Pharyngula

Posted by: Glen Davidson | December 9, 2009 12:18 PM

Oh wow, at least it appears that he's "sincere" (a mindless dupe), and quite possibly incapable of understanding the simple and easy case for evolution.

Does he tell us that he's 28 and a half, as well?

Btw, the verbal form is "breathe," not "breath."

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | December 9, 2009 12:19 PM

... 'kay, but which rev is this?

(/Isn't Hovind the guy who keeps saying he's revising it/adding to it/it's not ready yet? Or is that another creonut?)

Posted by: NoFear | December 9, 2009 12:25 PM

No wonder he didn't want it made public.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | December 9, 2009 12:26 PM

Actually, in the bathroom at the NCSE office.

Are all the pages still intact ?

Posted by: tubi | December 9, 2009 12:30 PM

I think he used the same kind of printer I used in 1991 to make ASCII pictures of boobies. Which of us was making better use of technology?

Posted by: Teshi | December 9, 2009 12:31 PM

Hey, I can write at a middle school level and make stuff as I go along, where's MY doctorate?

My favourite bit is when he says to understand evolution, we have to understand the author, and then goes on to give a lovely biography of Satan.

Posted by: Dexter M. | December 9, 2009 12:36 PM

I'm not sure if I should be laughing or crying and laughing...

Posted by: Abdul Alhazred | December 9, 2009 12:37 PM

What is Doctor Hovind a doctor of, again?

Posted by: Valdyr | December 9, 2009 12:38 PM

Here's the end, for people who were curious:

"These honest questions deserve an honest answer. I believe we have been lied to about the age of the earth. Satan, the father of all lies, has come up with this one to try to make a fool of Jesus Christ. Jesus said in Matthew 19:4 that the creation of Adam and Eve was the beginning. I believe Jesus was right."

Goofy underlining for emphasis his. One of the "honest questions" from the preceding paragraph was, "Why don't we have people writing about kings that lived fifty thousand years ago?", which is a question about of the same level as, "Why didn't A. afarensis hunt with submachineguns?"

Posted by: Dexter M. | December 9, 2009 12:38 PM

It keeps getting better(worse).
"To really understand the history of evolution, we have to understand the author. Satan is the master-mind behind this false doctrine."

Posted by: jeff.satterley | December 9, 2009 12:41 PM

Not even a single citation... That will make MY dissertation a hell of a lot easier. I'll have to show this to my advisor.

Posted by: matthew.john.heath | December 9, 2009 12:42 PM

Is it not considered good form for a thesis to contain references?

Posted by: abb3w | December 9, 2009 12:43 PM

"Your thesis is now before me; very shortly it will be behind me...."

Posted by: Divalent | December 9, 2009 12:44 PM

wow. Here's a quote: "Taking only evidence that supports a preconceived idea and rejecting all other evidence is not very intelligent or scientific." (p 88)

And according to him, the dispute between Galileo and the Catholic church was merely about whether the moon was smooth or not. (p 29)

Lot of stupid in there.

Posted by: Rawnaeris | December 9, 2009 12:45 PM

"In this book, I'll be covering, in a nutshell, ..."

Really? So you aren't writing a thesis then, you're writing a children's book. I mean, surely you wouldn't be that informal. You wouldn't...oh God you did...

I think I just died a little inside.

Posted by: jphands | December 9, 2009 12:46 PM

That's not a dissertation, it's a (long) tract.

I bet he hasn't even the wit to be embarrassed by that rubbish.

As Pauli said....."Not even wrong".

Posted by: Soegz | December 9, 2009 12:47 PM

Why is it that this man's doctoral dissertation is shorter, has no citations or references, and written to a lower level than my M.A. History thesis? I should have gone to a evangelical university, would have saved me months of research, writing and editing.

Posted by: sasqwatch | December 9, 2009 12:49 PM

C'mon folks. Don't be so hasty to judge. How do you know that this work isn't laying the foundation for scientific developments in the USA two- or three-hundred years hence? I bet the original manuscript, liner notes and supporting material will be worth big bucks someday.

Posted by: TV's Mr. Neil | December 9, 2009 12:50 PM

Nice dissertation from Kent "The Yellow Dart" Hovind. Is this actually how he turned it in? I mean, the formatting itself is suspect for its length-stretching.

There is so much filler and fluff here. You can get away with some of this stuff in more casual writing, such as on a blog or something, but when you write a dissertation, you're supposed to avoid redundant phrases like "the fact that" or "the idea that". Also, I think those margins are a little suspect. they look awfully wide to me.

Kent's entire dissertation can be whittled down to three sentences: "God said it. I believe it. That settles it."

For 102 pages, that's all he really says.

Posted by: Desert Atheist | December 9, 2009 12:50 PM

Off topic "Poll Opportunity" in Arabic.

There is a religious poll on the website for Aljazeera's version of Crossfire, called Itejah al-Muakis (Opposite Directions). The poll is for the upcoming program discussing Switzerland's recent Minaret Referendum that was supported by 57.5% of Swiss voters.

http://www.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/BE212265-7D56-420A-B99D-82D8624E6D41

The question is: "Do you believe that fearing Muslims who live in the West is justified?"

So far it's 29% yes, 71% no out of 1729 respondents.

To participate, select your response in the top left section of the page:

نعم = YES
لا = NO

Then click on the (شارك) 'participate' button.

When the window pops up, enter the code displayed (in latin script), then click the button to participate (شارك)

Posted by: jphands | December 9, 2009 12:52 PM

I just noticed a GLARING error, especially for a so-called science teacher.....

On page 9 of the first part, he states that the first law of Thermodynamics is that matter cannot be created or destroyed. It is, of course, that energy cannot be created or destroyed - just converted from one form to another.

Hovind is just plain ignorant, and whoever vetted this "dissertation" was even more so.

Actually, Page 9 is a feast of foolishness - I haven't read the rest yet.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | December 9, 2009 12:58 PM

Man this is like candy!

In a toilet ? Ewwwwww!

Posted by: Roger | December 9, 2009 1:02 PM

Oh. My. God. That is the DUMBEST thing I've EVER read. Hell, he makes Stephanie Meyer look like a literary giant. As someone upthread said, reading this was going to give me permanent stupid. I'm pretty sure a couple of brain cells committed suicide.

Posted by: The Crocoduck Hunter | December 9, 2009 1:03 PM

Nice dissertation from Kent "The Yellow Dart" Hovind.

Is that a Homestar Runner reference? For shame!

Posted by: Becca Stareyes | December 9, 2009 1:04 PM

Already I see things in the paragraph PZ quoted that make me want the Red Pen of Correction (not to mention the Green Pen of Grammatical Correction*). What not to do when writing formally...

* I tend to use multicolored pens to mark what kinds of errors they are. Mostly because I'm told it cuts down on students' focusing on the grammatical mistakes I mark instead of the structural and factual problems when they complain about grades.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 9, 2009 1:05 PM

I hope Mr. Hovind is having a nice stay just up the road from me.

Posted by: TV's Mr. Neil | December 9, 2009 1:06 PM

You're darn tootin' it was a Homestar reference, and I'm proud of it!

Posted by: sasqwatch | December 9, 2009 1:09 PM

#46 Michelle: Man this is like candy!

#47 Matt: In a toilet ? Ewwwwww!

That's why it's called Divinity Fudge.

Posted by: Kristine | December 9, 2009 1:11 PM

I put it on my Kindle, started the Text-to-Speach feature, and it started relating the document in two ways: first in its normal voice, and then, in a silly high pitched whine.

Posted by: Joffan | December 9, 2009 1:12 PM

We could quote stupid parts of this all day...

Another man that is very important as we trace the history of evolution [J: which extends back to the Garden of Eden, apparently] is Erasmus Darwin, the grandfather of Charles Darwin. He was born in 1731 and died in 1802. He was an extremely fat person. In fact, he was so fat they had to cut a curve in the dining room table so that he could get up to the table.

Just breathtakingly irrelevant, but in a soup of fictional arguments so thick that you hardly notice.

Posted by: glenister_m | December 9, 2009 1:15 PM

Damn. I'm sure I could write much better drivel than this.

If I did, and could get a Ph.D. from it, I'd jump into the top pay category and earn an extra $15000/year or more at my current job (teaching high school science/math).

Unfortunately I doubt if the school board would recognize the Ph.D., and if they read my thesis they might not accept my explanation that I was only doing it for the extra money and didn't believe a word of it.

So how long did this thesis take? Less than a month? week? day? afternoon?

Posted by: mirandachale | December 9, 2009 1:16 PM

Ha, OMG, I've only read as far as the acknowledgments page yet I'm already full of uncontrollable laughter:

My three children Kent Andrew, Eric, and Marlissa have often traveled with me as I preach on the subject of dinosaurs and the Bible

!!!!!!!!!!!!

And I know it's stating the obvious, but this is horrible writing. I teach college English composition and have never, ever seen a paper written so poorly (I've only skimmed it so far, but the awfulness of the writing jumps out from each page like a fiery hellbeast.) Wow.

Posted by: immichaelyoung | December 9, 2009 1:17 PM

p. 32: "Another man that is very important as we trace the history of evolution is Erasmus Darwin, the grandfather of Charles Darwin. He was born in 1731 and died in 1802. He was an extremely fat person. In fact, he was so fat they had to cut a curve in the dining room table so that he could get up to the table."

See, that sort of detail is worth every bit of space it requires to tell.

Posted by: Scorpy1 | December 9, 2009 1:21 PM

As I like to do whenever any of the Hovinds are brought up: I've checked up Eric's 'Creation Minute' site.

There's a grand total of one new video after PZ won the IPod.
Such a waste of perfectly good bandwidth.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | December 9, 2009 1:21 PM

That's not a dissertation, it's a (long) tract.

