Micheal Shermer vs Kent Hovind

[Chocolate Chip]

This is a debate betrween Micheal Shermer vs Kent Hovind. They are debating Evolution vs Creationism.

This is a 75 megabyte file, those with modem connections, have patience.

Here's the deal, to view this debate, download it first before viewing. Right - click on the link below, select "save file as" and you should be able to download it.
This is a personal ftp server, I will leave it on for as long as I can.

If the ftp should go down, the link will be disconnected and you will not be able to download the file. Send me a PM and I will provide info for you to gain access to the ftp server.

Hovind vs Shermer Debate (ftp://169.254.112.106/../shermer_Large.wmv)

[flume]

What was the date of the debate?

[Chocolate Chip]

If there are any problems with downloads, let me know.

[CFLarsen]

I've watched it. Shermer eradicates Hovind completely.

Shermer starts with pointing out that all Hovind has is "I don't get it, so God dunnit!"

And then Hovind proves him right. :D

[Chocolate Chip]

Originally posted by flume
What was the date of the debate?
I believe it was in may 2004

[DavoMan]

Ohh this looks really really cool. Shame it wont download :(

[Chocolate Chip]

Originally posted by DavoMan
Ohh this looks really really cool. Shame it wont download :(
What happens when you try?

[DavoMan]

It just sits there doing nothing :(

Isn't 169.254.*.* an internal IP? I was actually just trying to PM you. Speedy response time!

Ya could always email it: cleanunderpants@yahoo.co.nz
I could see about hosting it somewhere.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Chocolate Chip
This is a debate betrween Micheal Shermer vs Kent Hovind. They are debating Evolution vs Creationism.

This is a 75 megabyte file, those with modem connections, have patience.

Here's the deal, to view this debate, download it first before viewing. Right - click on the link below, select "save file as" and you should be able to download it.


I get a message saying the operation timed out.

[Chocolate Chip]

Originally posted by DavoMan
It just sits there doing nothing :(

Isn't 169.254.*.* an internal IP? I was actually just trying to PM you. Speedy response time!

Ya could always email it: cleanunderpants@yahoo.co.nz
I could see about hosting it somewhere.
Most certainly, if you have suggestions as to alternate hosting, let me know.

[DavoMan]

It work wont. Its an internal IP address, with a faulty /../.
Email it to me chocolate chip. I'll see if I can find a server. If not I'll host it on my own box for a hour or two.

[Chocolate Chip]

Originally posted by DavoMan
It work wont. Its an internal IP address, with a faulty /../.
Email it to me chocolate chip. I'll see if I can find a server. If not I'll host it on my own box for a hour or two.
Ummm... I've checked the log file and it's telling that the file has been downloaded 29 times. A total of 625 megs.
I will send it to you, but it's a 75 meg file. Is your email account large enough to handle it?

Is anyone else having problems??
Please let me know, if there is, we can try and find a better way to post this.

[Chocolate Chip]

OK, I think I've got the problem resolved. Davo was right about the ip. It's been corrected. Here is a new link for those of you interested:

Shermer vs Hovind (ftp://216.211.61.130/shermer_Large.wmv)

If there are anymore problems let me know.
I will also post this in a new thread.

[DavoMan]

Awesome. Cheers chocolate. This will provide some evening entertainment.

[Chocolate Chip]

You can also get the clip from here (http://drdino.activeforjesus.com/debates/shermer_Large.zip)

If you don't mind downloading from a YEC site. ;)

[DangerousBeliefs]

I love listening to Dr. Kent.... he's "scary stupid".

Thanks for the link.

"Evolution is the dumbest and most dangerous idea in the history of the world! Evolution theory leads straight to Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, abortion, communism, Marxism, rejection of logic, and Hell if you don't trust Christ!"

"But I'm not anti-Evolutionist"

[thaiboxerken]

The sad thing is that the bleevers probably think this is a win for Kent.

