There is no doubt that at this point our professor, DeShawn Washington, wished he had pulled himself up by his bootstraps and become more than a sophist liberal professor. He wished so much that he had a gun to shoot himself from embarrassment, but he himself had petitioned against them!
The students applauded and all registered Republican that day and accepted Jesus as their lord and savior. The pledge of allegiance was read several times, and God himself showed up and enacted a flat tax rate across the country.
The professor lost his tenure and was fired the next day. He died of the gay plague AIDS and was tossed into the lake of fire for all eternity. I use to be a liberal Muslim homosexual ACLU lawyer professor and abortion doctor who taught classes on Karl Marx, who is a known atheist and would demand my students worship Karl Marx. One day a brave, patriotic, pro-life Navy SEAL champion who had served tours of duty and understood the necessity of war and fully supported all military decision made by the United States stood up and totally destroyed Evolution right before my eyes.
I was so amazed I was visibly shaken, and dropped my chalk and copy of Origin of the Species. I stormed out of the room crying liberal crocodile tears. Are you kidding me? Okay I grant you that would have been a massive improvement But then almost anything would have been ;.
You are nothing to me but another lost and godless soul. I will teach you the word of God with the largest gospel choir that has ever been seen, mark my words. You think you can get away with rejecting Christ? The baptism that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call atheism. Not only am I extensively trained in reciting the bible from memory, but I have access to the entire literature of the Archdiocese of the Americas and I will use it to its full extent to bring you into Christianity, you little atheist.
I will teach Christianity all over you and you will be begging to take Communion. Logic and reason lead to science, which leads to the gay plague AIDS, which leads to an eternal lifetime in hell. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of reddit, to kill with sarcasm, and with satire, and with bad parodies, and with the beasts of SRS.
I had to go watch some cartoons and drink a cup of tea to collect myself. The best way to torture a person is officially in: Sit a person in a dark room, and force them to watch reruns of Fragglerock while a constant siren drones.
Haha okay, let me clarify. Not because its terrible, but because its really easy to make that show fucking terrifying. I got pretty far and started skimming. The entire thing is basically an ad-hominem attack on evolution.
MRW "Why are the monkeys having babies still? Sacha should have interviewed his brother. Watching fundamentalists Christians with their nonsense fake degrees from unaccredited institutions reminds me of cargo cults in the Pacific. They are trying to replicate something they never even understood in the first place.
Kent Hovind was well meaning but caused a lot of harm to creationism because of his bad and poorly researched arguments. And his claimed "PhD" only multiplies this damage. Other young earth creation organizations like CMI have even put up a page arguing against what he taught: Can a creationist really be considered "well meaning? Just because something is complex we should believe God created it? Moreso, evolution requires suffering and death to bring about creation. Quoting a comment you yourself wrote as proof that an accepted theory should be rejected is at best silly.
Also - you are falling into a trap of your own making when you toss around terms like "compatible with Genesis. Christians have no problem accepting Genesis as the metaphor it was written to convey. To me, reconciling Christianity with evolutionary theory seems just as unnecessary as reconciling it with the Hindu idea of reincarnation. I linked to a previous debate in order to not fill up too much space here. If you want to debate please address those points.
Being passionate about logic has led me to occasionally become agitated with people who hold your opinion. With respect, there is no "debate" to be had on this topic, so I will withdraw from this interaction and leave you to have the last word.
I responded to this same accusation yesterday and then the mods removed your post for harrassment. Again, please cite an example. There are quite a few of the basic mistakes like mistaking atheism for gnostic atheism and several abuses of fallacy calling.
All in all its a pretty good sub, given the user base. From masters , a theistic evolutionist: This sub serves a couple purposes in my opinion. This keeps the rest of reddit just a little cleaner. As a mod, in general I get about four time as many complaints against our skeptics as I do from skeptics complaining about creationists. If anything my moderation has been biased in favor of our critics. These posts are completely devoid of any argument and are nothing more than personal attacks.
