Tuesday, September 1, 2015

Response to Tim Stratton (Some Apologist You’ve Probably Never Heard Of)

In July (2015), I came across this article by the aforementioned apologist you’ve probably never heard of, claiming indisputable proof that naturalism can’t possibly be true.  Giving him the benefit of the doubt that he was a reasonable person (an unfortunate mistake), I attempted to engage with him on an intellectual level, and explain where I felt the syllogism he provided was flawed.  Tim Stratton himself did reply to me, but in very snobbish, condescending tones, as if sheer hubris somehow made his points more logical.  Eventually, the owner of the website removed all the comments, on the grounds that the discussion was “unhelpful,” and said he would be moderating all further comments.  The next day, another comment was posted where somebody expressed their agreement with Stratton, and offered another syllogism they thought was similarly effective.  I posted a comment where I calmly explained why I didn’t agree that the second syllogism was logically valid, and hey, guess what?  My post never got through moderation.  What a surprise. 

So fast-forward a month and a half, when I’m checking my email and I see a notification for a new comment on that article.  The comment simply said “Brilliant!”  So I wrote back, and said “Yeah! Especially the part where all the comments that disagreed with it were deleted!”  Okay, maybe that wasn’t the most calm and rational way to express my frustration, but I thought it might garner a response, and I was right.  Tim Stratton replied, and we got back into it, however briefly.  In his second reply, he said “Make your case, TB. I hope it’s different than the last one you made. I do not have time to waste with those unwilling to be persuaded by logic and reason. If your next response has ONE logical fallacy in it. I will point it out, and will not allow you to continue to be a troll on my posts wasting my time. Choose your argument carefully.”  Of course, he’s the one who gets to decide what is and is not a logical fallacy, so that’s basically a kangaroo-court situation.  Sure enough, in the next reply he accuses me of more logical fallacies, and says “our conversation is over.” 

So, hey, if he’s done with the discussion, that’s his choice, but it doesn’t mean that I can’t reply to his post anyway, and point out all the many ways I think he’s still very wrong.  (If for some masochistic reason, you want to read more of our inane, rambling argument and get the fuller context of this post, I saved as much of it as I could salvage here.)

So here’s what I would’ve said if he hadn’t run away from the conversation (inset paragraphs are quotes from his last reply):

TB, reasonable Christians are happy to accept the “burden of proof.” It’s quite light actually. We have a plethora of data — a cumulative case of evidence — that demonstrates not only that naturalism is probably false, but that God probably exists! I’ve written on many of these arguments utilizing logic, science, and the historical method which demonstrate theism with high degrees of probability (feel free to read my other articles). David Hume said “wise men choose probabilities.” I couldn’t agree more!
So, TB, the burden is now back on your shoulders.

Isn’t that something?  At the beginning of one paragraph, you say Christians are happy to accept the burden of proof, and then at the beginning of the very next paragraph, you shift it back to me.  That burden of proof must be really hot if you feel the need to unload it so quickly.

And, I’m sorry, but how exactly does that first paragraph put the burden back on me anyway?  First of all, I disagree with your reasons for saying that Christianity is the higher probability (and I would be happy to get into each of those in detail, if you weren’t already fleeing from any further discussion with me), but second, the fact that you think the probability is on your side doesn’t somehow magically shift the burden of proof.  That’s simply not how it works.  The person who’s making the affirmative assertion (that’s you, by the way) has the responsibility to bear the burden of proof; they don’t just get to shove it off on the other person when they subjectively feel like they’ve reached 51% probability for their side.

What evidence do you have that nature is all that exists?

The fact that all the evidence to the contrary is so full of holes, unsupported premises, circular reasoning, and other logical fallacies. 

What logic-based arguments do you possess that conclude: “Therefore, naturalism is true?”

No, see, I don’t play that game.  What Christians or theists so often seem to forget (or deliberately hide), is that syllogisms don’t determine reality.  I could make a logic-based argument that concludes, “therefore, Santa Claus is real,” but it doesn’t mean Santa Claus is going to suddenly pop into existence if nobody can refute it.  Syllogisms are a good way of organizing logical arguments and putting them in a concise form, but whether somebody has a bunch of syllogisms for their position or not doesn’t effect how true it is.  On a side note, that’s exactly why the Modal Ontological Argument seems so desperate to me; it’s like they’re trying to argue God into existence.  Unfortunately for you, he’s either real or he’s not, independent of how airtight you think your syllogisms are.