[Chocolate Chip]

This is the first time that I've seen Hovind speak. He tries to knock down the evolution points of debate, yet he doesn't provide solid evidence to back up his creationist view. He is mainly quoting from the bible and offering up opinions as to how evolution cannot work, yet no evidence as to how creationism works.
As far as points on presenting facts to support the arguements go, I think Shermer won.
In my opinion, Hovind does present his oratorial skills very well. Even if most of what he says is crap, the way he says it is impressive, AFAIC.
I also think Hovind is rather sneaky in trying to create a "role reversal", in which he calls himself the skeptic, and that he is all for science, whereas Shermer isn't being skeptical because he is not questioning the evolution viewpoint.

edited to add comment

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Chocolate Chip
This is the first time that I've seen Hovind speak. He tries to knock down the evolution points of debate, yet he doesn't provide solid evidence to back up his creationist view.

That is what creationists do. And sadly, it's often a very effective tatic. That doesn't mean what they say makes any sort of scientific sense. It just means they manage to raise doubt among the casual observer.

[duggie]

Frankly, I was disappointed that his patent drivel wasn't more effectively demolished during the 2 hours - his points were still being applauded near the end. He is brilliantly glib and disingenuous. Why not just concentrate on his most ridiculous assertion, that the earth is only 6,000 years old, and bring incontrovertable evidence to bear on that point. The whole edifice must then collapse. Even among devout Christians I find it difficult to believe many seriously embrace this ridiculous notion.
I also didn't like the format which made it too easy for him to ignore issues like the obvious contradictions in the Bible, which wouldn't be so easy if they were permitted a direct dialogue. Reminiscent of the Presidential Debates which were fatally emasculated by mutual consent.

[Alkatran]

I think, in the eyes of the audience, Hovind won. Just because he seemed more confident in what he said and more at ease in the situation.

But that's just because what he believes is very narrow: God did it. Evolution is a massive subject where it's not that hard to find someone (important) who doesn't agree with something (important).

And why the hell does he throw in the beginning of the universe and life? Evolution is about what happens after life (and therefore the universe) is started.

Personnaly, I think Hovind lost the second he said "Literal interpretation." :D

I especially liked the last question too. "What order did the eleven systems evolve in. (circular, skeletal, ...) LOL.

[KelvinG]

Wow, I just watched the video and I'm actually shocked that Shermer even bothers engaging in a debate with a guy like Hovind. He's not a scientist, he's a preacher. The majority of his evidence is based on scripture.

It's easy to see though, why Hovind grabs the religious crowd's attention. He talks fast, he's personable, he cracks jokes, and he is very confident. But when you really listen to what he says he is a nutbar.

I was reminded of a quote by Stephen J. Gould:

Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments.
It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain
rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do
with establishing fact -- which they are very good at. Some of
those rules are: never say anything positive about your own
position because it can be attacked, but chip away at the
weaknesses in your opponent's position. They are good at that.
I don't think I could beat the creationists in debate. I can tie them. But in the courtroom they are terrible, because in courtrooms you cannot give speeches. In a courtroom you have to answer direct questions about the positive status of your belief. (Caltech lecture, 1985)

Do these debates really accomplish anything. Do any believers leave the debate having changed their position or vice versa? Does agreeing to debate someone like Hovind end up giving him a sense of legitimacy that he doesn't deserve?

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by KelvinG
Wow, I just watched the video and I'm actually shocked that Shermer even bothers engaging in a debate with a guy like Hovind. He's not a scientist, he's a preacher. The majority of his evidence is based on scripture.

It's easy to see though, why Hovind grabs the religious crowd's attention. He talks fast, he's personable, he cracks jokes, and he is very confident. But when you really listen to what he says he is a nutbar.

