Talk:Kent Hovind

"Hovind's views, not surprisingly, are challenged by evolutionists."

This has been inserted in the lead four times in the space of 25 minutes by one editor to replace the pre-existing "Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence and research." Edit warring of this sort is frowned upon as per WP:EW. Please discuss the matter here. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 13:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Changes clearly violated WP:NPOV and I have reverted them. Yobol (talk) 13:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside that evolution itself requires a belief that a creator DOES NOT EXIST (as pointed out by some prominent evolutionists,) the statement, "Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence and research" is a blatant POV violation. First, the footnotes to that sentence link to talkorigins.org, which is a pro-evolution site so it is clearly not even an objective source. Second, the footnotes in question from talkorigins misrepresent their sources. In reponse to Hovind's claim that the geological column does not exist anywhere except in textbooks, they state, "John Woodmorappe, a young-earth creationist, has admitted that representative strata from the Cambrian to the Tertiary have been discovered lying in their proper order in Iran, by the Caspian, the Himalayas, Indonesia, Australia, North Africa, Canada, South America, Japan, Mexico, and the Philippines!" However, that statement by talkorigins is contradicted by Mr. Morappe himself who had this to say in an article titled, "The Geologic Column: Does it Exist?" : "Sometimes the motives of creationist researchers are challenged in an attempt to defend the concept of the geologic column. Consider, for instance, Glenn Morton’s tale of how I ‘set out to prove that the geologic column did not exist’, and then was forced to admit that it did. This fantasy has been picked up and repeated by other anti-creationists on the Internet without first checking what I actually wrote. The fact of the matter is, I in no sense tried to prove that the geologic column did not exist. The truth is that I already knew it didn’t! Nor was I in any way surprised to find that there are some places where lithologies attributed to all ten geologic periods can be found. I had known that long before. So had other informed creationists,[9] as pointed out earlier. In fact, I said so plainly on the first page of my article."

"Putting aside that evolution itself requires a belief that a creator DOES NOT EXIST"- This sounds weaselly. The principals of origin of species are independent of religious belief. You may or may not believe in a creator, but your beliefs have no effect on the mechanics and principals of evolution theory.giggle 20:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory.george.lewis (talk • contribs)

Sounds weaselly? No kidding. Most Christians do not have a problem with ToE; The Catholic church, the orthodox church most Lutheran churches and other churches have no problem with it whatsoever.Elvegaro (talk) 13:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Morappe also goes on to say towards the end of his article, "There are a number of locations on the earth where all ten periods of the Phanerozoic geologic column have been assigned. However, this does not mean that the geological column is real. Firstly, the presence or absence of all ten periods is not the issue, because the thickness of the sediment pile, even in those locations, is only a small fraction (8–16% or less) of the total thickness of the hypothetical geologic column. Without question, most of the column is missing in the field. " The Geologic Column: Does It Exist?

Talkorigins then goes on to cite as another peice of evidence a second-hand relay of a phonecall between Edward Babinski and Glenn Morton. the same Glenn Morton who Morappe disputed in the paragraph above. So to say that this is research and scientific evidence is TOTALLY not accurate and clearly point of view. The proper sentence in the first paragraph should read, "Hovind's views, not surprisingly, are challenged by evolutionists," which is a factual and objective sentence. Dimestore (talk) 13:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkorigins is biased (toward evolution, if anyone should ask), but is generally considered to be reliable. Your examples tend to discredit that, but the proper venue is WP:RSN, not vandalism of this page (by replacing the statement by statements not supported by any source) or discussion on this talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. I'll take this up with WP:RSN. Dimestore (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I suspect you're going to have difficulty raising a debate out of this:

1. Kent Hovind denies that the geologic column exists.
2. Talk origins says that other Young-Earth creationists say that it does exist, giving the example of John Woodmorappe.
3. John Woodmorappe says that he's been misrepresented as having been forced to admit that the geologic column exists and says he always said it did.

Note that Woodmorappe is not speaking about this Talk Origins page. He's actually supporting the what is said on the Talk Origins page.