Also, you said you agreed that “wise men choose probabilities,” so if we were just talking in terms of syllogisms that concluded “therefore, naturalism is probably true,” I could probably come up with a dozen of those.  The classic Epicurean Paradox basically already does that.  And if you say you’ve already considered that argument and dismissed it, now you know how I feel about all your arguments for the existence of God.

Do you have any evidence or do you simply assume naturalism and then argue naturalism is true because you assume it’s true?

Yes, I have plenty of evidence; and indeed, that evidence was what won me over to the naturalistic stance I now have.  I didn’t adopt my worldview based on a dogmatic assumption, and then only look for the supportive evidence later, like so many Christians do (including yourself, as you admitted in this video). 

What do you mean by “default setting?” Why even have a “default setting?” Why not start with pure neutrality and an open mind to avoid bias?

Can someone have pure neutrality about the existence of the earth, or the sun, or their own body?  I don’t see how.  And guess what, all those things are natural.  What I mean by default setting is that we all know the natural exists, whether the supernatural does or not.  The default is not a disbelief in the supernatural; the default is an understanding that the natural world is actual, and then we can go from there to figure out what else is or is not actual.

Moreover, I have never asked you to reject the existence of nature, TB.

Then you agree that the existence of the natural is a reasonable default setting.  So all it takes to believe in pure naturalism is a disbelief in the supernatural.  Evidence for disbelief is not required; it’s enough to have a lack of evidence for the positive belief.

The question is this: Is there more to reality than simply what can be experienced via the five sense or discovered scientifically?

Come now, you know that’s not the real question.  The real question is, does the Christian God exist?  That’s the only question you really care about.  Anything like this is just a stepping stone to get back to that point.  Even if I agreed in a deist-style god (which I do think is entirely possible, since such a being would leave no imprint on the physical world, and thus wouldn’t be discredited by a lack of evidence), that still doesn’t get you from A to Christianity.

You are assuming that nature is all that exists, to argue that nature is all that exists. TB, that is a logical fallacy.

No, I’m not assuming that.  You’re assuming that I’m assuming, to argue that I’m assuming.  If that ain’t a logical fallacy, I don’t know what is.

Second, did you know that many physicists today are questioning the existence of space and matter. Even the well-known atheistic theoretical physicist, Sean Carroll, has recently written on the issue. In fact, Scientific American recently wrote on the topic. Here’s the info: Michael Moyer, Is Space Digital?, Scientific American (Special Collector’s Edition), Fall 2014, 104-111. Much recent high-end theoretical physics has lent weight towards the possibility that the fabric of space is emergent.

I never claimed to be an expert in science, but if I took those statements to an “Ask Science” discussion board, and asked them to unpack the technical jargon and give it to me in layman’s terms, do you really, honestly believe they’d come back with the response that these scientists think space does not exist, therefore the supernatural must be real?  Somehow, I doubt it.

But another problem with this statement is that you earlier asked, “Is there more to reality than simply what can be experienced via the five sense or discovered scientifically?”  And before that, you claimed  that I was “presupposing that science is the only way to KNOW.”  Now, your evidence that this might not be the case is some things that people have discovered scientifically.  You can’t use scientific findings to show that there’s more to life than science. 

Here’s the thing, TB: If space does not exist, neither does matter!

What are we made of then?  Even if we’re not made of “matter,” we’re still made of something.  And whatever we’re made of, that’s a thing that exists, or else we couldn’t be having this conversation.  If whatever we’re made of (which exists) doesn’t violate the laws of nature, then whatever we’re made of is natural. Therefore, the natural exists, whether matter does or not.

However, I am pointing out that your biased and so-called “default position” is rejected by many scientists today!

No, my default position is that the natural exists, not that the supernatural doesn’t exist.  The default position should be neutral toward the supernatural, as you said, but can’t be neutral toward nature, because everything we directly observe could not exist without it.  Those scientists are not rejecting my default position as accurately stated.

Moreover, you have no evidence that the supernatural does not exist.

You have no evidence that it does; at least, none that isn’t based on unsupported premises and other logical fallacies. 

All you have is your precious presuppositions.