I was reminded of a quote by Stephen J. Gould:



Do these debates really accomplish anything. Do any believers leave the debate having changed their position or vice versa? Does agreeing to debate someone like Hovind end up giving him a sense of legitimacy that he doesn't deserve?
That's the big problem. You have this glib, confident guy knocking out answers as fast as is biologically feasible for the human mouth combined with only a quasi-understanding of how scientists have come to the conclusions they have held by the lay person watching the debate and that spells trouble. The average audience member isn't as likely to judge the outcome of the debate by quality of the substance of the presentations given by the debaters as they are to make their final decisions based on the quality of mode of delivery, because that's really the only thing they'll understand. Luckily in this case, Shermer tends to have a very easygoing, gentle disposition, and Hovind's exuberance contrasted with this calmness at some points caused his confidence to look more like belittling and smarmy arrogance, which, when the smoke and mirrors are taken away, it actually turns out to be.

[Odin]

The funniest thing is Hovind doing his Chick tract bit at the end:roll:

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by duggie
Frankly, I was disappointed that his patent drivel wasn't more effectively demolished during the 2 hours - his points were still being applauded near the end. He is brilliantly glib and disingenuous. Why not just concentrate on his most ridiculous assertion, that the earth is only 6,000 years old, and bring incontrovertable evidence to bear on that point. The whole edifice must then collapse. Even among devout Christians I find it difficult to believe many seriously embrace this ridiculous notion.
I also didn't like the format which made it too easy for him to ignore issues like the obvious contradictions in the Bible, which wouldn't be so easy if they were permitted a direct dialogue. Reminiscent of the Presidential Debates which were fatally emasculated by mutual consent.

What I'd like to see, in addition to strong debate points of course, is a list of scientists that support evolution running in the background. I bet you could make a list so long it could easily be continually displayed throughout the entire presentation.

[Alkatran]

Come to think of it, I can't BELIEVE Hovind actually said

"NO fossil gives ANY evidence for evolution because you can't prove that thing had a kid!"

Apparently Hovind has never heard of "inferrence". If evolution didn't happen the fossils wouldn't go from simple to complex.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Alkatran
Come to think of it, I can't BELIEVE Hovind actually said

"NO fossil gives ANY evidence for evolution because you can't prove that thing had a kid!"

Apparently Hovind has never heard of "inferrence". If evolution didn't happen the fossils wouldn't go from simple to complex.

I caught that too. It comes down to the claim that, unless you (as in humans) actually observe something, it doesn't happen.

I guess he doesn't think trees fall in the woods unless there are people to observe it. :rolleyes:

Kent Hovind, meet Shirley MacLaine. (http://www.skepticreport.com/funnies/krazykat.htm)

[Gaga]

Thanks for the file, it was really interesting (and saddening too)
I fear anyway that there's no way to have a decent debate in any format with that dr. dino... It's just too easy to spout out 2 dozens false / wrong information in 20 minutes that no one in this world could disprove in the following half...
Moreother, afaik, Hovind has always refused to take part in internet debates, i.e. those places in which his 'arguments' could be ordinately and thoroughly shredded...:)

[Tony]

Where did the debate take place?

[Odin]

I've only seen bits of it so far, but what was Hovind saying about penicillin?

[MalvernHills]

I'm still downloading the file but am reminded of a chapter written by Richard Dawkins in "The Devils Chaplain"...

"just to appear on a platform with them is to lend them the respectability they crave. Whatever the outcome of the debate, the mere fact that it is staged at all suggests to ignorant bystanders that there must be something worth debating, on something like equal terms"

... and then later when detailing a co-authored letter between himself and Stephen Gould

"What we shall not do is abet creationists in their disreputable quest for free publicity and unearned academic respectability".

Should scientists (anybody) publicly engage creationists in this manner as the only "winners" appear to be the creationists?

[Odin]

Originally posted by MalvernHills


Should scientists (anybody) publicly engage creationists in this manner as the only "winners" appear to be the creationists?

The problem is that the creationists will claim no one dares to debate them.

