The amount of Helium 4 in the atmosphere, divided by the formation rate on earth, gives only 175,000 years. (God may have created the earth with some helium which would reduce the age more.)
Notice that the beginnings of this "proof" doesn't support Hovind's claimed Earth age. Hovind then invokes the supernatural to overcome this flaw.
LOL It doesn't support Hovind's claimed earth age? Does it support evolution's claimed earth age? 175,000 is a lot closer to 6000 than 6,000,000,000.
There is nothing there that actually supports evolution in these links.
In addition I heard from Ken Ham's mouth that he doesn't have that big a problem with Kent Hovind - they were just recommendations. But atheists don't balk at using Ken Ham (answers in genesis) to put Hovind down. However try to get them to actually consider Ken Ham's main message about creation, and they will crucify him just as badly as they try to crucify Hovind.
I would not consider Ken Ham's message about anything. The man disgusts me.
You know, it looks bad to simply make up stuff like that.
Some would even call it a sin.
Only because you "see" what you *want* to see, instead of what's actually there.
It's stuff like this:
[Hovind:] The amount of Helium 4 in the atmosphere, divided by the formation rate on earth, gives only 175,000 years. (God may have created the earth with some helium which would reduce the age more.)
[response:] Notice that the beginnings of this "proof" doesn't support Hovind's claimed Earth age. Hovind then invokes the supernatural to overcome this flaw. LOL It doesn't support Hovind's claimed earth age?
That's correct, it doesn't. Hovind wants to try to "support" an age of the Earth of 6000 years, but his *own argument* produces an age thirty times too large!
Does it support evolution's claimed earth age? 175,000 is a lot closer to 6000 than 6,000,000,000.
Excuse me for being blunt, but if you're not going to even bother to READ the material, why are you attempting to critique it (and thus making a fool of yourself)?
The material you quote out of context GOES ON TO EXPLAIN how and why Hovind's "method" is useless for ANY sort of age determination, and why Hovind's stupid "analysis" reveals a fundamental ignorance on Hovind's part of several of the most BASIC things in the field he's attempting to "analyze".
Try reading for *comprehension* and *learning*, Terriergal, and not for the first *excuse* you can find to hand-wave away the material without risk to your preconceptions.
There is nothing there that actually supports evolution in these links.
Nor did I say that it did. Duh. Hint for the reading-impaired: The links document ERRORS AND DISHONESTIES IN HOVIND'S MATERIAL. It doesn't need to "actually support evolution" in order to identify Hovind's incompetence and dishonesty.
and they will crucify him just as badly as they try to crucify Hovind.
Yawn. No one is "trying to crucify Hovind". We're pointing out the unreliability (to put it mildly) of Hovind's "educational materials".
If you still want to teach your children these known falsehoods, however, that's your choice, and so is the damage you're doing to their education. And to be frank, it could damage their relationship with you and with their faith as well, because eventually they will go out into the world, learn some real science, and discover Mom was feeding them lies about science in the name of God. How do you think they'll react to that?