re: "Dr" Dino Kent Hovind...
1) Dinosaurs and man did not coexist. The evidence for this is so vast, so encompassing, and so clear that to build one's career upon this issue is mind boggling.
2) His supposed PhD is from Patriot University. There is no such thing. It was a diploma mill from some guy's garage. He has no CV, did no work for it. It's fake, it's a lie. It's not real. This is indefensible. And widely documented on the internet.
3) A simple google search, something you must be firewalled against, provided this as the first hit. It seems to be written by a creationist (though I'm not sure) and one who was taken in by Hovind's charisma.
http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/housechu/hovind.htm
Let me know if you actually read it... maybe I need to post it's full text here.
Summary: Kent Hovind is neither a PhD and he is a liar and a tax cheat.
No, it isn't clear. It might be clear in light of the theory of evolution; but, it isn't otherwise clear that such is the case. And I don't believe that Hovind built his career on this notion. His career appears to have been built mainly on his background as a teacher.
2) His supposed PhD is from Patriot University. There is no such thing. It was a diploma mill from some guy's garage. He has no CV, did no work for it. It's fake, it's a lie. It's not real. This is indefensible. And widely documented on the internet.
I know people who got degrees in computer sciences from NCR and similar outfits who know just about as much about computers as I do now. I don't find that this invalidates what they know. I'd have to investigate further; but, I'm not terribly interested beyond the appearance that this is being used to sidestep his arguments rather than deal with them. He could be Bill Clinton, that doesn't persay invalidate his case anymore than I would argue Being a Catholic Pope would invalidate anything he said. I would argue that both reputations would require a careful critique of what they are saying - not who they are. People screw up in life. That doesn't mean we invalidate them for being screw ups at some point in their life. The information they present is what we have to look at. And not liking the information is not the same as it being wrong.
3) A simple google search, something you must be firewalled against, provided this as the first hit. It seems to be written by a creationist (though I'm not sure) and one who was taken in by Hovind's charisma.
I don't think that's particularly necessary unless we're going to change topic to Kent Hovind, I'm happy to read it. And at this point, I have. So you've discredited the man; but, not what he said. Or are we to assume this guy may have been a plant setup specifically in hopes that discrediting him would discredit what he says.. lol. What he actually says comes from another source for which he gives credit. So, I guess we're at this point left with the material he presents.. right.