[Alkatran]

Originally posted by Odin
I've only seen bits of it so far, but what was Hovind saying about penicillin?

He said two people were dug up and found to have a resistance to penicillin (they died before penicillin was invented). He did this to show that anything that ever shows up is not random mutation, but was already there and is just being brought out. :hit:



I also hated his examples of how enery input didn't reverse entropy. He gave examples of CARS AND ROOFS.

Well, no kidding, the sun can do damage? But you're missing the point aren't you Mr. Hovind? Entropy has a physical MEANING (I think it's energy per temperature or temprature per energy?) and if there is energy being input entropy can therefore be reversed!

The air is highly disorganized, but when the sun heats it it becomes more organized by having hotter air try to rise and colder air trying to fall, creating winds. (Yes, wind is more orderly than calm air everywhere)

[Chimpy]

Originally posted by Alkatran
And why the hell does he throw in the beginning of the universe and life? Evolution is about what happens after life (and therefore the universe) is started.

Because creationists are incredibly stupid and couldn't tell their backside from their big toe. I say this from experience.

[Chimpy]

Originally posted by jzs
What I'd like to see, in addition to strong debate points of course, is a list of scientists that support evolution running in the background. I bet you could make a list so long it could easily be continually displayed throughout the entire presentation.

You will find that the creationist knowledge of the fossil record is equivalent to their knowledge of basic biology, ie just not there. If you want to piss off a creationist, ask about the Paluxy footprints *giggle*

And if they rant about a worldwide flood, ask about evidence for flood layers at...oh I dunno, Klasies River Mouth, Jericho, Nabta Playa... keep harassing them until they answer, they'll soon run away, tails between legs, whingeing that everyone just hates whatever religion they follow.

[SpaceFluffer]

I'm watching this now, and this Hovind f**k is really making me angry. Does he know the rubbish that he is spewing out of his mouth?

[thaiboxerken]

I'm pretty sure that Hovind knows what he spouts out are lies. But he's doing it for the betterment of mankind, to convert people and cement their faith in his god.

[Moose]

I'm listening to it now.

My goodness.

"You can't tell how a computer originated 'naturally' from the inside." Uh, yes you can. The marketing labels even tell you who created each component of the computer.

"How do you tell right from wrong if evolution is true?" Uh, because societal morality helps herd animals survive against predators, and because the lack of societal morality helps predators prey. And since humans tend to be pack predators, the distinction and balance between the two is intimitely relevant to our survival.

Oh my, and count the ad homoneims and straw man arguments. "So and so came from a rock." A rock?

Yeek.

[duggie]

Originally posted by jzs
What I'd like to see, in addition to strong debate points of course, is a list of scientists that support evolution running in the background. I bet you could make a list so long it could easily be continually displayed throughout the entire presentation.
Not me. I am very leery of "might makes right" arguments based on the number of adherents to a point of view. There are more God-botherers in the US than not, but that doesn't make God exist. Shermer makes the mistake at the beginning of asking how many of the audience believe in a supreme being, and it appears he is outnumbered. He should have asked how many believe the world is only 6,000 years old. Or, he could have asked where they placed themselves on the Creation/Evolution continuim, i.e. divide and conquer.

[jj]

Originally posted by jzs
What I'd like to see, in addition to strong debate points of course, is a list of scientists that support evolution running in the background. I bet you could make a list so long it could easily be continually displayed throughout the entire presentation.

:o

Now that's a good idea! I'm shocked.

The only problem would be getting permission to use all those names :(, that might be really tough.

[Chimpy]

Originally posted by jzs
What I'd like to see, in addition to strong debate points of course, is a list of scientists that support evolution running in the background. I bet you could make a list so long it could easily be continually displayed throughout the entire presentation.

While that may seem like a good idea, it isn't. Science isn't about democracy. A hypothesis is tested and demonstrated, and that's what matters. So frankly, I don't care if 10 million Americans don't "believe" that evolution is a fact, they can scream, yell, stamp their feet, it won't make a difference, this is science not a numbers game.

