere & for no reason! Breaking at least two very fundamental laws…Cause&Effect and the first law of Thermodynamics (energy can neither be created or destroyed).Then you have to believe that instead of exploding and expanding “forever”, it “arranged” itself into matter, then “arranged” the matter into a clockwise Universe (a neat trick!) just right for humans. Breaking the second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy: every thing breaks down into less complex forms).All without outside intelligence!.…Does that seem logical to you??! These LAWS have never being observed to have been broken, so it takes assumption to believe otherwise. Of course you have to except it weather it seems logical to you or not, because you have a bias’s toward the idea of a Creator. Just like i, as a Christian, have a bias against a theory that excludes design by a Creator. The trick is(and no i haven’t succeeded in accomplishing it yet)is to set the bias aside, and look at the facts. Like those mentioned above, which (without prior bias) would be inconceivable to believe they happened by pure random chance. Not just the insurmountable odds (probability weighs heavily against evolution)it has to overcome, but also with the breakdown of reason needed to believe it without that bias. You can start with those two Brian (matter from nothing & and complexity from chaos).…but Please, before you start with multi-universes,bubble-universes,and all the rest of the contorted logic needed to escape the conclusion of a Creator…Be aware in your examples of what can be SHOWN to be true, and what is ASSUMED to be true
opp’s.…sorry about the double posting
You won’t get one, of course.
Upon being confronted with the facts - that his list of scientists and their words were a deliberate deception lifted holus-bolus from a creationist website; that all of the quotes were deliberate misrepresentations; and that the attributions were obscured, probably so as to make checking difficult - Dan the creationist took to the hills and hasn’t been seen since.
Which probably means that he’s a dupe rather than being in on the con, and to be pitied rather than being reviled.
Hovind is a liar and cheat and mostly brain dead and is right where he belongs. He has biblegod crammed so far up his ass he fails to see the light of day. Anyone that believes a T-Rex ever ate grass or that oceans were under the crust of the earth and in space or that early oceans were not salty is a complete JERK!!! I tried to e-mail him to ask if he could explain the salt deposits hundreds of ft. thick under 3 of the Great Lakes 1800 ft. below sea level and how the Grand Canyon could be carved out in 20 minutes (PLEASE) there would be Grand Canyons all over the globe if there were a flood of that size, and if all mountains were made from sediment turned to rock than explain Hawaii, it made of nothing but basalt (lava). I got no response. Another tidbit, the bible said insects and amphibs were not on the ark than how did they survive the flood? they must have evolved! Anybody that stupid belongs in prison. Bob,
lol, silly monkey worshipers.….….…you need a new hobby.….lol.……
oh ya, I got a question, why did more then one creature on this planet evolve with not just one eyeball but two? lol, good luck
Trolls. I wonder how they evolved? What advantage is stupidity combined with aggression? Could it be that their environment selects for both?
Two eyes allows for either a wider field of vision (one on each side of the head) or stereoscopic vision (both in front). Hence, having two is an advantage. Now, a question for the serious student: why not three?
Are you really as dumb as you appear to be? It’s a pity brains didn’t evolve more than once.….
Symmetry is parsimonious.
At the risk of changing the subject, which probably came first, eye(s) or bilateral symmetry?
Henry
(for the sake of the lurkers)
Well, most macro organisms are symmetrical, so organs off the centerline tend to come in pairs (polar multiples if you’re a starfish).
And two eyes give you the advantage of depth perception, which is a significant survival advantage to many species.
Actually, eyes are so useful that not only have they evolved over and over in myriad forms, but some lines have evolved them twice. Horseshoe crabs and the 100 or so species of freshwater copepods in the genus Cyclops come immediately to mind.
Both seem to smack in the middle of evolving a second independant visual system, using a completely different set of originating organs and mutations.
So, um, there.
The most basic eye seen in Biology is the “eyespot” seen in many protozoa, such as the red eyespot of Euglena. (with an “eyespot” being a patch of pigment that undergoes a change in action potential when exposed to light)
So, technically speaking, the eye, as a light-detecting organ, came before bilateral symmetry.
That, and the boxjellies have eyes with lenses, though, nobody knows if they can detect images with their eyes.
It’s their social environment that selects for the marriage of stupidity to aggression, especially since they’re taught that learning and science are the handmaidens of the Devil (and that Jesus hates it when you’re nice to other people, despite having spent a good portion of the New Testament making a song and dance about loving other people).
Well, with arthropods, some already have three or more sets of compound eyes, like the way we commemorate tadpole shrimps’ three (sets of compound) eyes with the generic epitaph Triops, or with horseshoe crabs, or the oceli of many insects, commonly seen in wasps.
As for vertebrates, they’ve technically already evolved a third eye, if you count the way some reptiles have evolved a hole in the roofs of their skulls to accommodate their comparatively gargantuan, very light-sensitive pineal glands.
If you mean an actual third eye that can form images, be moved with muscles, be protected by eyelids, lubricated by tear glands, and at higher levels, allow its owner to incinerate things and people by glowering at them, ala Siva, then no, it’s unlikely that vertebrates would be able to evolve a third eye, as it would royally screw up their bilateral symmetry, as well as screw up the development of tissues in that area (see what happened with the cyclops kitten).