If all I was doing was just desperately holding onto my “precious presuppositions,” I’d still be a Christian.

Remember, to argue your worldview is true because you presuppose it’s true is a logical fallacy.

So you agree that people like Greg Bahnsen and Sye ten Bruggencate are basing their entire argument for the existence of God on a logical fallacy?  If the evidence in favor of God is so overwhelming, why do they need to do that?

There are many young earth creationists out there today that don’t find the evidence for evolution over billions of years compelling, but don’t ya think they probably should?

Yes, I certainly do.  But they don’t believe it, because they believe in the same Bible (and the same style of “rationality” where they start with the conclusion and work backwards) that you do.

I’m not appealing to the majority to argue the majority is correct (that would be a fallacy), 

Yup.

I’m simply pointing out that your biased “default position” does not seem to be shared with most scientists, let alone the rest of the world.

Unless those scientists don’t believe that nature exists at all, then they aren’t disagreeing with my default position.  I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you honestly misunderstood by statement about what the default position was, and not that you’re deliberately attacking a straw man (which would be a logical fallacy).

You said, “It’s like if somebody doesn’t believe that aliens exist. Do you demand that they provide proof that aliens don’t exist, and call them a “presupper” if they don’t have any?”
 I would ask what reason they don’t believe in aliens!

And yet, you’re not asking me for reasons, you’re demanding proof.

But it is definitely not impossible and I’m willing to be proven wrong. So, I have reason to doubt alien life, but I’m open to examine new evidence and change my mind.

I feel exactly the same about the existence of God.

If there were a cumulative case of arguments using logic and science that concluded: “Therefore, aliens probably exist,” I would definitely put my faith – a reasonable faith – that aliens probably do exist.

Would that still be the case even if you saw clear holes in the arguments and the logic they used?

I think it would be downright foolish if there were a cumulative case of evidence utilizing logic, science, and the historical method all pointing to the probably existence of aliens, to emotionally exclaim: “Well, humanity is the default position! We know humans exist!” I think you know that’s foolish too, TB.

But that’s not what I said, is it?  I said the burden of proof isn’t on the person who doesn’t believe in aliens, because we all know that humans exist.  Is it foolish to believe that humans exist?  Is it foolish to believe that aliens exist if we have no evidence that they do?  Is it foolish to put your faith in the existence of aliens if all the so-called evidence for their existence is full of holes and presuppositions?  I would say that last two statements are quite foolish, but the first one is not.

Sure, TB, but without justification your belief, one way or the other, does not count as a knowledge claim.

Good thing I haven’t made any knowledge claims.  You’ve put a lot of words in my mouth, but that’s your problem.

NO, TB, YOU ASSUMED & REASONED IN A CIRCLE!

Calm down, buddy.  Weren’t you just saying something about emotional exclamations?

You are presupposing that science is the only way to KNOW. But here’s the question: How do you KNOW that? Did you test the natural/physical/material world and discover that this is the only way to discover things?

Take another look at my reply.  I never once mentioned science.  You’re presupposing that I think science is the only way to know, and then you’re basing your arguments on that presupposition.  You’ve already said that an argument based on presupposition is no argument at all, so I’ll just go ahead and disregard this.

Okay,TB, now you are making theological assumptions too. At this point, at least you are open to the idea of Deism (God’s existence); however, your assumption seems to assume that God is the type of thing that behave as material/non-persons behave.

Again, you’re reading into my comments assumptions that you want me to have, over and above what I’ve actually stated.  I’m not making any assumptions about how God behaves, I’m simply stating that anything which has an impact on the physical/natural world can be discoverable, by discovering that impact.  Do you agree with that?  It follows then, that the only way something could NOT be discoverable is if it does NOT have any impact on the natural world.  I did not say, anything that does not have any impact on the natural world is not discoverable, I only said that that would be the only situation in which something could be undiscoverable.  You really need to address what I actually say instead of reading your straw man atheist stereotypes into it.

Oh my goodness! TB, did you know that missing the point is actually considered a logical fallacy? 

Well then, you’re in bad shape, since you’ve missed the point of practically everything I’ve said.

I already explained above that beliefs without warrant can still happen to be true; however, you could never *know* it! Knowledge is defined as JUSTIFIED true belief.