While on the subject, all scientists accept evolution, much scientific inquiry is in fact based on evolutionary principles. It's only Hovind and his ilk who whinge about "scientists who don't accept evolution". Also note that many of the folks they cite as being anti have PhDs from paper mills. Hovind has awarded himself a slew of PhDs from his own unaccredited university.

In the meantime, cre-ID proponents can cry all they want. Fortunately for you folks in the States, each and every court case has been thrown out and they have been defeated every time. Of course they keep yapping and trying, but they are *not* allowed to peddle religion as science in science class, which is what all this is about. Thankfully, the Supreme Court is being sensible on this issue:-)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Chimpy
While that may seem like a good idea, it isn't. Science isn't about democracy. A hypothesis is tested and demonstrated, and that's what matters. So frankly, I don't care if 10 million Americans don't "believe" that evolution is a fact, they can scream, yell, stamp their feet, it won't make a difference, this is science not a numbers game.

Agree. Science is not decided by democracy, by popular vote.

It sends the wrong signal, and it is a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is.

[Ashles]

Hmm strange, I'd have thought that jzs would have known full well that would not be a very helpful or logical way to convince anyone of the likelihood of evolution.

If I were more cynical I might assume some sort of disingenuity on his part...

[KelvinG]

Why I agree the old appeal to popularity argument doesn't cut it in any debate, I think that the overwhelming number of scientists who believe in evolution has to be considered when analyzing the creation/evolution topic.

When I'm discussing evolution with some of my friends who don't believe in it (or question it), I tell them many times during the discussion that I don't know everything there is to know about the subject. I'm believe myself much more educated on the topic that the average person, but when it comes right down to the more complex aspects of it, I have to defer to the experts. In that sense, I suppose I do appeal to popularity. I often refer to the vast number of scientists who before in evolution, and how it is overwhelming accepted by mainstream science.

Does this argument not hold some weight? After all, these scientists aren't choosing to believe in evolution on principle alone. Shermer discusses the idea of "convergence" in science, where independent scientists come up with evidence that all points in the direction of evolution.

Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding the appeal to popularity fallacy, but surely the sheer number of scientists who believe in evolution must count for something?

[thaiboxerken]

The sad thing is that most people don't understand that an appeal to popularity is a fallacy. It's nigh-impossible to win a debate against the likes of Hovind, because he uses fallacy and the general public doesn't know what fallacy is. He is also not constrained by the restrictions that come with ethics and honesty. He can lie all he wants to win the debate, unlike Shermer.

[Chimpy]

Originally posted by KelvinG
When I'm discussing evolution with some of my friends who don't believe in it (or question it), I tell them many times during the discussion that I don't know everything there is to know about the subject. I'm believe myself much more educated on the topic that the average person, but when it comes right down to the more complex aspects of it, I have to defer to the experts. In that sense, I suppose I do appeal to popularity. I often refer to the vast number of scientists who before in evolution, and how it is overwhelming accepted by mainstream science.

I should have expressed myself better. Turning to what experts say is one thing, but not teaching basic science because x amount of people think it's wrong is another matter. People like Hovind are snake-like, they will cite x amount of people who "believe" evolution is a lie. Plenty of work that has been validated many many times says otherwise. The validity of evolution thus does not lie in a popular vote but in the sheer amount of data. What cretinists can't get into their pea brains is that evolution is merely a change of allele frequency over time. Hell many don't even know what an allele is. This change can be and has been measured and observed many many many times over. But in the end, the creationist debate isn't about science, it's purely religious apologetics.

In any case, if you ever get landed with some creationist argument have a look at the excellent www.talkorigins.org , the FAQ section has a dissection of every creationist "argument". It's an excellent resource. Also check out www.antiquityofman.com/pseudoscience.html (Shameless plug as it's my partner's website lol but it actually has tons of resources:-) )

[-42-]

A very sad debate.

