near as I can tell, pretty much everything Hovind has to say about evolution is reasonable. One good example is the question of bodies in our own system with retrograde spin and in that sort of area,
Thats the problem
"'As near as you can tell" seems to be something that is based upon a very limited knowledge base . How can you assert "reasonableness of a position" when you seemingly understand very little about its non-scientific basis?. Even an earth of 10 million years old is a geophysically stupid conclusion and a physical/chemical impossibility. We have conclusive physical evidence of the deposition and erosional rate within any single specimen formation that exceeds 10 million years.(AND, there are hundreds, if not several hundreds of such strata proceeding in ages from Ur to the Holocene)
Also, we have successive deposition and erosion and folding of successive strata atop and beneath such specimen beds that can be dated by several INDEPENDENT means
1. physically (remnant magnetics, alpha tracking,etc)
2 chemically,(flouride analyses, radiochemistry, stable isotope ratios, thin section analyses)
3. biologically (fossil assemblages species and distribution, plant fossil structure, fossil anatomical structure through layers).
4. Paleogeography-From UR
we can trace the existence and motility of the huge superlandmasses and the Panthalassian seas that accompanied these super landmasses through time. We use polar geometric solutions and geophysical evidence to show how these land masses moved and split aoart and coalesced (this is a mature science , that is as utilitarian a tool as is "land surveying" (which uses the same polar geometry as paleogeography)
ALl these are INDEPENDENT areas of evidence that conclude the earths age and , so far, they havent diverged in NAY findings at all, in fact, each independent science coincidentally reinforces ALL of the others. (DOES THIS, in your mnind mean that all these independent scientists and "Customers of technology-like me" are all basically being duped by some error filled mass of technology?
Each one of the above techy areas are independent of any of the others. (MAybe the one area of dependency is in the use of remnant magnetism and radioisotope evidence , all depend on a single value of "c", and another area would be the use of Snells Law in both geophysics and geochemistry-but those are minor interactions with independent uses of similar mathematics).
Im curious though, Do you deny the fact that light from a distant star seems to conclude that the universe is quite old? Or do you conclude that "C" is a variable? And by what laws of optical physics and paralax do you conclude that such dates are in error?
If the earth is anywhere from 1 to 10 million years old, how do you base your really wide disagreement with all the evidence that shows it is much older?
Remnant magnetism layers of rocks show us in stratigraphy that magnetic and diamagnetic minerals align themsleves with the planets magnetic poles (including inclination,declination, and polar reversal) during their deposition and then later realign themselves at the time that these same sediments begin to harden and fold (so we have 2 roadmaps per layer ) and these many hundreds of layers upon layers have given us another deep time calendar that is dependably accurate for all sorts of geological applications. (CAN YOUR ASSUMPTIONS HOLD UP TO DAILY USE FOR MINING OR DRILLING ?--HAve you even asked such honest questions?-Do you even know what to look for?) I use (daily) the findings of geoscience and find that it has NOT let me down EVER and Ive done exploration work all over with little knowldege except general geo mapping work done by others and conclusional statements and reports of these areas. (Using several of these findings, I use other knowledge to conclude that certain resources show an affinity for several of these geological ages and horizons-Ive never been duped yet by relying upon the published literature--HOWS YOUR"CREATIONIST LITERATURE" WORKIN OUT FOR YOU?)
Ad hominem attacks on the subject of outrageous assertions("dr" Hovind) is valid in this occasion because Hovind is preaching a form of "personal science" and is doing it as an AUTHORITY with something worth listening to (and its all gobbledegook because weve listened to his "Sermons".HIS own data can neither be observed, nor used in projection or fed into an equation searching for a conclusion in geoscience according to Hovind. This is fraud, but if you are ignorant of where his blatant misrepresentations and error filled statements occur, youd be fooled as a simple minded accolyte.
For example,in 2009 a bunch of Creationists followers of another Creatinonist, "Dr"Kenneth A Ham (founder of "Answers in Genesis") "broke into" the GEological SOciety of AMerica's annual meeting in Denver. They presented an abstract and proposal for a field trip.
re: a field trip was proposed to analyze the Navajo Sandstone and several other formations that exist in the Grand Canyon and the Colorado Plateau. Their abstract was relatively mild with no "Biblical Conclusions". HOWEVER, When they got in to the field, 2 of the "Answers In Genesis" shills led the field trip and began by stating that the Navajp sandstone at that point was clear evidence for the "Flood".