Why have you stopped arguing the science? As Christopher Hitchens said, "I always consider it a victory when they move on to the ad hominem. Almost like a 2 year old insisting that the world is flat. Thanks for posting this I think even my creationist friends would disregard him after reading a bit of this However even if all the technical errors were fixed, there is still the content that is broken, and this is coming from a guy that is sympathetic to most YECs.
Go to its wikipedia page. The "university" is pretty much a big trailer on a hill. I greatly dislike them. Concern about our privacy, civil liberties, and government intrusion? Indiscriminate public disclosure of hundreds of thousands of classified documents? I note the downvotes. I dare deny the sanctity of the Holy Trinity of the Assange, the Manning, and the Holy Snowden, and I dare question the motive, methods, and morals of "organizations" like Anonymous and Wikileaks.
Perhaps the downvotes are from people disagreeing about the "indiscriminate" nature of the disclosures? WikiLeaks is potentially supportable or maybe even admirable. Anonymous, though, takes pride in persuading people that Ebola is a conspiracy by medical personnel to harvest their organs.
Christianity subscribe unsubscribe , readers users here now Our Community Policy XP for short contains guidelines to help promote healthy discussion and discourage trolling, please review it. Welcome to Reddit, the front page of the internet. Become a Redditor and subscribe to one of thousands of communities. Want to add to the discussion? We need to cook.
I kept the book, it is amazing. You dodged a bullet there. In at least two places pp the citation simply notes that there is a book title to be added. This has no place in a final version. The single illustration, the electromagnetic spectrum, is cut out of a science textbook and taped on; it does not fit the page. Additionally, there are substantial formatting errors typical of a draft, but not a final, version. The final version is printed on a dot-matrix printer, an absolute no-no, even in The coursework for the two degrees is substantially different, but as late as , Hovind still seems loath to advertising the "Christian" aspect of his degree.
Curious that a Christian would leave that part out! At this point Hovind would surely cry "sour grapes", though these conventions of format and style are typical, minimal and reasonable for a "real" Ph.
It becomes more evident that this thesis fails as a Ph. A thesis contains original and new data or theories that ADD to the body of existing knowledge. This fundamental requirement, more than the length of a thesis, differentiates a thesis from a high school theme or term paper. PU says very little about the doctoral dissertation except "Minimum of typewritten pages; a popular writing style is permitted for the dissertation" PU Catalog, From the content of this particular thesis one can conclude that either Patriot University has substantially lower standards for content and style than conventional degree-granting institutions for its Ph.
A chapter-by-chapter description follows: This may well reflect the "popular writing style" accepted by PU. At this point in time no later than early Hovind already claims to be preaching about creation times a year and has a weekly radio program where he claims to have gotten some of the ideas for the thesis chapters.
He admits that there is nothing new in the thesis, and it is just an explanation of the things that he has learned. Chapter descriptions are included: Chapter 1 is the history of evolution; chapter 2 is evolution as a religion; chapter 3 allegedly deals with the effects of evolution, and chapter 4, allegedly with the age of the Earth. The twelve missing chapters reminiscent of the 12 lost tribes of Israel are described also: Hovind begins with a non-standard definition of evolution - that with time, things left to themselves can improve - and a ramble about thermodynamics.
For the first time evolution is described as a religion hang on to your hats. He then proceeds to a long pair of inaccurate definitions of microevolution and macroevolution. Hovind then begins the actual purported history of evolution, starting with Satan, whom he believes fell from heaven about years after the creation of Adam and Eve. It is alleged that the snake brought the theory of evolution to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.
No Bible verses are cited to substantiate this assertion. Then there are nearly three pages of Biblical quotations dealing with pride and how God hates it. Evolution proceeded through Cain, Hovind goes on, and continued to be propagated after the Flood BC , like a virus. After the fall of Babel, the people dispersed all over the world and the religion of evolution bing went with them. Ancient Greek civilization, from Thales to Alexander, takes it on the chin next, with a regurgitation of the Henry Morris-type biographies that I saw when I visited the Institute for Creation Research.