Talk Origins is a reliable source in as much as it accurately reflects the position of scientific orthodoxy on the Creationism/Evolution debate. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 16:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not following you, Catfish. Are you saying Morappe is claiming the geological column exists? Because I have him quoted twice as saying he DENIES its existence. Talk Origins falsely used Woodmorappe as an example of a creationist who says it existed yet Woodmorappe plainly states he denies its existence. So it's really not a matter of debate. Woodmorappe denies the geological column exists, so Talkorigins using him as an example is very disingenuine. This is all the more reason why they need to be removed as a credible source for the POV statement that Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence. Dimestore (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you read the Woodmorappe paper that TOA cites? It's not impossible that Woodmorappe has simply contradicted himself. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Okay, my bad... They're saying he admits its existence, he says he doesn't. They say that he admits:

that representative strata from the Cambrian to the Tertiary have been discovered lying in their proper order in Iran, by the Caspian, the Himalayas, Indonesia, Australia, North Africa, Canada, South America, Japan, Mexico, and the Philippines!

They provide a reference to a paper in Creation Research Science Quarterly 18:46, which I have no direct access to as it's not a journal many serious university libraries hold, at least not in the UK. The abstract is, however, available online:

THE ESSENTIAL NONEXISTENCE OF THE EVOLUTIONARY-UNIFORMITARIAN GEOLOGIC COLUMN: A QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT

JOHN WOODMORAPPE

This article is a systematic and quantitative demonstration of global distributional tendencies of the evolutionary-uniformitarian geologic column. Maps have been drawn to show the worldwide distributions of all ten geologic periods on all seven continents, and such maps have also been drafted to show complete segments of the geologic column in place. Calculations have been performed to measure successional tendencies of geologic periods over the earth. For example, it has been found that two-thirds of the earth's land surface has 5 or fewer of the 10 geologic periods in place, and only 15-20% of the earth's land surface has even 3 geologic periods appearing in "correct" consecutive order. These and similar findings have been briefly related to the Creationist-Diluvialist paradigm.

He appears at least to say that 15-20% of the earth's land surface (which is an enormous amount) displays the geologic column extending over three geologic periods. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 17:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

would you be able to provide a link to that paper, Catfish? I can't seem to find it online. However, the trueorigins page where I got the Woodmorappe quote from makes the same point, too, but he also uses these same findings to explain why he still denies the existence of the geological column. I'm not going to reprint the quotes as they are already a part of this discussion above. But nowhere that I can find does Woodmorappe admit its existence, so my point that TOA falsely represented their case by misusing Woodmorappe as proof is disingenuous, and it needs to be removed as a reliable source, or at least change the sentence that currently stand in the article as it is a POV violation.Dimestore (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

This is the part you're not going to particularly like, Dimestore. I don't think anyone really likes it, but we do have limitations. Even if the information is wrong, it doesn't necessarily get removed. Our job as editors is to report what reliable sources say. If reliable sources say that the moon is made of cheese, we report that the moon is made of cheese, even if we know otherwise. Talk origins may have gotten this tidbit wrong, but even the best of sources don't get absolutely everything right. That doesn't make it unreliable, only imperfect. Top newspaper outlets, which would qualify as reliable, get so much wrong that they have a retraction section in every Sunday paper for correcting errors printed the rest of the week. The point is - TO qualifies as a reliable source and it reported this information, so we report this information, provided it is relevant, and it is.

