Now that some are familiar with Kent Hovind, regardless of jail time, what do you think of his stance of the YEC worldview?

In one video that I have of his teachings, he adamantly treaches  that all data we have now points to the flood.  An example is the many fossilized trees found in differing stratas... and in a certian position.  But one/several articles in the following link are interesting....

http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=21

As I see it nuts are very beneficial and tasty.  For example:

Nuts holds things together... your wheel would fly off your car if it were not for them nuts i'll have you know.  So there, you should feel safer with that knowledge.. and I tell you at no cost. 

And the so often nut-roast.... yummy.  Too bad this nut gives a sour taste in your mouth.

How about commenting on one of subjects that I gave a link to?   

Now that is something that I am talking about!!

See how this works?  Now this gets me digging deeper..haha

What precisely is the 'lie' in #2?

He makes up his own farcical claim that is not part of evolutionary theory and ends up claiming that it is part of the theory of evolution instead of his own creation.

That's not what I read at all.  He was saying that evolutionary theory should make that prediction.

  That evolutionist don't in fact make that prediction is actually his point.  I only read this one page, and #2 in particular.  There is no lie in #2.

Is this true or not?  "The theory of evolution teaches that living things are becoming more complex as time progresses."

Hmmm.  I would say that technically, this is not correct.  The factual observation that living things have become more complex as time has progressed is one of the observations that the ToE explains.  Just as the factual observation of the moon's path relative to the Earth is explained by the theory of general relativity.

This is not what the scientist denies.  The scientist denies that evolutionists use chromosomes as a measurement of evolution, to which Hovind is like NO KIDDING, hello, the point.

I'm not one who spends a lot of time on YEC sites, but this 'lie' is pretty weak.  If this is a lie, then all the times when I insist that evolution and atheism should have moral implications (and I assert what I think those should be) I am incorrect... and then when an atheist says "no, we don't believe that" which is my point "RIGHT, but WHY NOT" the fact that they denied this as part of their system, I'm lying.

I can't wait until I'm famous enough when I have doltish articles like this about me on the net.

The last few quotes show that as time went by he did start to consider the higher number of chromosomes = more evolved to be part of evolutionary theory. 

"The last few quotes show that as time went by he did start to consider the higher number of chromosomes = more evolved to be part of evolutionary theory."

In that case, he's been persuaded.  God help us if a person making a claim but comes to reject it later on is still a liar because of his earlier claim.

Huh ?  He knows the source of the idea that higher number of chromosomes = more evolved (he made it up) and he knows evolutionary theory doesn't claim that that would be the case (he knew it was a farce when he made it up.)  He then goes on to start claiming that it IS a part of evolutionary theory.  How is that not a lie ?  Especially when he deletes the original documents off of his website to hide the creation of the farce !

"He knows the source of the idea that higher number of chromosomes = more evolved (he made it up)"

Right.  He says in the quoted essay:

"Because the chromosomes in living matter are one of the most complex bits of matter in the known universe, it would seem logical to assume that organisms with the least number of chromosomes were the first ones to evolve..."

"and he knows evolutionary theory doesn't claim that that would be the case (he knew it was a farce when he made it up.)"

You don't seem to be able to figure out what is the 'farce.'  The 'farce,' he says, is that evolutionists don't actually rank species in chronological order by chromosome.  He believes they should, as it 'would seem logical' to him to do so.  That they don't requires a better explanation then 'we don't.'

The quote:

MOORE I know of no evolutionary biologist that makes that claim.
HOVIND  I agree that no evolutionary biologist makes that claim because the data is so against that theory.  I've got a chart ...

The 'farce' in his mind is that evolutionists don't make the claim.  He wants to know why they don't.  He thinks they should.  I'm only going on the text that this person (a slanderer, apparently) has provided and even just using it you can't justify the accusation.

"He then goes on to start claiming that it IS a part of evolutionary theory."

Now YOU are lying.*  After the conversation between MOORE and HOVIND, there isn't that much more to go on provided by the site, and here it is:

By the year 2000 the boundary between fact and fiction was nonexistent [3]
 
Truth of the matter is, if you organize the animals based upon the number of chromosomes, you don

If this is a lie, then all the times when I insist that evolution and atheism should have moral implications (and I assert what I think those should be) I am incorrect... and then when an atheist says "no, we don't believe that" which is my point "RIGHT, but WHY NOT" the fact that they denied this as part of their system, I'm lying.

I just wanted to come back to this.  I think evolution and atheism do have some moral implications, in that they are pretty significant parts of the picture of what is.  But since we have little agreement on what we're talking about when we're talking about morality or morals we're just about discussing different things.  To me, an individual's morality starts with his/her own perspective, while to you it seems to start with an external / objective source.  If one sticks with an external source and accepts evolution and atheism you would end up with a very selfish morality.  If one sticks with an internal source for morality, external sources only add another perspective to the mix.

While I'm glad that you agree with me on that point, it was nothing more than an illustration of an analog.  I will be happy to take that topic up with you in the near future, and I hope some of the resident atheists who have denied what you have affirmed participate.

"The other documents, from 2000 and 2002, show him claiming that it WAS part of the theory."

Most likely, the other resident atheists have not understood the implications of BOTH maintaining an external source for morality and switching that source from God to the evolutionary process.  Until the last few years when I started these conversations with religious believers, I didn't understand the idea of an external source for morality.

I cited what the article provided here.  Feel free to quote the precise statements where he indicates that it WAS part of the theory.  Be prepared for strict principles of interpretation to be applied.  It had better be able to easily rise above these considerations to justify the label 'liar' or else not made at all.

You cited the article up until 1998.  The last three quotes, all from 2000 onwards, show him saying chromosome number = more evolved to be a part of the ToE as opposed to a parody of his own invention.

Right.  He says in the quoted essay:

"Because the chromosomes in living matter are one of the most complex bits of matter in the known universe, it would seem logical to assume that organisms with the least number of chromosomes were the first ones to evolve..."

Let's back up on the essay.  He says at the beginning of the essay:

The Possum, the Redwood Tree, and the Kidney Bean: "Our Ancestors" 

A Spoof on Evolution Theory

He knows the whole thing is a spoof.  He created the whole idea and (at the time) knows that the ToE doesn't imply anything remotely like this.

The quote from 2000 is footnoted to go to the transcript of the show he was on so you can see the context.  The quote is:

Truth of the matter is, if you organize the animals based upon the number of chromosomes, you don