Hovind has been proven many times not to know what he is talking about.
This is not true.
What is true is that there have been many attempts to discredit him because the information he exposes presents a very real threat to the evolution religion.
My guess is that in his video he does not tell you that the geologic column (including the sedimentary layers) has been dated by many absolute methods that correlate;
The problem here is that we are getting bad research.
The pharmaceutical companies are well known to produce "studies" that are designed with an predetermined outcome in mind.
They also produce epidemiological studies that look good prima facie, but upon examination, the real agenda becomes obvious.
And herein lies the problem. There is indeed an agenda.
We see evidence of this agenda when good people are willing to come out and expose the agenda. You will find example after example of this type of behavior from large institutions that are supposedly scientific on the New Now forum:
http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=postlist&Board=128&page=1Similarly, Anthropologists, paleontologists, and those in related fields come out from time to time and expose that your statement is not true, that is, that multiple methods are not used to correlate the age of fossils.
Instead we learn that numbers are tweaked, but more often simply made up so they fit the desired outcome.
When you have so my lying going on in today's world, we are forced to do our own homework to find out which "side" has more credibility.
I have done my homework and found that the "side" exposing the false dating numbers has more credibility.
Unfortunately, this homework takes times and is too lengthy to post here, so I must resort to the next most effective method, posting links to other articles, which I will do now.
http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asphttp://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.htmlOf course, 800 meters of erosion is only the erosion that would take place in 5.5 million years since the Colorado River started forming the Grand Canyon. But, what about the Colorado Plateau itself? Well, there seem to be two different theories. One theory suggests that the most recent uplift of the Kaibab Plateau (the region of the Colorado Plateau that is located right around the Grand Canyon region) started some 17 million years ago and the other suggests that the this uplift actual started some 35 million years ago. Either way, the overall uplift of the Colorado Plateau is supposed to have started a bit later at around 15 million years ago. Some suggest that the Colorado Plateau was already uplifted a few thousand feet before it started its most recent uplift, while others believe that it was "near sea level" just before its latest uplift.83,84,85,86 Either way, with an erosion rate of about 15cm/kyr, that's about 150 vertical meters/million years or ~2,250 meters of erosion in 15 million years averaged over this entire region.
This makes me wonder how the relatively young Tertiary sediments survived atop the Grand Staircase over the course of some 15 million years of erosive pressure. Was there really over 2,000 meters of sediment covering these remaining tertiary sediments? I mean really, a couple thousand meters of sediment was definitely removed from over the gentle dome-shaped uplift of the Grand Canyon region in a mere 5 or 6 million years while the topmost sediments of the Grand Staircase were hardly touched in 15 million years? - despite having a greater elevation and relief? Also, if 2,000 vertical meters of sediment was removed from the Kaibab Plateau after the local dome shaped uplift, where are the side channels, around the dome, formed by the rivers that took this large amount of sediment away from this region? As far as I can tell, there simply are no such significant pathways of sediment removal around this dome-shaped region. Yet, wouldn't they have to be there if in fact such a large amount of sediment were in fact removed from atop this dome-shaped region over many millions of years of time?
(These below contain referenced studies below)
Radio-active dating techniques can only be performed on igneous rock and only in rare cases can the fossils themselves be dated by radioactive dating techniques (Baker, 1996). Thus the dating of rocks by fossils and vice versa involves circular reasoning that the theory of evolution is true.
You will note that as we study this subject, the "conventional mainstream" viewpoint is littered with contradictions and inconsistencies.
This is only scratching the surface, while further research shows that great liberties, in fact, outright lies are fabricated to attempt to make evolution look credible by falsely supporting the "geologic column" myth.
I know it's hard to believe and it's difficult to accept, but there are people with agendas in powerful positions that control information in ways we don't want to face.
This is blatantly true in the medical industry, financial industry, and a little study shows the same is true in the study of evolution.
By refusing to summarise even one of his points and instead making comments like those above, you also show that you do not understand what he is trying to talk about.
It is truly amazing that you conclude that I do not know what he is talking about because I don't summarize his points.
As I've said previously, I don't take the time to do this because it is more efficient to allow onlookers of these debates to read this information from referenced, reviewed sources online.
My real goal is to expose the truth to people who want it, and I have received comments from people thanking me for my work in this forum demonstrating the corruption that exists in the promotion of the evolution myth.
Just as mercury-filled fillings were pushed because there was an agenda, evolution is also promoted because a faith in evolution facilitates certain societal conditions that make the socialization of existing countries and cultures possible.
Evolution is the foundation of humanism. It is written into the Humanist Manifesto, and this no mistake.
Communism is also decidedly evolution-based.
Freedom and personal responsibility are Biblical-Christian concepts that powerbrokers do no like and have been fighting long before they -- the powerbrokers -- instituted the crusades.
Linda, you are on the evil side of history. You need to let go of your idols and revisit your research.
You often accuse Christians of blindly accepting what they are told and that you perform real research. In reality, the exact opposite is true.
"It is a mistake to believe that even one fossil species… can be demonstrated to have been ancestral to another."
—Dr. Gareth J. Nelson, American Museum of Natural History
"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end—no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin's pronouncements and predictions . . Let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."
—I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).