That’s a definition of knowledge, but it’s hardly the most common.  Merriam-Webster defines knowledge thusly:

: information, understanding, or skill that you get from experience or education

: awareness of something : the state of being aware of something

Dictionary.com’s first definition is “acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition.”  There are six more, but none of them use the definition you’re claiming as a premise either. 

Cambridge’s online dictionary defines knowledge as “awareness, ​understanding, or ​information that has been ​obtained by ​experience or ​study, and that is either in a person’s ​mind or ​possessed by ​people ​generally.”

None of these definitions from eminent dictionaries define knowledge as “justified true belief,” hence my reason for saying that you’re just changing the definition of these words to suit your purposes (not to say that you came up with that yourself, but that you ignored the most common definitions in favor of one that would suit your purposes better). 

But then, I don’t even accept the premise that beliefs in a purely naturalistic framework can’t be justified.  “Determined” is not the same as “random.”  If the atoms in our brains were just bouncing around in a purely random fashion, then I would agree no beliefs could justified.  But they aren’t random; the experiences we have and the data we consume affects how and where those atoms bounce.  If you say that experiences and data cannot be considered justification, then how can you justify your beliefs even if naturalism isn’t true?  You can’t use the double standard of saying that experiences and data are admissible as justification, but only if the supernatural is real.  They either are or they aren’t; either way, we both have equal ability to be justified by experiences and data. 

Again, TB, you are missing the point because I have offered many reasons to think God exists and that Christianity is probably true.

Just because I disagree with your point doesn’t mean I’m missing it.

The example you offered is not even close to what I am offering. This is dangerously close to attacking a straw man.

No, it’s not a straw man, it’s an illustration.  The point was that it’s possible for people to have true beliefs without a free choice in the matter.  That’s the only point I was making with that illustration.

If atheism were true, and the only reason your kids become atheists is because they were raised by atheist parents, then this is not a good or warranted reason to be an atheist, even if atheism happens to be true – they need good reasons! Now, if God exists, and someone is a theist just because they live in the Bible Belt, this is not a good reason to be a theist even if theism is true. However, this is also not a good reason to conclude that since they are theists for bad reasons – because of their environment and upbringing – then atheism must be true.

Which is exactly why the overwhelming majority of atheist parents I’ve met raise their kids to have good reasoning skills instead of raising them to be atheists.  Makes you wonder why Christians in the Bible Belt don’t do that too, huh?  Of course, I agree, that doesn’t automatically mean that theism is false.  However, this fact, that so many theists (including many of those scientists you mentioned, I’d wager) are only theists because of what you admit are bad reasons, is certainly another data point which bears considering.

I pointed out the following: “I specifically explain (as I just did here) exactly WHY your arguments are logically fallacious . . .”
 You interrupted me and said, “Just because you give an explanation of why you think something is a logical fallacy doesn’t automatically mean it is.”

Wow.  I have never heard anyone accuse anyone else of “interrupting” in a textual internet discussion before.  Did I stop you in the middle of your thought and prevent you from typing up the rest of your post, or did I perhaps just decide to quote only a portion of your paragraph for the sake of brevity?  You’re not quoting my whole paragraphs either, does that mean you’re interrupting me?

So now you are the one that never provides explanations but only presupposed assumptions, and moreover, now it is you who claims that logical explanations of things are no good.

No, as a matter of fact, I never said any of that.  What did you just say about missing the point?

I think our conversation is over, TB.

Then why did you keep going for 800 more words after saying that?  It seems like you’re forgetting Matthew 5:37.  Or did you really mean, “our conversation is over as soon as I finish getting the last word?”

The guy who can explain exactly why the other is committing logical fallacies and has the evidence on his side. That’s me by the way.

Yeah, not from where I am standing.  Guess what?  You saying so still doesn’t make it true.  I’ve given plenty of explanations for how you’ve committed logical fallacies too, and you haven’t even answered all of them.

I appreciate you making the case for theism for all rational readers following along.

If you really did appreciate it, and honestly think I was making the case for theism, then why are trying so desperately hard to keep me from continuing to do so?

You did? If you count defending logical incoherence with more logical fallacies, then I guess you did do that, TB.

Just because you don’t understand my arguments (which is clearly evidenced in this response) doesn’t make them incoherent.