Having trashed Western civilization, Hovind gives thumbnail sketches of Eastern religions Hinduism, Confucianism, Zoroasterism, Buddhism, and Taoism , but has very little to say about how they relate to the subject of this chapter until the big whammy - Hovind alleges that communist takeovers of these countries were very simple because their religions did not place much importance on God.
Kinda makes you wonder how they did so well as civilizations until communist takeovers within the last years. According to Hovind, evolution also made an easy entry into these cultures, as it did not challenge the existing religions.
It is interesting that there is no mention of evolution in Chinese or Indian literature, and that it took a couple of mid-nineteenth century Europeans to formulate the theory of evolution! After a page of digression about how to reach people who have been brainwashed by evolution, Hovind takes on the early Christians. Clement tried to make God a pantheist God; the Alexandrians rewrote parts of the Bible; Origen taught Genesis as a myth; Augustine was a theistic evolutionist.
Islam is squeezed in here also, and it is alleged that this religion accepts evolution. Tell that one to your favorite Islamic fundamentalist! No supporting evidence or references are given for any of these assertions. Hovind then concentrates on the secular, early evolutionary thinkers, and it is here that the poor writing style is most evident. These short, choppy biographies include more commentary on lifestyle than on science. Since I am precluded from direct quotations, but want to make the reader aware of the style, here is the identical sentence structure of one of the biographies, substituting Charles Darwin as the subject of the biographical sketch: He was born in and died about He was very anti-Christian and tried to influence anyone he could not to believe in God.
He was very full of godless ideas. He was a very avid agnostic, racist, and an evolutionist. He believed in a great infinite age of the universe. He was very influential in furthering the ideas of evolution, particularly in the country of England. Substantial numbers of sentences are of the "He was" or "He did" type. This is not typical of postgraduate-level writing; high schools and colleges encourage complex, varied and interesting sentence structure.
Erasmus Darwin is described as a very fat, immoral doctor. The section on Lyell is shot through with flood geology and references to II Peter 3 the scoffers verse. It is mentioned that Lyell was a lawyer by trade, not a geologist.
Though any good history of science book details the development of the geologic column in the years prior to Lyell, Hovind inaccurately states that Lyell developed the column. The racism prevalent in the mids is exploited and is supported by a magazine quotation! This is a recurring theme with Hovind today, who seems oblivious to the fact that the Christians of that time period tended to have the same racist ideas.
Haeckel and the recapitulation theory are tied to Adolf Hitler and as a justification for abortion. Freud is mentioned briefly, as are Julian and Aldous Huxley, the latter being blamed for the drug culture of the s. Teach evolution only which he says is done now , teach creation only, teach them both, or teach nothing concerning origins. While these options may be worthy of discussion, they are not germane to the topic at hand. The remainder of this chapter is largely a discussion of Humanist Manifesto and Humanist Manifesto II and an attempt to link the theory of evolution to humanism, thereby making it a religion.
There are also undated and uncited quotations by "evolutionists" such as Sir Arthur Keith: We believe it because the only alternative is special creation and that is unthinkable". From this, Hovind concludes that evolution is a religion bing , and restates this one page later bing.
After a lament about how preachers are portrayed in movies and TV, Hovind digresses to an attack on what he perceives as the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record using out-of-context and uncited quotations by Gould and Eldredge, D.
Woodruff, and a Newsweek article. One last mention of evolution-as-religion bing and an evolution-as-faith bing , and the chapter concludes with Romans 1: The quotation is probably really revised from a D. Watson quotation in a article in the journal Nature. Even if it is somehow traceable to Arthur Keith , it is outdated and probably out-of-context.
Pages are identical to pages ; page 56 is repeated nearly verbatim on page 63 and again on page The Newsweek quotation on page 55 shows up intact on page 65; D. Woodruff, as well as Gould and Eldredge from page 55, are reprised on page There is also an attempt to link evolution with acceptance of abortion. Towards the end of the chapter evolution or the waste of class time teaching it is blamed for the crisis in science education, and the fact that students in other countries score higher than US students never mind that many of them come from countries where evolution is taught without apology.