'Tract' as in 'intestinal tract' as in 'conduit for shit'?

Your observation is quite apt.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | December 9, 2009 1:23 PM

Nice dissertation from Kent "The Yellow Dart" Hovind.

I still laugh to the point of crying every time I watch that episode. Every damned time. Then you add a little double-space action...maybe a little triple-space action...

Posted by: Kristine | December 9, 2009 1:24 PM

"Mom and Dad supplied the computer for this work to be done on." "As an evangelist, God has given me..." (Was God the evangelist?) Oh, dear me, this is going to be a long read for someone with an English degree! (My Kindle gave a gasp and refused to read any further unless I gave it some chocolate, and nobody else touches my chocolate.)

What I want to know is, where his citations be at?
;-)

Posted by: joshua.travis | December 9, 2009 1:24 PM

Page 9 reads like his videos.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | December 9, 2009 1:27 PM

Not really, but there are some shady diploma mills out there. And beyond that, not all PhDs are created equal.

I know here in the UK we give out some officially accredited degrees in some cretinous subjects, like homoeopathy (although reading David Colquhoun's blog it seems that some of the more idiotic degrees are being dropped) there is a legal requirement for proper accreditation before a degree can be awarded.

It is also an offence to claim to have a degree from UK based institution that was not properly accredited, and an offence to offer degree courses that are not properly accredited.

Posted by: jgondeksb | December 9, 2009 1:28 PM

"Many things I can document and verify with experts (whatever an expert is)."

What the hell is matter with wingnuts and their disdain for experts and intellectuals?

Posted by: mumonjmk | December 9, 2009 1:31 PM

Wow! That is worse than I had heard from you guys.

The "dissertation" doesn't even seem to have a title.

Posted by: Kristine | December 9, 2009 1:31 PM

Oh, in-text citations! Great. Always the sentence fragments are to be found not far behind. (Yep, just found one: "Child labor, sweat houses, etc." I think somebody meant sweat shops?) But who is "Voltair"? Could he be related to Voltaire?

Posted by: otrame | December 9, 2009 1:33 PM

Eeewww
Eeewwwww
Eeeeewwwwww

I only read three pages. *erk

Now I have to put Aronra's Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism on YouTube on so I can get that awful taste out of my mouth.

Posted by: rpenner | December 9, 2009 1:34 PM

"Another Frenchman ... was a man named Comte de Buffon(1707-1788)." This would be news to his parents who named him Georges-Louis Leclerc.

Posted by: BlueIndependent | December 9, 2009 1:34 PM

I don't have a chance to read it right now, but if that's how it starts, I'm in for some riotous comedy. I'm in a *masters* program and people don't write like that. In fact, my Honors Psychology paper I did back in high school did not read like that, and I likely would've failed if it did (at a private Catholic school no less).

Patriot Bible University? You didn't even have to include "Bible" in the name for me to know it was a bullcrap right-wing theocrat programming business. These people are beyond belief in their behavior. Patriot? So everyone else not at that college is not one? And would it be safe to assume David Barton is a senior fellow there? I know, I know, I'm begging the obvious. I digress...

Kent Hovind: Worthless tax-evading liar with toilet paper for a "doctorate". The only question is: Was Charmin the printing company?

Posted by: joshua.travis | December 9, 2009 1:36 PM

The first and second laws of thermodynamics are well established scientific laws that have never been observed in the universe to be broken. The first law [of thermodynamics] says that matter cannot be created nor destroyed by ordinary means. We do not see anything being created, today and yet we do see an entire universe of created material. This clearly indicates a Creator.

Um...thermodynamics is energy, not matter. Even if it was matter, it's a complete non sequitur as "matter cannot be created" and yet "This clearly indicates a Creator"

Am I wrong?

Posted by: Apolipoprotein E | December 9, 2009 1:38 PM

Thank you for Hovind's dissertation. It makes me feel much better than the grade that I recieved on my research paper, because I would never start of with a Hello or call someone fat in the middle of the subject.

:-)

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | December 9, 2009 1:38 PM

... 'kay, but which rev is this?

(/Isn't Hovind the guy who keeps saying he's revising it/adding to it/it's not ready yet? Or is that another creonut?)

AJ, Kent is the biblical literalist who, like most literalist Christians, knows most of the bible except for anything attributed to Christ. Unfortunately, both Jesus and the IRS take a dim view of those who don't “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21) and so Ken should have plenty of time to finish whatever he started, at least until 2015 minus time off for good behaviour.

Posted by: tsg | December 9, 2009 1:40 PM

You guys give out PhD's for stuff like this, in the US?

Isn't there some kind of regulation for handing out PhD's?

Not really, but there's no requirement to take it seriously either. Anyone that needs to know is going to check where it came from.

Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 9, 2009 1:45 PM

Posted by: Kristine Author Profile Page | December 9, 2009 1:36 PM

"Bring back a Mars rock or a Jupiter rock, I'll eat it or lick it." (p. 74)

The best. Line. In a "dissertation." Ever! Bwahaha! My Kindle now demands pop-rocks.

Is there any context where that is not bugfuck insane. Or inherently funny. ...I'll eat it of lick it. My, some one never grew out of the infantile oral fixation stage.

Posted by: Josh | December 9, 2009 1:47 PM

Having to share a title with someone who wrote this...thing, annoys me. Actually, it's more that this fuckhead has had little kids calling him Dr. Dino. As such, I'm going to take apart the "science" in this "dissertation," piece by piece. It's going to take a minute, because there are a lot of words on a lot of pages. But it will get done.

Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic). | December 9, 2009 1:51 PM

The poem! There's a poem in there. He wrote a poem and put it in page 82 of his ....

Posted by: Sam C | December 9, 2009 1:53 PM

Page 73:

There is no record in the fossil record for evolution.

Posted by: Skip Evans | December 9, 2009 1:58 PM

This is a copy of the original I obtained from Patriot University back around 1999. I asked Hovind for permission to publish it on the web, but he refused.

I did send copies to a few select people for scholarly purposes, because Hovind didn't say I couldn't distribute it and he never asked for the copy back.

I know this is a copy of mine because it has the page number count by tens that I wrote in the bottom right corner.

I counted the pages because Hovind had claimed his "dissertation" was 250 pages. I asked him about this in the email exchange I had with him, and he said it was continually "growing" and would be published as a book soon. To my knowledge no such book was ever published.

I am quite sure I got the only copy in existence when PU mailed it to me because it came with a picture cut out of a magazine and affixed to page 79 or so with transparent tape. I mean, who does that in a real dissertation?

http://homepage.mac.com/lpetrich/Creationism/PatriotUniversity.jpg

Posted by: Tony Jolley | December 9, 2009 2:01 PM

Actually, in the bathroom at the NCSE office.

Perforated, and on a roll with a cardboard cob at the center?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 9, 2009 2:03 PM

Man I wish commenting registration was off right now because any time Hovind's name is brought up, the moron patrol comes in full mouthbreathing force.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | December 9, 2009 2:04 PM

After the paragraph about "Voltair", we get to Erasmus Darwin. This is beautiful. Oh, how I wish I could do the Gumby font:

"Another man that is very important as we trace the history of evolution is Erasmus Darwin, the grandfather of Charles Darwin. He was born in 1731 and died in 1802. He was an extremely fat person. In fact, he was so fat they had to cut a curve in the dining room table so that he could get up to the table. He was a medical doctor. He was also very immoral. He had twelve legitimate children and two illegitimate children. He was known to have many affairs."

Posted by: Apolipoprotein E | December 9, 2009 2:09 PM

"Man I wish commenting registration was off right now because any time Hovind's name is brought up, the moron patrol comes in full mouthbreathing force."

You could always make them since it's easy to do. Aren't they always about the mircle of "Adonai" and "Yeshua" and the stupidity of Darwinisn[citation needed] followed by a plea to release Hovind on the grounds that "Adonai" will punish you?

Posted by: mikecbraun | December 9, 2009 2:18 PM

It will never cease to amaze me that this sort of person has followers who pay money to see him and hear him speak and read his words. He's a genius, I tell you, even if he doesn't realize why and in what way he's a genius.

Posted by: mikecbraun | December 9, 2009 2:21 PM

I highly recommend pp. 80-83, especially the delightfully witty little poem Kent has written. Does his genius know no bounds?

Posted by: sasqwatch | December 9, 2009 2:22 PM

#119 Darren Garrison - Here's a quick OCR of it, if anyone wants it. http://www.sendspace.com/file/5eg5os

Have you checked to be sure there's no mistakes in it?

Posted by: AnneH | December 9, 2009 2:27 PM

I am currently tutoring English Language Learners who are in high school. These students are refugee immigrants from Somalia, Kenya, Sudan, and Iraq. They've been in the U.S. for 2 to 5 years.

If they turned in something as horrid as Hovind's 'dissertation', I would make them do the whole thing over, after having a long discussion about how to organize formal writing. Many of my students are better writers than Hovind, even though they are nowhere close to mastering English.

I skimmed the first few pages, just reading the first sentence of each paragraph to get a sense of his ideas. However, even that got tiresome quickly, so I hit the 'end' key to find his conclusion.

There was no conclusion.

It's all just a mishmash of strawman arguments, outright lies, and random pointless irrelevant stuff.

Posted by: lose_the_woo | December 9, 2009 2:28 PM

Hmmm. A PhD in religious science fiction - who knew?

Well, as long as he doesn't try and apply any of his highly thoughtful notions on reality, he should be able to maintain his comfortable state of denial.

Posted by: mikecbraun | December 9, 2009 2:32 PM

I must apologize: I was going off of Acrobat's page numbering system.

Posted by: Joffan | December 9, 2009 2:36 PM

Desert Son

There's just no facepalm category high enough for something like this.