Truth be told, if you take this information to the Talk origins people, provided your nice as they don't respond well to jerks and its very easy to come across as one online even if you're not trying to be, they might actually listen to you and print a small retraction and correct it, which I know has been done in the past. If they do that, we can then fix it here.Farsight001 (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The dispute is not whether or not TO is a reliable source, but rather using the linked info found on their page is POV and therefore does not prove with scientific evidence the theory of evolution. I have shown that they misrepresented Woodmorappe (who himself addressed how he has been misrepresented,) and have not brought forth infallible evidence for their theory, therefore they cannot be used as proof that scientific evidence has disproved Hovind's views. Thus, my original complaint that the phrase of Hovind's views being contradicted by scientific "evidence" is a POV violation is still valid as the TO footnote does not in anyway shape or form (as as been demonstrated in this discussion) prove the evidence of evolution. My correct statement that Hovind's views are challenged by evolutionists is a valid one, and in no way does it diminish or elevate TO's standings. It is perfectly NPOV and coincides well with the next sentence regarding fellow creationists disputing Hovind. Dimestore (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

All the CRSQ abstracts are here. Woodmorappe states in the absract, in as plain terms as are possible, that the geologic column exists sequentially over three geologic periods over 15-20% of the earth's surface (!). I imagine there's a table in the article where he expands on this. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 18:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I would need to see the actual quote. I know you linked me a page with a bunch of links. If you can tell me which one in particular it is, it will make my search easier. But what you're saying he said coincides with what he stated in his trueorigins page, where he also goes on to say that since no complete geological column exists today we cannot prove it ever did. It still not a good example used by Talkorigins to somehow prove their theory.Dimestore (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Rather silly calling it "their theory". The theory of the geologic column demonstrating ancient Earth and past eras belongs to many scientists, including very prominently the Reverend Adam Sedgwick, who as it happens was very much opposed to theories of evolution. . . dave souza, talk 19:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I pasted the entire abstract above. There is no further material available on the CRSQ website. The paper is referenced fully in the Talk Origins article, they even give the specific page on which Woodmorappe gives examples of instances where the geologic column extends from the Cambrian to the Tertiary. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 20:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Proponents of Theistic Evolution would disagree with the assertion that "evolution itself requires a belief that a creator DOES NOT EXIST". --grummerx (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it is blatantly false to say that "...evolution itself requires a belief that a creator DOES NOT EXIST". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has gone far afield. "Evolutionists" is not a word (at least, not one that anyone but creationists use), so it won't be added to the article- the word itself is a violation of the neutral point of view policy. Right now, the best available scientific consensus is that Hovind's views are contradicted by evidence and research. It isn't a violation of the neutral point of view policy to report the scientific consensus; science is the best available source of information on... well... science. Hovind is making claims about science. Those claims are contradicted by all the available evidence. That Hovind is wrong is not Wikipedia's fault. If you'd like to remove this sentence from the lede, all you need to do is demonstrate that the scientific consensus has changed. If you just want the article to indicate that Hovind might be right, we can't do that unless there's good reason to think that's true. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

And it's not only atheist "evolutionists" or scientists anyway. A large number of the world's Christians accept evolution and believe Hovind is wrong. For example, I'm not sure of the RC church's official position, but it's been reasonably good at accepting scientific progress (albeit perhaps a bit reluctantly and belatedly), and I certainly know a good number of UK Catholics (and UK Anglicans) who accept evolution. In fact, even a lot of Creationists believe that a lot of what Hovind says is blatant nonsense, and find him an embarrassment. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we may be missing the main issue here... the statement is in the lead and has probably had the references appended as a result of a {{citation needed}} tagging. There is no need to have a statement in the lead referenced if it is a summarization of text in the main body. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 22:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The sentence summarizes points raised in "The 'Hovind Theory'", "Hovind's $250,000 offer > Responses", "Criticism" and "Controversial Remarks > Science". I agree the sourcing in the lead can be removed, once the page is unprotected. I think it was likely added because it is extremely common for creationists to come onto this page and attack that sentence, particularly if it doesn't have any refs close by. However, given the large amount of space we've given in the article to expanding on the specifics of that statement, the appropriate response should be "read the article".   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