Richard Eng excoriated me for being ungracious to you despite destroying your arguments (he has high standards).

Well, at least somebody does.

Although I am sure I am not perfect, I’m positive that if I keep this tone, Richard will be more than happy to leave this “helpful” interaction on his website.

Is your tone really all that much different, though?  The only thing you’re really doing differently is not using the word “presupper,” which was hardly the worst part of your previous responses.  You’re still just as arrogant and smugly self-satisfied (“The guy who can explain exactly why the other is committing logical fallacies and has the evidence on his side. That’s me by the way”) as you’ve ever been.  That was the real problem, not one silly made-up word. 

But the question remains; if this interaction is so helpful, then why are you in such a hurry to end it?  Why do you want to stop talking to me because I’m supposedly making logical fallacies, if me doing that is so helpful to your position?  If you really thought I was making your case for you, why wouldn’t you want me to keep doing it as long as possible?  If I’m really as helpful to your case as you claim, you should be inviting me to post a regular column here!

You can deny the process of rationality that I argued for and explained, TB. Feel free to reject that you do not think of or about competing options, and that you do not really deliberate between them, and that it is impossible for you to *freely* choose (requires free will) the BEST explanation. Feel free to reject that detailed explanation, TB, but if you admit that you do not freely choose the best explanation, then you are right back where you started, ASSUMING that your determined beliefs are the BEST ones (let alone the true ones). TB, this is the epitome of BEGGING THE QUESTION!

I believe this logical fallacy is known as tu quoque (which, for anyone else who doesn’t know, means “you too”).  When you accused me of question-begging, I addressed that claim (by explaining how I don’t make an assumption of naturalism), but when I accused you of question-begging, you never addressed how you aren’t begging the question.   Instead you deflected the accusation by arguing that I’m begging the question more.  As it stands now, you have not given any explanation for how your definition of rationality doesn’t beg the question (in fact, you basically confirmed that it does). 

*Please note: I am not attacking your character! I am simply pointing out the logical implications of your own worldview! You ought to get a new one!

I already did get a new one; my worldview used to be quite similar to yours, until I realized I could not logically justify it any longer.

Feel free, TB! Feel free to carry that heavy burden all you want! Feel free (if free will exists) to state that knowledge does not require justification, or that rational beliefs are those that we are forced to believe and assumed to be the best without justification that they are the best. Feel free, TB.

I’ll certainly feel free to believe that you don’t get to decide what words mean, and that if you decide that the words in your premise mean something that necessitates the conclusion being true, then that will be question-begging whether it’s an accurate definition or not.

As I mentioned, I have more important things to do than argue with people that reject the standard definition of knowledge so that they can cling to their precious presuppositions and incoherent worldview.

I have given you the definitions of “knowledge” from three different respectable sources, and none of them matched the definition you gave.  So, if someone is rejecting the standard definition of knowledge so that they can cling to their precious presuppositions and incoherent worldview, it’s you.

But hey, if you think I’m making your case for you so well, feel free to tell me how I’m wrong again.  I don’t run away from discussions.

Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, August 20, 2015

Four Bad Arguments for the Existence of Santa Claus

This is something I wrote to illustrate what I consider to be the four main logical fallacies in theistic arguments.  As examples, I've illustrated the use of the fallacies by composing flawed syllogisms arguing for the existence of Santa Claus.

Unsupported premises
If you’re using the basic “If A, then B” syllogistic argument, then A must be accepted fact, and B following from A must be accepted fact, before you can build a syllogism on that.  If the first statement in a syllogism is not supported, then nothing that follows from it matters.  If there is no real evidence for the premises of an argument, then the syllogism can be internally consistent, but still not really prove anything.
Example:
Parents don’t buy Christmas presents for their kids.
Kids get presents on Christmas.
Therefore, Santa Claus must have brought them (and therefore exists).
Unless everyone involved in the discussion agrees that parents don’t ever buy Christmas presents, then a syllogism which assumes that claim doesn’t prove anything.

Circular reasoning
The difference between this and unsupported premises can sometimes be subtle; basically, the meaningful distinction is that instead of having no support for a premise, the only support offered is the very thing that the syllogism is claiming to prove.
Example:
All Christmas presents are brought by Santa Claus.
Kids get presents on Christmas.
Therefore, Santa Claus must have brought them (and therefore exists).
We can see that this is not a rational argument because the first statement of the syllogism assumes the existence of Santa Claus, which is the very thing the syllogism is supposed to be proving.  To accept the first premise, someone would have to already believe that Santa Claus exists, and if they do, then there’s no point in using a syllogism to “prove” it.