Maybe Marvin can help us:

Would you like me to go and stick my head in a bucket of water?

Posted by: tim Rowledge | December 9, 2009 2:41 PM

"Bring back a Mars rock or a Jupiter rock, I'll eat it or lick it." (p. 74)

Posted by: blf | December 9, 2009 2:44 PM

Have you checked to be sure there's no mistakes in [the OCR]?

Checking would be cruel and unusual punishment. It seems like something the Inquision's torturers would might inflict.

I suppose we could farm it out to Palin or the Lessor Bush—they seem immune to the effects it has on functioning brains—albeit the results wouldn't be too useful.

Posted by: daveau | December 9, 2009 2:53 PM

Hey! I can do that! Maybe I should go back and get a PhD too!

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | December 9, 2009 2:56 PM

I think it's about time to repost Kenny's conversations with his cellmate, God.

KH: Do you have time for a few questions, today, Lord?

GOD: Son, time has no effect on me. I created it. I am always here to help you and guide you in any area of your life. Go ahead with your questions, son.

And so on.

Posted by: Timmer1337 | December 9, 2009 3:07 PM

If this man were any dumber, he'd have to be watered daily. (Call from Houseplant Anti-Defamation League on line 1 in 10...9...8...)

I am a firm believer in the concept of intellectual osmosis, and, while reading this, I can actually see my IQ spinning down like the clock at the end of a hockey game.

Posted by: subbie | December 9, 2009 3:13 PM

I can't believe nobody has mentioned what has to be the 20th century's most ironic statement, the last line on page 4: "Christians are often guilty of neglecting or twisting the Bible to fit their lifestyle or their preconceived ideas."

Posted by: Uncle Glenny | December 9, 2009 3:17 PM

If this "thesis" is a guide, Patriot University makes Hard Work U (College of the Ozarks) seem positively Ivy League.

Posted by: blf | December 9, 2009 3:23 PM

If this man were any dumber, he'd have to be watered daily. (Call from Houseplant Anti-Defamation League on line 1 in 10...9...8...)

You should also expect a call from People for the Ethical Treatment of Water.

Posted by: Holytape | December 9, 2009 3:26 PM

If that counts as a thesis in science, can I uses this as my thesis in religious studies. I even have illustrations.

I like that he stated a belief that there is "No time in Heaven. (p. 83)" So long cause and effect... How does he except to worship God for all eternity, if he doesn't believe eternity exists. Unless of course, he was thoughtless in his choice of words and meant that he believed that the passage of time wouldn't effect a person the same way in heaven as it does in earth. But since this is a thesis, I must assume that he was not careless in his words.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | December 9, 2009 3:32 PM

So now I'm wondering if I can get a PhD if I ramble for 100 pages on Moses the divinely marked cow over on WEIT. Surely that should be good for a degree.

Have you got time to burn? Betcha you could get a PhD in three pages if you spend one outlining all of society's ills and the other two blaming them all on Darwinists and Muslims.

Posted by: Psalmotoxin | December 9, 2009 3:34 PM

Well this should keep me occupied on the train to work tomorrow - I just hope that my laughter does not annoy my fellow passengers!

"the cosmic dust layer indicated that the moon was only six or seven thousand years old" (p75)

Quite.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | December 9, 2009 3:43 PM

Looking forward to reading this. I always need reminders like this that make me feel better for only getting a bachelors.

Posted by: Dorkman | December 9, 2009 4:02 PM

You can literally skip to any random page and read any random sentence and it will be stupid. There is just not enough facepalm in the world, even borrowing from China.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | December 9, 2009 4:06 PM

Hello, my name is Kent Hovind.

The next two sentences should be: "How are you? I am fine."

Posted by: dbmorrisalum | December 9, 2009 4:11 PM

This paper reminded me a lot of a geology paper I once read that was written by a student attending Trinity Bible College in North Dakota. The worst thing about that geology paper was that the student who wrote it was just so damn proud of his work even though any honest scholar (or other student for that matter) would see that it's awful. I'm guessing Hovind felt the same way when he finished typing up his "book."

Posted by: Mister Scowl | December 9, 2009 4:16 PM

You could make a drinking game out of every time he says "evolution is a religion" but the players would die of alcohol poisoning halfway through this "thesis".

Posted by: augustus mulliner | December 9, 2009 4:19 PM

OK, OK ... here's a citation if you really need one: "I like Twizzlers. Do you have some?"
I think we have Sarah Palin's nominee to head the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Posted by: Dexter M. | December 9, 2009 4:29 PM

I promise, no more quotes after this gem.

"It was Shintoism, based on evolution, that was responsible for Japan's actions in World War II. They were determined to take over and rule the world, just like Hitler was doing in Germany."

Kent was 38 years old when he submitted this. I understand he wasn't going to a real university, but don't you think he would put some effort into making something that wouldn't be mistaken for a paper written by a 13 year old.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | December 9, 2009 4:32 PM

Misspellings are rampant. A careful, knowledgeable editor/adviser would never allow a student to get away with misspelling "Caanan", "Voltair", "Nyles Eldridge", Madelyn Murray "O'Hare" (just like the airport), "Shintu" (the Japanese religion), "peersuaded", "centrifical" (force!!!), "aught" (to!), "disippated", "immerged" (from the slime), or "epic" (as in geological!). "It's" is used as a possessive pronoun. There are several non sentences.

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 1991.

Emphasis added.

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/bartelt_dissertation_on_hovind_thesis.htm

Posted by: Glen Davidson | December 9, 2009 4:42 PM

Hm.. sounds more like the notes of his last AA meeting, than like a doctoral thesis.

It's true that the first step of recovery from being a dumbass is admitting that you're a creationist.

Tragically, Kent hasn't managed the other 11 steps.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: aslanrec | December 9, 2009 4:46 PM

It's so ignorant it makes me want to cry in terror.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | December 9, 2009 4:48 PM

The next two sentences should be: "How are you? I am fine."

*snortlaugh*

Posted by: formosus | December 9, 2009 4:53 PM

I know I'm not the only person to mention this but...

"I believe X. I believe Y..."

I stopped putting "I believe" into papers freshman year of high school. The entire point of your fucking dissertation is to PROVE why what you believe is true, not just state it. Besides the face melting idiocy that is the subject matter, it was this stylistic device that kills me.

Posted by: Jordan | December 9, 2009 4:56 PM

Zen Buddhists will be using this in their meditation now. Instead of contemplating the sound of one hand clapping, they'll be contemplating the sound of one moron typing.

Posted by: destlund | December 9, 2009 5:02 PM

Actually, having seen this, Don McLeroy's screed seems sane, almost cogent. Curse you, "Dr." Kent Hovind for making me say that!

Posted by: Josh | December 9, 2009 5:08 PM

When I think of the hoops I had to jump through just in formating for my MA thesis.....)

No fucking kidding, right?

Posted by: St.B | December 9, 2009 5:11 PM

I only saw the first paragraph. I’m not masochistic enough to download it. I thought it had to be a joke. I need to BELIEVE it is a joke. Dear cosmos....it must be a joke.

Posted by: sasqwatch | December 9, 2009 5:19 PM

#155: I need to stop and read something based in reality, but I should have the fully searchable text linked from http://tr.im/H9iQ tonight sometime if you really want to pollute your brain.

Now I'm curious. I need to see a frequency distribution of words, just for up-chuckles.

And I suppose it couldn't hurt to google some key phrases, just to see how much of it was plagiarized. oooo... I can hardly wait.

Posted by: Bueller_007 | December 9, 2009 5:20 PM

Excellent English.

"First of all the coral reefs that are growing
off of the coast of Australia is growing at a certain rate."

Posted by: Form&Function | December 9, 2009 5:31 PM

Now I'm curious. I need to see a frequency distribution of words, just for up-chuckles.

Ask and ye shall receive.

Posted by: Suck Poppet | December 9, 2009 5:49 PM

The first law says that matter cannot be created nor destroyed by ordinary means. We do not see anything being created today, and yet we do see an entire universe of created material. This clearly indicates a Creator.

Bwuhahahahaha - shorter Kent: "stuff exists therefor god"

Physics fail, logic fail, brain hurt by teh stoopid.

Evolution is purely a religion. There is no scientific evidence at all to back up any form of macro evolution.

Liar. LIAR. LIAR FOR JEEBUS.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | December 9, 2009 6:03 PM

Fark.com has linked this, too. The comments over there are pretty fucking funny.

I got my PhD from American Jesus F150 Kick-Ass USA Crying Eagle 9/11 University. I wrote my dissertation on the poetics of Jerry Reed.

Was that your "safety" school? *I* for one graduated from a full F-350 university with dually wheels.

/ and truck nutz.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | December 9, 2009 6:11 PM

Kent Hovinds life would make a wonderful movie-- Overachieving, misguided dauntless idiot that he his.

Chapter 1: Ascendency. Dr. Dino rises to influential YEC demigog, despite setbacks and information, meeting the love of his life along the way.

Chapter 2: Riding High. As real-estate mogul and Darwinist debater, Hovind is the master of his kingdom (which is named Dinosaur Adventure Land). Hovind does like pounds of blow off a hooker's stomach as Jim Morrison wails in the background* of an antechamber of a Pensacola Nightclub. Long time spirtual advisor Ted Haggard advises Hovind to play his hand closer to his chest and is told to "suck it"--thus ending their relationship. Haggard fades into obscurity*. In this segment it becomes apparent that Hovind is flying too close to the sun. Increasing demand for wealth from his wife and children force him to evade taxes.

Chapter 3: The fall. The problems of the real world (although not anything that anyone would regard as a cognitive blow) crowd Hovind, and his friends and allies desert him. Hovind's last public hurrah is a disastrous appearance on "Da Ali G" show, where he is stumped by the persona of a British hiphop gangsta who asks first "But you like bananas, innit?" and then "Who left the floater". Hovind is arrested immediately after the filming for tax evasion and finds out that his son and protoge Eric is secretly (but deliciously) homosexual.