All Kent had was one liners to make people laugh and clap along with some absurd comparisons. That's pretty much it. In doing so, likely won the debate in the eyes of most.

By the way, when asked for his most solid piece of evidence, it was because anything other than intelligent design is impossible. And proceeded to give a comparison about a swimming pool.

Kent's version of creationism is a particularly funny one, complete with a literal flood, 6,000 year old earth and Dino's walking around with humans.

Example:
Shermer gives a few pieces of evidence of a 'bottom up' tinkered design. Veins in our legs would be much better with more valves, etc, however we came from quadrapeds where these were not needed. Or the bones in our lower back also being poorly designed for walking upright. but they were 'good enough' but certainly not 'perfect' or 'best suited' as one would expect with intelligent design.

Hovind counters saying that we are incredibly well designed and starts talking about cells and how a cell is more complex than a space shuttle and then shows slides of bacteria and then throws out a on-liner to claps.

It's saddening.

This is pretty much how the debate went, as one might expect.

I personally think Hovind's strongest point was about 'vestigal' pelvis/etc in snakes and whales and the such that they have other uses, such as used in mating.

Yeah, it's not very strong at all and Shermer answered it several times, but I thought it to be the strongest point.

A funnier part was when Shermer wondered why all the sea-dinos died in the flood and Hovind says they're still alive and points to Loch ness as evidence... hah.. omg . . . .

when you gotta point to Nessie to back up a claim, you're on a mighty slippery slope indeed.

[duggie]

Originally posted by Chimpy
What cretinists can't get into their pea brains is that evolution is merely a change of allele frequency over time. Hell many don't even know what an allele is.
Excuse my ignorance, but what the hell IS an allele?

[Chimpy]

Originally posted by duggie
Excuse my ignorance, but what the hell IS an allele?

An allele is one of the alternate forms of a gene (nucleotide sequences). A gene is a hereditary unit that is passed on from one generation to the other. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population.

Back to alleles, different alleles of the same gene usually produce different effects on the phenotype (ie your external appearance). The change in allele frequency can be measured over time.

A neat summary is provided by palaeoanthropologist Milford Wolpoff in his "Paleoanthropology" (1999). He explains evolution as "the genetic transformation of populations through time, created by alterations in the genetic makeup of populations from generation to generation. The consequences of this process are changes in the adaptations and diversity of populations. This mechanism of descent with modification is responsible for the pattern and variety of life on earth: a tall order for so simple a concept. The theory part of the "theory of evolution" is concerned with how these changes in genetic makeup occur and what effect they have on populations. Evolutionists have critically examined the mechanisms causing genetic change, the problem of whether these mechanisms need to be viewed at the level of the gene, the individual, or the species, the issue of whether changes are gradual or episodic, and the extent to which evolution is directional. However, these is no question about two facts:

1. The process of evolution is an actuality, a hypothesis more than 100 years old that has not been disproved. For there to be no evolution, every generation would have to be exactly the same genetically as the previous generation.
2. Evolution if the singular explanation for the history of life on our planet. It is not a hypothesis about how life came to be, but rather an explanation and description of the processes governing its changes over time."

[duggie]

Thank you. Hard to believe there are idiots out there that don't know that.

[Chimpy]

Duggie there's a difference between not knowing and refusing to know. Not knowing means you can learn something, refusing to know (as the creationists do) is wilful ignorance and in my book that's inexcusable.

[Zep]

I think Shermer fell for the very first card-trick by allowing the debate to be about or include Evolution at all. Right there was a presupposition that it was a "Creationism versus Evolution" topic, and so gave Hovind the immediate upper hand by allowing him to drag out all the same tired repetitive boring old anti-evolution crappulence he has been spouting to the bleevers across the USA for decades. He's got that speech down pat - he's had plenty of time to polish it too. And he's also worked out all the answers and punchlines as well. So as a debate, Shermer needed to have had an Abe Lincoln or Jack Kennedy quality to best Hovind in front of that audience - wasn't going to happen.