God of the Gaps
This type of fallacious argument claims that if there’s anything we don’t currently understand, then God (or, in this case, Santa Claus) must be the explanation for that gap in knowledge. 
Example:
I don’t know how all these presents got here.
Therefore, Santa Claus must have brought them (and therefore exists).
Just because you can’t think of any other explanation doesn’t mean there isn’t one (or even if there isn’t one now, that doesn’t mean there never will be).

Counter-Argument from Plurality
The name for this term is my own, but it’s basically just pointing out that some theistic arguments (which claim to prove the authority of one specific religion) draw a double-standard between their religion and all the others.  If the argument that your religion is true also applies to religions you believe are false, then it’s not a valid argument.
Example:
I believe in Santa Claus. 
I get presents on Christmas morning.
Therefore, Santa Claus must have brought them (and therefore exists).
If anyone who doesn’t believe in Santa Claus gets Christmas presents, then it must follow that believing in Santa is not the reason those people get presents; if you have another explanation for why the people who don’t believe in Santa got presents (such as their parents bringing them), then that or other naturalistic solutions could just as easily apply to your presents as well.
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, July 23, 2015

Clever Questions Atheists Can’t Answer! (With Answers) #1: Creationist Credentials

This was the first question of one of those "questions atheists can't answer" posts.  I was thinking about answering the others, but they were so pointless and sophomoric I decided it wouldn't be worth bothering.  But, since I already went to the trouble of doing the research for this one, I figured I might as well leave it up.

1. If creationists can’t do science, then why do Kent Hovind and Duane T. Gish, who are creation scientists, have professional degrees in science?
First of all, I would never say “creationists can’t do science.”  What I would say is, creationists don’t do science, because they start with a conclusion and reject any evidence that doesn’t fit with it.[i]  That’s not how the scientific method works.  And if you believe that evolutionists do the same thing, just read On the Origin of the Species, compare it to the modern “neo-Darwinian synthesis,” and see how different they are.  If Darwinism were just a religion that rejects contrary evidence like creationism does, why would the current scientific consensus be so different from the original “Bible” of that non-existent religion?

Now, to the specific credentials of the two named creationists.  I’ll start with Kent Hovind, since he’s the one I’m more familiar with.  He does not have any degrees in science, that is simply a false statement.  He has a Bachelors Degree of Religious Education from Midwestern Baptist College[ii], he then went on to receive his doctorate from Patriot University, a school which has only religious authorization; it is not accredited by the U.S. Department of Education[iii] or recognized by the Council on Higher Education Accreditation.[iv]  On a page of Hovind’s old website on which he was defending his dubious credentials, he claimed that he received a Doctorate in education from Patriot.[v]  That’s already not a “professional degree in science,” but if you look at his doctoral dissertation, it says right on the front page that it’s for a “doctor of philosophy in Christian education.”[vi]  If you’re calling that a professional degree in science, I can’t help you.

So how about Duane Gish?  The only thing I really know about that guy is he’s the namesake of the “Gish Gallop,”[vii] a cheap debating tactic (which people who are so sure they’re on the right side of the argument shouldn’t need to use).  But does he have a scientific degree?  Indeed he does; a B.S. in chemistry from UCLA, and a Ph.D. in Biochemistry from U.C. Berkeley.  Those are decent scientific credentials, so I’ll just return to my original point that I don’t claim creationists can’t do science, I claim that they don’t.  But don’t take my word for it; Gish himself said, “We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator.”[viii]  I got news for ya, buddy, if you cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about a claim you’re making, then that claim is not scientific (no matter what credentials you have). 



[i] “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.”
https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/
[ii] http://www.escambiaclerk.com/MyImages/2005406964.pdf
I’m not posting this affidavit to impugn Hovind’s character (he can do that just fine himself), but because I know how important it is in discussions like this to have sources that are above reproach, I figured what more unimpeachable source could there be than something signed by Hovind’s own hand?  Although, I do think it’s strange that he doesn’t even mention Patriot University here.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)