Chapter 4: The resurrection. Last scene. Hovind finishing a shift in the prison laundry shuffles back to his cell, a defeated man. Having killed his cellie with a vicious barrage of nonsense, Hovind finds himself the loneliest man in the loneliest place in the world. He is resolute. He contemplates himself in his cell mirror, slowly winding the elastic waist of contraband underwear into a tight noose. Enter three prison guards, with a new cell-mate, a raw, hardened youth with scars (mental and emotional) from a life on the streets. The guards leave, and the old man and young man eye eachother warily. for like three minutes and shit to build up tension. The young man breaks the silence, saying "Old blood. I've been on the street since I was a baby. I don't give a fuck about you, these walls or even my own dead mother. She can rot in hell. You can die for all I care too. But before you die, tell me this...

What do you know about dinosaurs?"

Hovind slowly breaks into a grin and puts his arm around the young mans shoulder. "Let me start by explaining the fallacy of radiodating..."

Fade to Black

Casting
K. Hovind: William H. Macy
T. Haggard: Fred Willard
Eric Hovind: Ving Rhames

*Taking creative liberties here.

Posted by: Haley | December 9, 2009 6:22 PM

You know, if he actually referenced real scientists it might be worse. Would YOU want your paper quote mined so it looked like you supported this nonsense?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | December 9, 2009 6:28 PM

A photograph of the main (and only building) of Patriot Bible University.

Posted by: sasqwatch | December 9, 2009 6:43 PM

And thank you, Form and Function, for the new toy. I just put my latest paper through the fun machine here.

One look sez that I write about more interesting stuff.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | December 9, 2009 6:56 PM

Admittedly, I don't write any better than Kent. I just realized this and I am a little crushed.

Posted by: phantomb | December 9, 2009 7:04 PM

"I cannot explain it, because I don't understand it. I just have to believe it."

This pretty much sums up Hovind's entire paper.

Posted by: Free Lunch | December 9, 2009 7:09 PM

So, Patriot Bible University had to find some completely fake accreditors. It's nice to see that TRACS has some standards, no matter how low they are.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 9, 2009 7:13 PM

PZ, for the love of all that is holy, please stop using the font Comic Sans for your quoted text. It is an abominably difficult one to read. Please.

There's a reason for th....

oh nevermind.

Posted by: kopd | December 9, 2009 7:21 PM

Hovind is difficult to read regardless of font selection.

Posted by: Form&Function | December 9, 2009 7:27 PM

Sasqwatch:

One look sez that I write about more interesting stuff.

No kidding! "Sex", "sexual", "sexually" all prominently displayed... it bodes well until you notice "infection", "transmitted", and "gonorrhea". :)

I have to ask why "seeds" is so frequent, however.

Posted by: David Marjanović | December 9, 2009 7:37 PM

*jaw drops*

You guys give out PhD's for stuff like this, in the US?

Isn't there some kind of regulation for handing out PhD's?

No. The term "university" is not protected by law in the USA; if you call your house a university, it is one.

Suuuuure, there's such a thing as an "accredited university". But the accrediting isn't done by the state either. It's done by private self-proclaimed accrediting organizations. <headdesk>

As predicted in comment 11, this leads straight to the first two sentences of comment 104.

Is it not considered good form for a thesis to contain references?

Wwwwwell. If a scientific work is original enough, it doesn't need to contain any references. Einstein's paper "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies" has, like, 5 or something.

Something tells me I don't need to read the thesis to know that Hovind is no Einstein in this respect...

Ugh. You don't start an ESSAY with "Hello, my name is...", much less a doctoral thesis.

nor a letter, e-mail, telegram, petroglyph...

There is one thing that must start with "Hello. My name is".

Off topic "Poll Opportunity" in Arabic.

It's great that someone here reads al-Jazeera, but... do you mean it is justified to fear Muslims who live in the West, as a blanket statement? ~:-|

There are no transitional forms between species because that is not the way we got here. Gould and Eldridge in Paleobiography (KJV; GET TITLE), saidEldredge, Paleobiology.

IMO, the only titles that should (perhaps) be protected by law are those which carry a right to practice a profession, such as "attorney", "surgeon" or "plumber", since falsifying qualifications of that sort could lead to dangerously substandard services being provided to unsuspecting members of the public.

("Plumber" as in "Joe the"? :-) )

It is easy to argue that a doctorate (and a Master's degree for that matter, and perhaps even a Bachelor's) falls into this category: if you claim you have a doctorate, you make people think you're a scientist who actually understands something. A doctorate is not a medal of honor, it's gained by hard work in adding to the knowledge of humankind. Falsely claiming to have done such work is fraud, and it's not victimless, as Dr Dino and those who call him that show. It could lead to disastrous hiring decisions.

I'm with comment 104 on this issue. When I'll get my doctorate, I'll want it to mean something.

It's also interesting that your argumentation starts from the assumption that there is such a thing as a bad university. Where I come from, if it's bad, it's not a university, and vice versa. All degrees may not be created exactly equal, but they better had minimum standards! And they do where I come from.

Further, your argumentation starts from the assumption that, upon hearing that someone has a doctorate, everyone with an IQ above YouTube commenting immediately becomes utterly skeptical and refuses to believe it means anything till they find out which institution the doctorate comes from. That's... just... not... realistic. People expect that there are minimum standards that someone enforces, because that's what would make sense. Indeed, it's how it is in much of the world, because it makes sense.

Religious-exempt degrees

<headdesk>
<headdesk>
<headdesk>
<headdesk>
<headdesk>
CRASH
<headfloor>
<headfloor>
<headfloor>
<headfloor>
<headfloor>

If this man were any dumber, he'd have to be watered daily.

:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D

I just dumped the raw OCR text into the ACM latex template and it comes out to 22 pages. XD

What I just said.

Oh. You say 14 year olds are smarter than that?

Ah well, it was "only a theory".

I sometimes tend to repeat myself.

Now I'm curious. I need to see a frequency distribution of words, just for up-chuckles.

Ask and ye shall receive.

Doesn't work.

In 1915 he was convinced that Darwin's and Lamarck's theories were right.

That would be doublethink. As a creationist, Hovind is experienced in it and therefore, it seems, believes everyone else is, too...

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 9, 2009 7:42 PM

there's such a thing as an "accredited university". But the accrediting isn't done by the state either. It's done by private self-proclaimed accrediting organizations.

But take it from me, those organizations are hardcore. Accreditation is no slam-dunk.

Posted by: Tennis | December 9, 2009 7:45 PM

I'm in my second semester at Lesley University's adult bachelors program (http://www.lesley.edu/abc/lcb/index.html) . In the LCB program your final semester is devoted to your thesis and I have had the privilege of sitting through a number of thesis presentations and they are serious, scholarly efforts. My LCB classmates produce vastly superior work at the undergrad level on a regular basis than Hovinds "thesis". A high school term paper is a more serious piece of work. This is the biggest piece of you-know-what I've ever read and its an insult to anyone who has ever put honest work into their education.

Posted by: David B | December 9, 2009 7:48 PM

If it weren't for foreseeing problems in commenting here were I to try a name change, I would start calling myself Rev. David B.

I am in fact a Reverend, in exactly the same way that Hovind is a PhD.

I was ordained over the internet, and have a downloaded certificate to prove it.

Rev. David B

Posted by: destlund | December 9, 2009 8:00 PM

David B, I have been ordained, and have also received an honorary doctorate, probably from the same fine institution as you. I take great pride in them, and I didn't even have to write 100 pages of nonsense to get them. But I sure as hell don't use these credentials to find work or debate people who've earned theirs.

Posted by: Owlmirror | December 9, 2009 8:01 PM

If it weren't for foreseeing problems in commenting here were I to try a name change, I would start calling myself Rev. David B.

Shouldn't be an issue. Note that we already have a Reverend BigDumbChimp,OM.

I was ordained over the internet, and have a downloaded certificate to prove it.

I think Rev BDC,OM got his in a similar fashion through the mails.

Amen.

Posted by: Kristine | December 9, 2009 8:03 PM

Page 80: "I cannot explain it, because I don't understand it. I just have to believe it." And he forgot indigo in ROY G BIV.

"Once upon a time there was a time when there was no time." (page 83)

I'm hip! But my favorite (aside from the licking of the rocks) is this gem on page 87: "God created the plants on day three before he created the sun on day four. If you think plants are going to survive billions of years without the sun, you need to study more biology." Ha ha ha!

Sheesh, it takes more faith to believe that this wasn't typed out by one of a million monkeys banging away at a typewriter than it does to accept evolution!

Posted by: herlathing | December 9, 2009 8:08 PM

My brain hurts. Mostly because I suspect that such an exposé of this joker's non-credentials will make no difference whatsoever to those who have fallen for his charade.
Lancelot Gobbo

Posted by: David B | December 9, 2009 8:11 PM

Re 226

Yup, same fine institution

Re 228

I am not the most computer literate of people, but I had to jump through lots of hoops to register to post here in the first place.

I don't know what I did wrong when I failed to get through a number of times, nor what I did right when I finally managed to be able to comment.

But if it ain't broke, I'm certainly not going to fix it by trying to change my user name - that might lead to my ending up in limbo for the rest of my days.

David B

Posted by: SC OM | December 9, 2009 8:27 PM

Suuuuure, there's such a thing as an "accredited university". But the accrediting isn't done by the state either. It's done by private self-proclaimed accrediting organizations.

Um, the regional organizations like the NEASC are recognized by the government and quite highly regarded.