Fortunaltely SOme grad students were among the field trip assembly and they began to insist that the field trip leaders explain why they conveniently were ignoring that showed that several inter-layered formations within the field trip's "strat column" proved that these "intermediate layers" were sand dunes .
How could we have a series of desert sand -dunes within a "Flood Sequence"?
The field trip leaders conceded that "standard analyses would have interpreted these as sand dunes" but that their analyses showed these sand-dune intervals were really " little islands" that poked out during the Flood.
Of course, These "Little islands" were about the size of several states and lasted several million years long (based upon remnant magnetism and stable isotope ratios within the rocks). Why didnt Noah just hove to and anchor ? Thats what I call fraud and attempted deceit fostered by a bunch of clowns with an agenda that denies any and all science.
I was wondering why some God, who is portrayed as "All loving" would be ******* with our heads by strewing all this interlocking evidence from several independent sciences that clearly show the earth is quite old (4.48 Billion years by present calculations). Why does he do this and what does it show about his character?
Hovinds colleagues and followers (Ham ,Austen, Johnston,Myers etc etc). all have a single agenda in mind and insist on inerrancy in Biblical writings. Science has no such agenda except to find means to assist in making things like mineral exploration more of an exact science than a mere "shot in the dark" Findings about evolution are the results of field works with other goals in mind and have since, become study areas in their own rights. Paleontology has a huge impact in geological exploration. Youd think wed want to make our tools as reliable as we can so we dont waste a lot of money . ( A typical deep horizon oil or gas well can run up to several huindred million dollars and the gas wells in Pa fields can run over 10 million each. I wonder whether any of these guys rely upon "dr" Hovinds conclusions and assertions?). I can guarantee that, if they did, the price of a gallon of gasoline wouldnt be just 5 to 10 dollars, itd be more like 500 bucks a gal
As far as conflating Cosmological features (such as your retrograde spin issue) with geological findings and organic evolution, Id suggest you step back and try to not confuse data from one area and apply it in another (especially when you have several major scientific errors in your assertions (that the earth is 1 to 10 million years old , and theres evidence of a worldwide "Flood") Your arguments are more like the following conclusion based upon a "big Lie" where;
"Since the moon is made of Green Cheese, we cannot accept the findings in organic evolution". I know that youre doing this to merely "Stir the pot". I will, however, merely discuss my area of interest and make sure that you are brought back to the subject of organic evolution and earth history, so you arent being obvious in your art of"silly" conflation.
Because you follow the teachings of Hovind as "Reasonable", that statement takes you out of the assembly of the reasonably minded and , instead, puts you into the "looney fringe" in my evidence based mind.
You discount and deny so much of science that its confusing to me why you even bother discussing this subject. Since you dont need anything from standard science in your mythology, whats your point ? You cannot evidence anything you assert, you are only using gainsay to try to deny anything that is accepted evidence. There is so much that you dont appear to know that its kinda sad really.
B ut, Ill still be here to read your posts even though you seem to to assert your beliefs based upon nothing convincing (so far, however, theres always hope). You seem to gravitate towards the ridiculous fringe theories and the :coast to Coast" arguments and guests of GEorge Nori (BTW, even George Nori often makes a stamenet of proviso that hes only doing this stuff for entertaiment and that he persoally doesnt "buy" whatever is presented to his audience) However, his audience, the lovable gullible fools, usually buy everything from the theory of Obama being an ARab "plant" to the interbreeding of humans with aliens some time in the past.
You rely upon apparent " dubiously accredited authorities" who are single and unique in their positions . However most all of these guys have one thig in common , Biblical Inerrancy. They profess unscientific beliefs despite what all-other scientific evidence shows. Ya cant really argue with density like that, cause they are always yelling " DONT TELL ME ABOUT ANY EVIDENCE CAUSE I CANT HEAR YOU< I CANT HEAR YOU". They insisst on this position no matter what science presents in evidence and even despite the fact that ALL these scientific conclusions are upheld by physical laws.