“Evolutionist” is a derogatory term, so even assuming a legitimate beef with the prior statement or reference, the new wording would be unacceptable.… — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 10:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not think so. What is a chemist? Or a biologist? I do not think evolutionist is a derogatory term. It is simply someone who is concerned with evolutionMmallico (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Would you say Hovind is an evolutionist? He seems quite concerned with analyzing and discussing it and claiming to study things related to it. But it more direct response, our article on evolutionism even has refs to support that the term "evolutionist" does have connotations other than the direct meaning when used in topics related to creationism. Which this article is. DMacks (talk) 14:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no such professional title as evolutionist. You present chemist and biologist? You have clearly not bothered to learn what the BIOLOGICAL definition of Evolution is. The closest thing you might get is zoologist. Creationists use the term EVOLUTIONIST to mean anyone who accepts any science which contradicts their claims or views (i.e. religion or politics) which do not meet theirs EXACTLY. They then lump all this into a "world-view"/religion they call EVOLUTIONISM. Even if someone does not accept all aspects they still label them EVOLUTIONISTS and claim "well then you must believe .....". Oddly you can be a Christian but not accept a young Earth. It's a derogatory term. Spin it anyway you like but your Palin/Bachmann-esque revision will get you nowhere fast. Lastly, coining the term EVOLUTIONISM was an attempt to classify it as a religion and get evolution thrown out of science classes. 75.92.195.155 (talk) 02:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Bad Creation Arguments?

The reference link to Dr. Dino's rebuttal (# 66 as of September 14, 2011, titled "bad creation arguments?") has been blocked by a robot.txt line. I have found a duplicate of the piece, but didn't want to mess with the current effort put into making an archived link of the original.

Here's the url to the piece as put up by "mirror website" www.godrules.com , for anyone who wants to update the link:

http://www.godrules.net/drdino/FAQcreationevolution1.htm

173.210.137.242 (talk) 08:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Made Beginning Paragraphs More Nuetral

The opening paragraph was not nuetral leaning toward one theory then the other. Altered it to state just the facts without rhetoric on what the writer thought was the correct theory. Lucky Foot (talk) 11:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to be neutral with respect to the fact that evolution is about as much in question as gravity by scientists. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

@Lucky foot: When it comes to pseudoscientific fringe "theories" like creationism, WP articles are written from the mainstream scientific point of view as presented by qualified experts in the field in reliable secondary sources per WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT and WP:GEVAL. It is not "neutral" to present fringe theories without mentioning them as such, and without presenting mainstream criticism of them. Your understanding of what "neutral" means on WP is seriously flawed. Please familiarize yourself with the WP policies listed above. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

@Dbrodbeck: Sir, thank you for your response, but I do want to point out that Evolution makes about as many assumptions as Creationism does and Creationism doesn't count as a fringe theory as it's been around longer than Evolution. When it comes down to bare bones, Evolution makes as many assumptions as Creationism does about the origin of life and reality and so one cannot be considered over the other. That is how I approached my edit. Have a great day! Lucky Foot (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

A flat earth hypothesis has been around longer than a sphere so.... Please read WP:FRINGE, we reflect sources, and the sources show over and over again that evolution is accepted. Time to move on. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

"Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence and research." is not a neutral point of view (NPOV), and needs revision.MichaelDThorpe (talk) 11:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Please review WP:WEIGHT. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hovind's views *are* contradicted by scientific evidence and research - it's factual and well-supported by reliable sources. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Diamagnetism and The Hovind Theory

Since Hovind's theory is that ice concentrated near the poles because of it's magnetic properties, it would then seem relevant to mention that water (and thus ice) is diamagnetic. Diamagnetism creates an opposition to a magnetic field, thus the ice would have concentrated in all other areas of the earth except for the northern and southern poles, assuming Hovinds theory to be correct. Jarrod1937 (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

If we want to challenge his theory in that way, I think we'd have to find a reliable source making that actual challenge - we can't add our own reasoning -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 February 2012

It is clear from the tone and text of this page that the editor of it really hates Kent Hovind. Please fix this page. If you, the editor, hold different views than Kent Hovind...then pass the editing of the page off to someone less hostile to the page topic.

71.96.9.60 (talk) 01:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

N Not done No specific wording proposed. Edit-protected clearly instructs you to give the actual text you want, not to merely state your opinion on the current text. DMacks (talk) 02:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Have to be more specific. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)