Posted by: SC OM | December 9, 2009 8:33 PM

I don't know if this is entirely accurate, but...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_accreditation#Religious-exempt_degrees

Posted by: Desert Atheist | December 9, 2009 8:42 PM

@218 David Marjanović

"do you mean it is justified to fear Muslims who live in the West, as a blanket statement?"

Thanks for your comment, but I was not implying anything about fearing Muslims with the "off-topic poll opportunity." In fact, I deliberately omitted my opinion from the post.

I thought it was interesting and lightly related, and perhaps not far off topic, i.e. why are we dissecting a creationist's "thesis" if not because we fear that he and his kind, if left unchecked, will spread their nonsense willy-nilly? (Plus shooting fish in the barrel is fun).

We normally have a lot of polls related to Christian issues, so I though this would be a good change of topic and an opportunity to give feedback to Al Jazeera (a rather moderate station, by the way) about Islam. Without translation, the poll would have passed unnoticed by the community.

What's interesting also is that the poll question was written by Al Jazeera, and the poll relates to a program on the decision by Switzerland to ban minarets (but not mosques or prayer centers). Apparently, the host of the program, Faisal Qasim, thinks fear of Muslims played a part in the vote and he is testing Arab-speaking public opinion to see how widespread is the perception.

That said, here's an interesting thought experiment: replace "Muslim" with "Christian" or "Christian fundamentalist" and see if the reaction changes: "Do you believe that fearing Christian fundamentalists who live in the West is justified?" I think I've read C. Hitchens make a similar argument.

I believe the poll hints to a common theme I've noticed: does religious freedom trump free speech? Obviously some Swiss find the minarets offensive (57.5% of recent voters), the same way some others find churches offensive.

I'm against egregious displays of religiosity, but I'm not certain how I feel about the Swiss decision yet. There's a lot of knee-jerk reaction out there "It's a violation of human rights!" or "How dare they restrict religious freedoms!". Yet, the building of mosques is still allowed amd not all sects build minarets with their mosques. So what really is the issue?

In the end, I thought the poll would make for good discussion in the community.

Posted by: CortxVortx | December 9, 2009 8:43 PM

Voltair ?
Alfred Russell Wallace ?
Thomas Payne ?

Jebus!

Posted by: Desert Atheist | December 9, 2009 8:47 PM

Sorry about the double post (#239). I beg forgiveness. Please remove #239 if possible. I tried but couldn't.

Posted by: Pacal | December 9, 2009 9:00 PM

Well I can't resist the following brain dead comment from page 18, it is simply incrediable:

The Flood was about 2400 B.C. which makes it about 4400 years ago. The Tower of Babel was probably built within the first three to five hundred years after the flood. Let's just assume that it was about 1900 B.C. when the Tower of Babel was built. THe people were scattered from the Tower. Many of the People, in their pride, still tried to find some way to become their own god. This is the basic motive behind evolution.

It appears that Mr. Hovind doesn't know even the most basic facts about the History and Archaeology of the Middle East. He sort of forgets about those Mesopotamian records from before 2400 B.C.E., which don't record a flood too say nothing of things like the Great Pyramids, (built c. 2700-2500 B.C.E.). Of course if the scattering occured c. 1900 B.C.E., just where does Sargon the Great and Narim-sin (c. 2400-2250 B.C.E.) fit in? Of course the fact that this worldwide flood c. 2400 B.C.E., left no trace in the geological record is forgotton. Neither the Mesopotamians or Egyptians seemed to have noticed the flood.

Posted by: CalGeorge | December 9, 2009 9:08 PM

I just learned that canaries will never change into tomatoes, therefore evolution is wrong.

Excellent stuff!

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | December 9, 2009 9:14 PM

Ever heard of the Grand Canyon?

"Take a hard look at the Grand Canyon. Try to explain that through evolution."

http://pharyngula.org/infidelquotes.php

Posted by: CalGeorge | December 9, 2009 9:19 PM

This pile of crap will be mined for decades by intelligent people to demonstrate the utter ridiculousness of creationism.

To whomever made this available, thank you, thank you, thank you!

Posted by: SC OM | December 9, 2009 9:26 PM

I shudder to think what his masters thesis was like.

That reminds me...

Barbara Ehrenreich has a new book out

http://www.barbaraehrenreich.com/brightsided.htm

which offers a skeptic's view of the positive-thinking movement. In one speech, she talks about how she first became annoyed when she was diagnosed with breast cancer and got a care-package sort of thing that some organization produces - like a backpack with little lotions and shit. It contained a box of crayons, so she called to ask what those could possibly be for, and the woman answered, "Those are for if people want to write down their thoughts." She was like "I'm a professional writer. I don't use crayons." (I also just discovered that she has a doctorate in biology. Huh.*)

*That educational history I just didn't know about. This one was pretty funny (if you can ignore Stewart's recent stupidity re AGW and Superfreakonomics):

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-8-2009/gretchen-carlson-dumbs-down

Posted by: Kristine | December 9, 2009 9:29 PM

page 91: "Someone would say, 'What about stars? We know that they are billions of light years away.' I don't want to sound like a crackpot, but actually we don't know that stars are billions of years away."

page 94: "If a frog turns into a prince instantaneously, we call that a miracle or a fairytale. [Interesting slip, that!] But, if that frog turns into a prince very slowly, taking three or four hundred million years to make the transition, we will teach that in our universities as scientific fact."

Holy crap, now he's on about how some friend brought him a piece off the ocean floor, and if the earth is millions of years old, why isn't this piece much thicker, etc. No one ever gave poor Hovie a piece of the earth's mantle or core! Bwahaha.

page 99: "Some people say that the moon started as a part of the Pacific Ocean and was pulled out of that area. That was taught for many years and is still believe by some."

Posted by: JBabs073 | December 9, 2009 9:55 PM

I'm not sure if this has already been mocked, but this REALLY needs to if it hasn't:
"The god of Mohammedism is not the God of the Bible by any stretch of the imagination. It is a little pantheistic god of nature. Because of this, the Islam religion accepts evolution very readily as a scientific fact because it fits so well with their teaching. In the country of Turkey (which is almost totally dedicated to Mohammed) evolution is taught as fact."

Pretty sure this guy knew absolutely nothing of the world around him when he wrote his paper. I suppose that is blatantly obvious...

Posted by: Scott M | December 9, 2009 10:11 PM

I'm actually rather afraid to read this idiocy. From all the comments here, it seems as though that much concentrated stupidity could cause a black hole to form in the brain.

Posted by: Frank b | December 9, 2009 10:22 PM

I lived in Peoria for several years, one year at Bradley University, and two more working at a hospital. I shutter to think that Kent was just across the river at the time, going to high school. Eeeewwwww!

Posted by: destlund | December 9, 2009 10:27 PM

Frank b,

Not to worry, I don't think he really "went" to high school. I mean look at his thesis. He probably just got his high school credentials from a diploma mill. It's clear he never took high school biology or English. Middle school, however, I'd believe.

Posted by: destlund | December 9, 2009 10:58 PM

Case in point: Dan Brown.

Second case in point: Rick Warren.

They get credit for actually publishing. Something tells me, however, that the first would be laughed out of the room, even in the hallowed hall (there's probably only one) of Patriot University. On second thought, "jupiter rocks?!" nah, he's a shoo-in.

Posted by: anthonzi | December 9, 2009 11:03 PM

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/kent_hovinds_doctoral_disserta.php#comment-2134700

#15

This is generally the standard font for dissertations at some institutions.

Posted by: sasqwatch | December 9, 2009 11:55 PM

#215: Form&Function

Sasqwatch: One look sez that I write about more interesting stuff.

No kidding! "Sex", "sexual", "sexually" all prominently displayed... it bodes well until you notice "infection", "transmitted", and "gonorrhea". :) I have to ask why "seeds" is so frequent, however.

Gonorrhea infections are frequently transmitted when people spill their infected seeds.

Nah... I think that word turned up often when describing the study design, which involved network link-tracing off "seeds" (initial starting points for the tracing process).

Posted by: sasqwatch | December 9, 2009 11:57 PM

number fail - should have been 216.

Posted by: destlund | December 10, 2009 12:29 AM

@Noel,
Suffice it to say that I should not comment on specifics in public, but I often think of that poem in the presence of certain executives with whom I must engage frequently. They are very fond of poems. I'm just glad we haven't had reason to chat over ToE.

Posted by: destlund | December 10, 2009 12:53 AM

Quick, Kristine! Touch a siphon of milk to Him! hρg - 2γ/r = 0 It's a miracle!

Posted by: JSug | December 10, 2009 1:10 AM

I read the first 15 or so pages, then started skipping through and reading every 10th page or so. Every page is full of gems. I was delighted to learn that, according to Dr. Hovind, there are only three types of religion: atheism, pantheism, and Christianity.

He places the year of the flood right in the middle of the ancient Egyptian empire. Funny they never mentioned it.

He pulls out the big Hitler guns on page 68.

Apparently, "Several astronomers have said" (no citation) that we shouldn't have periodic comets if the earth is older than 10,000 years. And yet we still have periodic comets, therefore the earth is young.

I could go all night.

Posted by: JSug | December 10, 2009 1:27 AM

Ooh, here's some more. On pages 96-97:

"I would like to ask the evolutionists[sic] if he has some kind of answer to the fact that, if the earth is indeed million[sic] of years old, why is the oil still under such incredible pressure?"

Horrible spelling, grammar, and sentence structure aside, I'd be very interested in why he didn't ask. I mean, isn't one of the key parts of a (good) thesis to answer the questions you have? Supposedly he spent "hundreds of hours" on the phone, doing research. Of course, he'd probably be better off asking a geologist, rather than an "evolutionists" in this case. Maybe he called a university, asking for the evolutionism department, and couldn't get anyone to talk to him.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | December 10, 2009 3:46 AM

God damn it, the site's down. And the copy I downloaded earlier is on the computer that is currently off. Damn it, I wanted some comedy!