As for molluscs, well, cephalopods and gastropods appear to be developmentally limited to one pair of eyes much in the same manner vertebrates are (that is, more eyes would screw up development), while scallops, on the tentacle, decorate themselves with a huge number of eyes (20 to over 100, depending on the genus).
And then there’s this one brittlestar that has hundreds of light-detecting organs, complete with lens, embedded all over its arms and central disc.
Hey Mr Luckett, How are you? I’m still reading and learning. Get ready my friend
As for molluscs, well, cephalopods and gastropods appear to be developmentally limited to one pair of eyes much in the same manner vertebrates are (that is, more eyes would screw up development), while scallops, on the tentacle, decorate themselves with a huge number of eyes (20 to over 100, depending on the genus).
I took a picture to demonstrate just that on visiting the local aquarium in Auckland a few months back:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ichthy[…]11652330498/
interestingly, the reflections of the flash are caused by the form of the eye itself, which contains what essentially amounts to a concave mirror like that found in a newtonian telescope.
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0031-9120/44/2/009
wow thats kinda like saying i dont see your brain so you must not have one! really if you believe things like that you should keep that as personal info cuz it shows how very bright you are!
maybe if you search for your brain you mite find God too!
It’s obvious from your poorly-written bit of thread necromancy that you have terrible reading comprehension, a tenuous grasp on the English language, and no reasoning ability to speak of, so I doubt I’ll get a useful answer to this question, but here goes:
Do you have the slightest speck of evidence that your god, or for that matter ANY god, actually exists? Any evidence at all? Anything?
…you are one of Dembski’s students fulfilling one of the requirements of his ID course.
There, fixed.
OBviously anyone taking that class could be expected to have terrible reading comprehension, a tenuous grasp on the English language, and no reasoning ability to speak of, so my point stands :P
Yes your brain will hurt, u see it is all those demons inside of you that cant take the truth, pray and then watch and you will change your mind. blessings Hein , South Africa
Just more of the usual creationist blather, or a terribly low-quality Poe, undeserving of an original response.
It’s obvious from your poorly-written bit of thread necromancy that you have terrible reading comprehension, a tenuous grasp on the English language, and no reasoning ability to speak of, so I doubt I’ll get a useful answer to this question, but here goes:
Do you have the slightest speck of evidence that your god, or for that matter ANY god, actually exists? Any evidence at all? Anything?
Changing the subject,
Why is te earth being dated at 4.6 billion years old?
From what I understand the carbon dating that is used is very inaccurate, how can we come up with numbers?
Please don’t respond in hate, just understand that I’m not very well versed in the science of carbon dating.
Officially, a no hate comment-
Whoever has given you this information about radiometric dating hasn’t told you the truth. Whether they were just poorly informed or deliberately dishonest isn’t something I can say right now. But consider these thoughts:
Why do you suspect that carbon dating is inaccurate? What evidence has been offered to you that this is the case?
Since carbon-14 (the radioactive isotope) has a relatively large decay constant (= short half-life), it cannot be used to date things older than about 57,000 years. And since most rocks do not contain very much carbon, carbon dating really can’t be used.
Plate tectonics has caused most of the crust to be recycled, so rocks from the Earth can’t tell us when the planet formed. When we date the rocks from meteorites, using a variety of different chemical systems, we get an age of about 4.57 billion years for all of them within the experimental error.
A good general reference is Brent Dalrymple’s book The Age of the Earth; a serious technical book is Gunter Faure’s Principles of Isotope Geology.
The earth is dated at 4.6 billion years old on the basis of radiometric dating - but not carbon dating.
This: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/WIENS.html is an excellent place to start.
Mhmm, indeed.
Alright, I’ll stay civil…
There are actually many flavors of radiometric dating, since there are many isotopes that have known, stable decay rates.
Radiocarbon dating, which is what people generally mean when they say “carbon dating” tracks the decay of one particular carbon isotope (C14), and is actually very accurate out to about 40,000 years, largely because C14 has a good decay slope for the range, but especially since there are so many artifacts of known age against which to calibrate the curves (things like the Masada ruins and the corpse of Ramses the Great, for example, stuff with an independent date stamp).
But for “deep” time, C14 is useless. The thing that makes it so good for short range dating, it’s decay slope, means that it’s mostly gone by 70,000 years.
For establishing longer dates an array of isotopes are used, depending on the materials available and knowledge of initial conditions (some clocks only start “ticking” after lava cools into solid rock, for example, so they can tell you how old a volcano is, but are useless for establishing the age of the actual magma).
Of particular importance to your question, the age of the earth, is uranium/lead dating, which takes advantage of the multiple breakdown routes (with different half-lives) available for going from a uranium isotope to a lead isotope to insure a degree of cross-checking that allows for measurements to few percent in the 2-4 billion year range.
If you’re actually interested, Wikipedia has some really good background information here and here.
Wow! What a refreshing document!
A technical wrap up, apparently written by a practicing Christian, from a Christian point of view, that, instead of trying to pretend that the simple, objective rules of physics don’t exist, acknowledges them, and then tries to reconcile external reality with internal faith.
I’m impressed.
It would be nice if we could have those sorts of rational discussions here once in a while.
Once in a while WOULD be nice. But how many creationists/devout Christians do we have drop by who can actually hold a civilized conversation?
Update