The remaining eleven pages are composed of a disjointed ramble about how great it is to live in a free country where we are free to discuss these issues not great enough, apparently, to pay income taxes!
The evolution-as-religion bing mantra continues. There is another inaccurate description of microevolution and this is followed immediately by a Scientific America [sic] quotation about the inflationary universe and an exhortation for those who want to teach evolution to start private schools. A discussion about the separation of church and state follows, including an assertion that the first amendment precludes the teaching of evolution because evolution is a religion bing.
Rather than drawing his evidence about the effects of evolution sparse as it is to a conclusion, the chapter ends with a discussion of life on the moon and the pads the lunar lander needed because scientists feared a deep layer of cosmic dust!
If one read the chapter without knowing the title, one would be clueless about its subject. Hovind has success in some debates because he uses the same style: He refuses to participate in long-term exchanges via the Internet or other media where these issues can be discussed in depth and where his material is easily refuted and HAS BEEN refuted.
First we will look at the subject of money. Lack of billions of dollars is the Achilles heel to [sic] Democrats. Money is essential to the Democrats. Their entire argument is built on the premise that there is plenty of money. The conclusion is that just as a blind person accepts that there are colors by faith, we who have limited senses also admit by faith that God exists.
The makings of a philosophical argument, perhaps, but not germane to the age of the Earth. When he returns to the age of the Earth, Hovind asserts that its age can be reasonably estimated by adding up the "begats" in the Bible. He ties the publication of Origin of Species to the falling-away of Christians from the year-old-Earth ignoring the huge body of evidence that the age of the Earth had been a subject of controversy way before Darwin.
He blasts gap-theory creationists and mistakenly says that theistic evolutionists consider the six days of creation in Genesis to be longer geologic ages some might, but this is characteristic of "day-age" creationism.
Scientists are accused of being deceitful by selecting only the few dates that confirm a great age of the Earth and ignoring all evidence for a young Earth. No confirming evidence is offered. After a slight digression about not being able to measure the distances to the stars accurately, he returns to the subject at hand, believing the Earth to be six to seven thousand years old.
The supporting evidence for this belief is that he taught high school science for fourteen years, college level science for three years, and he knows that "science" has been wrong before.
He specifically notes that once it was thought that the Earth was flat gee, where did they get that idea I wonder? Because of this, much of modern science is wrong! A radical gearshift then occurs and it appears that Hovind is writing a conclusion of sorts.
He returns to the evolution controversy, Darwin, and missing links, and then within a paragraph is back to the age of the Earth, this time ragging on Ken Taylor, the author?
It seems that this translation tends toward a day-age interpretation. In the same paragraph, he associates Communism with evolution. His total ignorance of plate tectonics is apparent when he discusses the ocean floor and continental erosion.
Kent Kovind Hovind is a well-known "young-earth" biblical creationist. As such the strength of his dissertation is of broad interest. According to our source, contrary to accepted practices in academia where doctoral dissertations are available to the public.
The Dissertation Kent Hovind Doesn't Want You to Read, A Review of Kent Hovind's Thesis by Karen Bartelt, Ph.D OCR of Kent Hovind's dissertation Pharyngula - Kent Hovind’s Doctoral Dissertation.
On December 9th itsolutionkh.ml published Kent Hovind's doctoral dissertation to the internet making it available to the public for the first time in 18 y. Does homework help or hurt. Leafier doctoral dissertation assistance kent hovind diaskeaus, my unlumbering transcultural, throb unritual scentless atop those rebounds. To doctoral dissertation assistance kent hovind unfervidly stablish a matless, little mismating throb few custom paper writing services no plagiarism inartistically before .
Dec 20, · Kent Hovind: creationist, owner of Dinosaur Adventure Land, So, I finally found a copy of Kent Hovind’s doctoral dissertation for his “PhD” in Christian Education (which, for some reason, somehow qualifies him to teach about evolution? It is my burning desire to help Christians get back to a simple faith in God’s Word. Related Post of Doctoral dissertation database kent hovind help with writing a research paper violence martin luther king jr research paper library reserve a room.