Posted by: rszasz | December 10, 2009 5:56 AM

I haven't looked at any of the OCR versions put up yet because I'm too busy trying to make an accurate version myself. There are so many errors in the text that I had to turn off the self checks my software uses to tell if a word is correctly recognized. On the other hand, in a couple hours I should have an accurate transcription of the text, errors and all (so many damned errors).

Posted by: Silent One | December 10, 2009 6:34 AM

Never let the facts get in the way of truth. The sad thing is I have met people who would nod their heads sagely in agreement with such wisdom – my seventh grade teacher in particular, a mad woman who went to peddle bibles in China.
Now, where can one get a time refund to replace that lost whilst reading that crap?

Posted by: Richard Eis | December 10, 2009 7:08 AM

-So there still is zero evidence for a world wide flood c. 2400 B.C.-

Perhaps he just assumed it was then, in the same way Hovind assumed the tower of Babel was 1900 BC. They can't do actual science, because then it would show no flood at all.

I still can't get over how he is completely rewriting evolution starting with Satan in (I assume...hehe) 6000 BC. It's like a bad history lesson where people and other religions are wrong because he doesn't agree with it.

Posted by: DyeGal41 | December 10, 2009 7:13 AM

Oh fucking SNAP!

Halfway down the first page of the 'body' of work and we've got thermodynamics. Fuck a duck. I knew this was going to hurt.

Teh stupid is going to burn down my house at this rate.

The whole laughable part is that this crap has nothing to do with evolution. It is a potted fantastical interpretation of some bits of Genesis, a 'history' of Christianity and oh God I can't bear it...

I was very angry on scanning over this document (so-called).

But then I read the thread comments. Thanks guys. I haven't laughed so much in ages. Pharyngula RULES.

PS, is there a programme that can turn this document (so-called) into Lolcatz language?

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | December 10, 2009 7:33 AM

Hovind's 'poetry' makes Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz look like Shakespeare...

"Oh freddled gruntbuggly?thy micturations are to me/As plurdled gabbleblotchis on a lurgid bee. Groop I implore thee, my foonting turlingdromes. And hooptiously drangle me with crinkly bindlewurdles,/ Or I will rend thee in the gobberwarts with my blurglecruncheon, see if I don't!"

You're right. IIRC, Vogon poetry is only the third worst in the universe. Hovind's work is more on a level with that of the second worst, the Poet Master Grunthos the Flatulent, whose work "Ode to a Small Lump of Green Putty I Found In My Armpit One Midsummer Morning" caused some audience members to die of internal haemorrhaging.

(It's rather frustrating that I can remember so much Hitchhiker's Guide trivia, but not enough cases and statutes for my forthcoming exams...)

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | December 10, 2009 7:43 AM

So how many areas of human intellectual endeavour has Hovind managed to steamroller in this train-wreck of a paper? He seems to view "evolution" as a blanket topic that allows him to mangle not only biology, but also geology, theology, archaeology, history of religion, and the English language itself. To scholars in any of those fields, reading this "dissertation" must be an experience comparable to hearing a band of tone-deaf musical illiterates attempt to perform Mozart's Requiem arranged for accordion, mouth-organ and didgeridoo.

Posted by: Josh | December 10, 2009 7:45 AM

To scholars in any of those fields, reading this "dissertation" must be an experience comparable to hearing a band of tone-deaf musical illiterates attempt to perform Mozart's Requiem arranged for accordion, mouth-organ and didgeridoo.

Yeah, I think that sums it up pretty nicely.

Posted by: Aquaria | December 10, 2009 7:51 AM

I started to read the poem, then I felt the urge to gnaw off my own leg, along with an uncanny sense of my small intestine reaching for my brain. So I stopped.

That means Hovind has gone beyond Vogon poetry awfulness. Oh no, he's now a rival to Grunthos, if not Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings.

Posted by: bloodredsun.myopenid.com | December 10, 2009 8:10 AM

As luck would have it, I've just gone through the process of getting my PhD thesis accepted.
If I'd known that getting one in Christian Education was something that could have been cobbled together while I was drunk one afternoon I wouldn't have bothered with all that neurophysiology malarkey!
What I wouldn't give to see the examiners report if this had been submitted to an accredited university.

Posted by: foo.ca | December 10, 2009 10:06 AM

I finished that OCR correction I mentioned back up at #155, and have posted the full text for analysis.

I ran a couple readability tests on it, and posted those as well at http://foo.ca/wp/2009/12/10/unbiased-readability-analysis-of-the-hovind-thesis/

It should come as no surprise to anyone who read this 'thesis' that Kent didn't score well;

Average Grade Level* 8.12

* These scores return a “grade level”, based on the USA education system. A grade level is equivalent to the number of years of education a person has had. Scores over 22 should generally be taken to mean graduate level text.

Of course, bad writing doesn't mean that it wouldn't sell well if it was featured in Oprah's Book Club...

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | December 10, 2009 10:49 AM

The worldwide flood left one whopping great canyon in one place in Arizona. Makes perfect sense to me.

Posted by: kopd | December 10, 2009 12:09 PM

Foo.ca @304:

Thank you for that. Now if only there were a Dunning-Kruger scale to check this against. If a DK scale were to be invented, I'd suggest the units be "hovinds."

Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 10, 2009 12:36 PM

Here is a tough question for all of the people going through Kent Hovind's dissertation, does he get one fact right? Is there anything that can be proven to be correct, well, besides Hello, my name is Kent Hovind.?

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | December 10, 2009 1:09 PM

I read the entire thing, my face hurts from all the *facedesk* I've been doing.

This piece of writing is absolute crap. It wouldn't have passed for proper writing in high school.

He interjects belief without proof so many times - 'I believe' 'I believe' - in a proper paper, you don't just say you believe, you show the reasons you believe it. There are no references cited through the entire thing. His main points all revolve around 'I believe the bible so it has to be true.'

Half of his paper is attacks on people, with few references and no proof at all. He calls people who believe in evolution 'stupid' 'fat' and 'evil.' There are misspellings, grammar errors, and very poor sentence structure.

The poem is just on one page, but it's easily an example of the whole thing. 'I have a point, here's a picture of a doggie, here's my other point.' It's all fluff and filler. He copy-pasted entire paragraphs and sections together later on. None of it made any logical sense.

Also, if I was playing a drinking game, for every time he said '# or #' if I took a drink, I would be passed out, 'there are three or four ways to do this' 'five or six ways' 'ten or eleven thousand.'

He confuses the actual science, and makes statements that are easily refutable. He could honestly have said 'I believe the bible and evolutionists are meanies' and it would have the same impact.

Now if you excuse me, I'm going to go take a couple aspirin and shoot myself.

Posted by: physicalist1 | December 10, 2009 1:44 PM

does he get one fact right?

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | December 10, 2009 2:14 PM

@InfuriatedSciTeacher - :O Can I get one of those PhDs?

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | December 10, 2009 2:38 PM

I would honestly buy one and hang it on my wall or at my cubicle.

Of course, only I would ever get it since everyone I've asked here at work have no idea who Lovecraft is...

Posted by: Josh | December 10, 2009 3:03 PM

Don't send them off to learn about, oh, I dunno, best practices in customer service - send them off to read the Bible!

"There's only one book you have to read!"

Posted by: bettySwollox | December 10, 2009 3:56 PM

weaponsofmassdeception
What are you talking about "NO CITATIONS whatsoever"? Hovind cites the Bible PLENTY of times haha!

Posted by: Josh | December 10, 2009 7:14 PM

@Kel:

Ha!

Posted by: Owlmirror | December 10, 2009 9:15 PM

Regarding "Patriot Bible University Christian non-gov’t Accredited Distance Learning Bible Degrees"...

In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of the scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first.

*snerk*

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | December 10, 2009 9:51 PM

Miskatonic University

Lovecraft was inspired by the name of a real town in eastern Connecticut, Mystic. The name has nothing to do with mysticism but is a colonial era mangling of the name of the local Indian tribe, the Mashentuckets.

Posted by: phi1ip | December 11, 2009 9:02 AM

darvolution proponentsist @ #321:

Epic LULz.

Jadehawk, OM @ #327:

He may not be Mozart, but Peter Sculthorpe's Requiem utilises a didj!

Posted by: Rog | December 11, 2009 1:27 PM

does he get one fact right?

I think the following quote is deomnstrably true:

"I cannot explain it, because I don’t understand it."

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | December 11, 2009 7:46 PM

Stephen Wells #331

I have a dissertation largely prepared...

Does it begin "Hi, my name is Steve Wells."? Or are you more formal, beginning in the Hovind fashion "Hello, my name is Stephen Wells."?

...in which I conclusively show that the real reason why global warming must be avoided is that further melting of the Antarctice ice sheet will infallibly release the shoggoths from their subterranean lair, and may even unleash the yet greater and nameless evil that lurks behind the battlements of Kadath in the frozen wastes.

Now that's a reasonable topic for a dissertation.

Posted by: themadlolscientist | December 12, 2009 5:24 PM

I can hear the meeting now:

"Hello, my name is Kent, and I am a Creotard."

"Hello, Kent...."

Posted by: Stephen Wells | December 12, 2009 7:16 PM

@334: it begins with "Ya, ng'ng'ah, Yog-Sothoth". Some members of the first examining committee survived, but we're having trouble convening another panel for the resit, partly because only some members _of_ the members of the first committee actually survived.

Posted by: AnthonyK | December 14, 2009 8:52 AM

Oh yeah, now I get it. So this is a scientific thesis, huh? A typical one, no doubt. Well, I call Hovindgate on this one.
Yeah, Hovindgate, in which it is clearly seen that science is just based on belief, and its credentials given away to a god-fearing man, inspired by prayer, on the basis of hearfelt beliefs, and with God as his references.
Well, I bet PZ's doctoral thesis is just the same.
"Hello, My name is PZ Myers, and I'm an atheist.."
Caught with your pants down, again, eh scientists?
On a more serious note, does this end with "and then I woke up..."? I don't know much about scientific theses but I bet that lots of them do end like that.
'Cos that way, they can't be wrong.

Posted by: Martin | December 15, 2009 5:36 PM

Carlie @55: "Huh. I tried to find Skip Evans' fabulous takedown on it, "The Dissertation Kent Hovind Doesn't Want You to Read", but now I can't find it. I can only find references to it. Anyone know where it went?"

Were you thinking of this piece by Karen Bartelt (a real Ph.D.)?:

The Dissertation Kent Hovind Doesn't Want You to Read

Posted by: Kukulkan | December 16, 2009 1:59 PM

I never knew that evolution had eastern and western branches. LOL

Posted by: Alan | December 22, 2009 11:12 PM

glenister_m asked "So how long did this thesis take? Less than a month? week? day? afternoon?"

Hovind says that it took him 9 years to get his PhD. He also says that the fact that Patriot U is unaccredited is no big deal because Harvard, Princeton, and Yale are unaccredited. Seriously.

Posted by: StrappingYngLad74 | January 14, 2010 6:34 PM

Page 22- Here's a nugget of anachronistic genius

"The Eastern branch (of Evolution) was also developing during this same time. People had traveled from the Tower of Babel to the Eastern countries of India, PAKISTAN, and China."

I didn't know Pakistan existed around the period of the Tower of Babel. I've been enlightened!

Posted by: rastaron | January 19, 2010 4:07 PM

I just read bits a pieces of this and it sounds like any other paranoid religious psychobabble.

I grew up a pretty radical fundamentalist Christian Church, and I know psychobabble when I hear it.

Great for laughs, however :)

Posted by: vladspeed | April 11, 2010 1:41 PM

http://video.stumbleupon.com/#p=ztwy8fwegz

Posted by: lykex | September 5, 2010 7:07 PM

I love his summary of Vedanta philosophy:

"[Vedanta] teaches that the universe is a living soul."

Apparently, that's all there is to it. I wonder how people have managed to write so many long books about it.

After reading Hovind's exhaustive analysis, I think maybe I should get a doctorate in eastern philosophy. Can't be too difficult.

Posted by: Applnokr | February 27, 2011 4:30 PM

To the authors of this weblog: I keep hearing very significant arguments against an old earth. As a graduate of Michigan State University, I left quite convinced that the earth is old, that evolution was a fact and the Bible cannot be true. But in my entire experience in the University, I never heard of legitimate question marks about evolution, although they existed in abundance. I have now concluded that no criticism or even constructive questions have been allowed anywhere near the campus classrooms of America and the students are not allowed to know that criticisms even exist. When I found out that seemingly legitimate questions and challenges to evo are positively sensored out, I was infuriated. Sensorship is no way to deal with questions in any branch of science no matter how mundane. Respect for alternative points of view and open mindedness is essential science at all levels. The tyranny of sensorship has no place in the quest for knowledge. Sensorship is not education it is indoctrination. Criticism of evolution is openly sensored by people who refuse to even allow a well credentialed scientist to even remain employed by places like the Smithsonian or a University (e.g. Steven Meyer Ph D, Michael Behe PH D, Guillermo Gonzalez Ph D, Richard Sternberg Ph D, Geoffrey Burbidge Ph D. The credentials of these people read like a laundry list of accolades which if untrue, then our system of acknowledging our best and brightest must be scrapped. I don't believe it. Those who are "approved of" come from the same acknowledgment mills. The question is, are you able to respond to reasonable questions? Will your responses consist of ad hominem attacks by asking questions? One poster on your blog is exemplary of this amazing closed mindedness with which this topic is even approached stating as follows: "Wow!. My IQ dropped 40 points just from reading the intro. I challenge anyone to finish this steaming pile of kindercreatiobabble without becoming reduced to a quivering mass with the intelligence of an amoeba." Frankly such an approach to "science" leads me to believe that it would be mathematically impossible for such a person to subtract 44 pts from his IQ. This is an inquiry, not an attack. Please refran from emotionalism and try to respond logically in terms understandable to a lay person. Seriously, for many of us who remain open minded, there seem to be legitimate arguments that might well be dispelled but never is due to the onslaught of vitriol that usually follows. If you cannot do so without ad hominem attacks, then just spit away and I'll just discount you and your contributors.

1. Don't isotope dating methods give wildly inconsistent results if tested blind? There seem to be several methods of isotope decay measurment methods including Rubidium-strontium, Potassium-Argon, Uranium-thorium, and other dating methods which when applied to the same sample give wildly varient results. If so, how can science rely upon such methods? Without reproducible results or corroborative results, we rely entirely on faith that these methods accurately age minerals. Indeed, these methods have dated the lava from a Hawaiian volcano that erupted in 1800 as being billions of years old. Responses say they have better equipment now than in 2000 but in 2000 had we not known the true age of the lava, it would, no doubt, be undisputed today.

2. Why do these laboratories require hints and clues as to the age before testing? Can blind testing compromise the "testing"? Isn't it unquestioned that the rate of decay is linear, or at least predictably eliptical? Is the rate of decay predictable? Could environment impact the rate of decay (e.g. temparature, interraction with other radiation, etc)

3. Consider C14 dating. The arguments that I have heard are that C14 is being produced in the atmosphere at a rate that exceeds its decay rate. But it is undisputed (and logical) that some level of C14 existing in the atmosphere would be at equilibrium with the decay rate. It is also undisputed that we have not yet reached that equilibrium. The rate of production of c14 would seem to indicate that production began less than 30,000 years old. That doesn't prove the earth is less than 30k years old but it would certainly indicate that the atmosphere was radically different 30k years ago than it is today which would seem to make life on earth before 30k years ago impossible. Note that c14 dating requires the assumption of the amount of c14 in the organic sample on the date it died to be the same as something that died today. less c14 to begin with would err on the side of old age - and radically so. Don't we know that the rate of c14 generation is not constant, but dependent upon a variety of circumstances like the strength of the earth's magnetic field? If not constant then we can't know how much c14 an organic sample died with and therefore, c14 dating is useless. At least that is where logic takes us based upon the foregoing analysis. If you believe c14 dating is viable then what is missing in my analysis. Indeed, the reliability of the science is also challenged by the existence of organice samples (man made items like hammers and sandals) within coal and crystal which "undisputedly" predate the appearance of man.

4. Then there is the intelligent design (ID) argument - the one that absolutely enrages people beyond all rationality. Life as we know it reproduces by means of DNA. It is but one of thousands or millions of simultaneous but equally complex components necessary for the reproduction of life. We know of no other means. So where did that original DNA molecule come from? Chance is not an acceptable answer because a single strand of DNA is more complex than the most complicated computer program. It is not a random assembly of compounds or molecules. It is a carefully arranged "code" and was, in fact, recognized by Cricke as code. Cricke was a code breaker during WW2. It is no coincidence that he is the discoverer of the meaning of the DNA molecule. The probability that the original DNA molecule randomly self assembled is so low as to be statistically zero. Impossible. And the DNA molecule is but one of thousands of components acting in unison to enable that original "simple single celled life form" to locate food, convert it to energy, grow, and then reproduce. AS the saying goes, it would be more statistically probable that a tornado could sweep through a junk yard and randomly assemble a Boeing 747 fueled and ready for takeoff. The discovery of the DNA molecule would seem to be a scathing indictment of the theory of evolution generally.

Kent Hovind's lectures present challenges to many accepted theories. The ad hominem attacks against him do nothing to address his arguments and thus, he ends up winning the day because the ad hominem and emotionalism sounds like "sour grapes". The best approach to Kent Hovind's challenges is to patiently address them being mindful of the level of education of the audience. While most folks lack sufficient education to comprehend the banter of the vernacular, they aren't preschoolers either and can understand more than arrogance is willing to admit. They will form an opinion. As one with education, you owe a duty to be involved in forming their opinions. This will require explanations is simpler terms - and then, again, patiently awaiting the response.

Additional issues that are beginning to challenge the age of the universe and the earth are quantized red shift, helium within granite, polonium Halos, and more.

Like I said, people will form opinions, as I am attempting to do. Please help out with reasonable answers to my questions above. Thanks.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | February 27, 2011 5:13 PM

Applnokr, if you were ever a grad student in anything, anywhere, then my ass chews gum. I would expect a grad student to be able to spell CENSORSHIP.

Quantized Redshift? Horse puckey. Cite a peer-reviewed study.

ID--it ain't science--never can be. As soon as you introduce an omnipotent deity, then precictability goes out the window.

Sorry, Dude, but at least have the honesty to reveal your true background and your sources. Right now, you're just trollin'.

Posted by: Alex, adv. diab. | February 27, 2011 5:42 PM

Something tells me 'es not going to be back. Just took a dump.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | February 27, 2011 5:49 PM

What is happening in American universities if a grad student doesn't understand that the age of the earth and evolution are two distinct scientific questions that are only loosely related at best? The theories and observations surrounding the age of the earth would still be valid in the absence of evidence of evolution (as was the case in the early 19th century) and the evidence for evolution still stood despite the geology not supporting the time frames (as was the case in the latter 19th century). That the evidence for both fits together now is a sign of the validity of both. But people though the earth was old before there was a good theory of evolution and evolution was true before the age of the earth was properly established.

Take away the evidence for evolution and you're still left with multiple methodologies conferring on an approx. 4.6 billion year old earth. Take away all evidence of the age of the earth and you're still left with multiple lines of evidence that demonstrate common descent.

Are you really a graduate, or are you bearing false witness on behalf of Jesus? ;)

Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic). | February 27, 2011 6:21 PM

Kent Hovind's lectures present challenges to many accepted theories.

Kent Hovind's work presents no challenges to any accepted theories.

Hovind has done no research, presented no facts. All he does is travel the Bible circuit, telling lies to make money. He has published nothing in any publication of science.

For Kent to challenge a generally-accepted theory, he needs to publish work that either refines the theory, or to muster evidence that refutes any part of it. Telling children that a theory is wrong does not challenge it. His lectures count for doo-doo.

Kent is either a false prophet, in it for the profit, or there is a vast conspiracy among science to hush up truth, to deliver lies and to deceive people. To argue for such a conspiracy is to describe religion exactly.

No argument for creationism can avoid invoking exactly the facts against itself. "Lies, hoax, conspiracy, gullibility and belief" are all words needed to explain away science's discoveries, but they fit religion and creationism like a plaster.

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | February 27, 2011 6:35 PM

So where did that original DNA molecule come from?

An even better question: What does that have to do with evolution?

Also, why do you assume that the Biblical model is the alternative? Presupposition perhaps?

Posted by: Nightjar | February 27, 2011 6:50 PM

BTW, Applnokr, this may interest you:

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective

I hope you give it a read. You may learn something.

Posted by: Applnokr | February 27, 2011 10:36 PM

Nerd of Redhead - clearly you aren't interested in a constructive conversation. Is mispellings the best you have? I am not wowed. Look, this isn't a competition. It is an inquiry. Please look up ad hominem. You'll understand what I was saying. Before I leave you with your self agrandized narcissism - if even more C14 is being made than just what is generated in the atmosphere, then that would tend to make the rate of production even faster making earth even younger (made faster but still not reaching equilibrium). Your "Invisible man" comment means you have never considered the prospect of a multidimensional existence or even an extradimensional existence (e.g. outside time). Also, your bold assertion that isotope dating methods are consistent doesn't wow me either. It amounts to a simple denial (e.g. "yes it is ... no it isn't ... ad nauseum). I am not attempting to prove the existence of God. I was asking a question seeking to understand. But I see the level of your pursuit of wisdom. Enjoy your immaturity.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 27, 2011 10:55 PM

clearly you aren't interested in a constructive conversation.

It is an inquiry.

Please look up ad hominem.

Also, your bold assertion that isotope dating methods are consistent doesn't wow me either.

I was asking a question seeking to understand.

But I see the level of your pursuit of wisdom. Enjoy your immaturity.

You are now in the arena of science. Where evidence rules. Either present real scientific evidence, from the peer reviewed scientific literature, or go away. Your choice cricket. Pick wisely.

Posted by: amphiox | February 27, 2011 11:04 PM

Your "Invisible man" comment means you have never considered the prospect of a multidimensional existence or even an extradimensional existence (e.g. outside time).

That's all irrelevant. IF said existence played any role at all in creation IN THIS UNIVERSE of any kind, then it MUST have left traces of its activity IN THIS DIMENSION. Since the purported created entities exist as physical things, then the impact of a hypothetical creator's activities ON THEM must have left PHYSICAL TRACES ON THEM indicating the creator's presence and activity ON THEM.

THAT is the kind of positive evidence that would be required before one can reasonably postulate a creator/designer as a scientific hypothesis.

And this is completely unrelated to the evidence for evolution or the age of the earth. Creationism must stand ON ITS OWN, with its own lines of supporting evidence. Even if there were no evidence at all in support of evolution, it does not follow from that that creationism is therefore correct. Creationism would remain equally completely unsupported (and the bible-based version would remain utterly falsified on many fronts).

Posted by: Owlmirror | February 27, 2011 11:16 PM

Please look up ad hominem.

I think you should be the one looking it up, since you've been misusing the term.

Your "Invisible man" comment means you have never considered the prospect of a multidimensional existence or even an extradimensional existence (e.g. outside time).

What makes you think that this is meaningful? You need more than just wild speculation that it might be possible.

Also, your bold assertion that isotope dating methods are consistent doesn't wow me either. It amounts to a simple denial (e.g. "yes it is ... no it isn't ... ad nauseum).

Since you demonstrate that you understand nothing at all about radiometric dating, what more do you want?

You haven't actually done the research to learn about how radiometric dating works, at all, so your bold assertion that they give "wildly varient" (sic) results is meaningless.

I was asking a question seeking to understand.

If you actually sought to understand, you wouldn't be spouting common Creationist misconceptions, distortions, and false claims.

PS: Francis Crick did not work on codes during WW2, and for that matter, while he did (in collaboration) discover the structure of DNA, he never ever claimed that DNA could not have been the result of chemical evolution.

And if you're going to vomit up a distortion of Directed Panspermia next, I would suggest you read the damn paper first, because it doesn't say what Creationists falsely claim it does.

Posted by: amphiox | February 27, 2011 11:26 PM

Tree ring data alone goes back over 10,000 years, comfortably refuting YEC (a global flood should also stand out like a neon sign in tree rings, but of course no such signal exists).

And you don't need any fancy math for tree rings. You just need to now how to count.

Posted by: Nightjar | February 28, 2011 4:37 AM

Sigh. I don't understand. I have yet to see a YEC showing signs of having read Wien's article, and I know I've linked to it many times. They always ignore it.

I was asking a question seeking to understand.

Applnokr? You still there? Will you please show some fucking integrity and read the damn thing? The answers to some of your questions are there. Go read it. And don't pretend Nerd's comment was the only response you got, you dishonest fuckwit. I even tried to be polite. Why did you ignore me? Weren't you looking for answers? Why do you ignore them?

Posted by: John Morales | February 28, 2011 5:19 AM

Nightjar, dunno.

Me, I'm 4-dimensional. At least! :)

Posted by: David Marjanović | February 28, 2011 6:52 AM

Don't isotope dating methods give wildly inconsistent results if tested blind? There seem to be several methods of isotope decay measur[e]ment methods including Rubidium-strontium, Potassium-Argon, Uranium-thorium, and other dating methods which when applied to the same sample give wildly varient results.

The biggest inconsistency I've ever seen is for the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary: 64.98 ± 0.05 million years according to uranium/lead, 65.5 ± 0.3 million years according to, IIRC, potassium/argon. These datings were made several years apart, the samples weren't taken from the same rock (not even close), and U/Pb gives slightly younger ages than K/Ar elsewhere, too.

If you call that "wildly inconsistent", you're hopeless.

Isn't it unquestioned that the rate of decay is linear, or at least predictably eliptical?

"Unquestioned"? It's an observed fact that decay is logarithmic (not linear... I mean, please).

Is the rate of decay predictable?

Oh yes.

Could environment impact the rate of decay (e.g. temparature, interraction with other radiation, etc)

It is an observed fact that it doesn't.

Really. Did you seriously believe that all these hundreds of scientists were too silly to think of all the obvious possibilities before they started to develop their methods?

Consider C14 dating. The arguments that I have heard are that C14 is being produced in the atmosphere at a rate that exceeds its decay rate. But it is undisputed (and logical) that some level of C14 existing in the atmosphere would be at equilibrium with the decay rate.

The production rate of ¹⁴C fluctuates over the millennia, because it depends on how active the sun happens to be at the moment millennium. This is known from sampling dendrochronology-dated wood and carbon-dating it.

The resulting calibration curve extends for well over 10,000 years now. Without such calibration, and thus without errors of up to 2,000 years or something, ¹⁴C dating goes back all the way to maybe 50,000 years (I haven't heard 18,000 before), because that's about 10 half-lives – after that much time, the amount of ¹⁴C in a sample approaches the limit of measurement.

helium within granite

Well, duh. One of the decay products of uranium, thorium, and several others is helium, so of course you'll find (traces of) helium in any granite.

polonium Halos

That's point 13 on this page, which you should have read anyway. Go ahead, read it.

PS: Francis Crick did not work on codes during WW2, and for that matter, while he did (in collaboration) discover the structure of DNA, he never ever claimed that DNA could not have been the result of chemical evolution.

And he had nothing to do with the genetic code. He was one of the people who discovered the shape of the DNA molecule (and thus, in very general terms, how it must be copied); how it codes for anything is a completely different problem.

On where DNA comes from, learn about RNA and TNA and GNA... Wikipedia knows it all, you have a lot to learn.

Astronomical dating confirms radiometric dating past 100 million years ago, besting it for more recent dates

Cyclostratigraphy is awesome.

Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic). | February 28, 2011 1:16 PM

Cyclostratigraphy is awesome.

Yes it is.

I hadn't heard of cyclostratigraphy before, at least not enough for it to come to mind, but a quick Google was informative and enlightening. And quite timely.

I'd driven through a road-cut the other day, and really noticed the regular banding in the sediments. I was otherwise focussed, so I didn't try to research it later, but it was rattling around in the back of my mind.

So thanks extra for the tip-off to cyclostratigraphy.

Pharyngula is awesome.

(And science is awesome. And the internet is awesome. And David Marjanović is awesome.)

Posted by: David Marjanović | March 2, 2011 3:00 PM

And the paper is available for free.

<pounce> <hug> ^_^

Posted by: David Marjanović | March 7, 2011 7:16 PM

It's an observed fact that decay is logarithmic

<headdesk>

Exponential! Just with a negative exponent.

N_t = N₀ · e^−λt

t = time that has passed
N_t = amount left after t
N₀ = original amount (amount at t = 0)
λ = constant; each radioactive isotope has its own.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 8, 2011 12:13 PM

And he had nothing to do with the genetic code.

In correct. His research during the late 1950s was key in figuring out the code.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick#Molecular_biology