Instead, the debate should have been on something like "The Science of Creationism", to examine the premises of that godforsaken subject, with nary one single mention of evolution at all. In that way, the whole debate would have been forced to concentrate on creationism, it's supporting evidence(!), and it's bankrupt science. Hovind, of course, would have trotted out his standard anti-evolutionist spiel (it's the only one he's got!), but one would have hoped that Shermer could then have continually responded with "Evolution is not the topic, creationism is. Please stick to the topic, Mr Hovind." - and try to keep the debate on-track - never once should evolution have been mentioned. And then he could have proceeded to demolish each and every creationist claim with piles of clear, simple evidence in his own inimitable style. There would have been no need to try and justify or even mention evolution, provided the debate focused on creationism alone. He would have taken Hovind's carpet right out from under him.

And producing lists of supporters of evolution, lists of scientists, etc, doesn't wash with that audience in the slightest. Evidence for something they don't believe in is simply excluded from their input mechanisms. Remember, these audiences are folks like over at the rapture forums - quite deliberately as thick as a brick. However, seeing the very evidence they do accept being attacked and shown wanting causes them internal problems. They usually tend to get upset at that, because it shows they have absorbed it, and the consequences really disturb them. And perhaps one or two of them might then start asking better questions of their faith...

[Francois Tremblay]

Shermer has once again proven himself to be a fool without values by debating the crackpot Hovind in the public square. To debate Creationists on equal ground is to say to everyone that Creationism is on the same level as science. This is the message that Shermer and other "tolerentist" skeptics are sending to the world when they accept repeatedly to get a skeptic viewpoint treated as equal to, or inferior to, anti-scientific mystical belief systems.

Shame on you Shermer !

[Chocolate Chip]

Originally posted by Tony
Where did the debate take place?
April 29, 2004
Physical Sciences Lecture Hall on the campus of the University of California, Irvine.
Here is Michael Shermer's write up of the debate:
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic05-10-04.html

I have to disagree with some of the posters here that say there should be no debate between evolutionists and creationists. I think it would make the evolution side look as if they were "scared" so to speak. Be damned sure that the creationist side would capitalize on the refusal to debate. I can imagine the "they won't debate us because they have nothing and know we're right" kind of rhetoric. Be sure that they would make this as public as possible. They are preachers after all.

Here's another reason. Would you rather have a guy like Hovind debating or LECTURING in public? At least if he's being debated with, his arguements can be refuted. If he's lecturing, there's no one to refute his crap, and he can pretty much get away with what he wants.

To debate creationists is to know the enemy, in a sense. If evolutionists are going to try and keep ID from being taught in schools, or passed as required subject matter. Would it not be to their advantage of knowing clearly the enemy's arguements, tactics, strategies, etc ? Plus, to have had practical experience in confronting creationists?

I noticed one thing in that clip. Hovind seemed better prepared than Shermer. Hovind was able to address every point Shermer made, almost instantly. He knew how to respond and what to say and how to say it. He seemed very well prepared IMO. Shermer did not seem as prepared.

[duggie]

Originally posted by Francois Tremblay
"tolerentist" skeptics


I'm learning new words here by the minute!

[duggie]

Originally posted by Chocolate Chip


I noticed one thing in that clip. Hovind seemed better prepared than Shermer.
I agree. I bet (and hope) he, or any other scientist wading into this mess, will be better prepared next time. At least we have a great study tool now.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Chocolate Chip
I noticed one thing in that clip. Hovind seemed better prepared than Shermer. Hovind was able to address every point Shermer made, almost instantly. He knew how to respond and what to say and how to say it. He seemed very well prepared IMO. Shermer did not seem as prepared. As I said, Hovind has only one "speech", and he's been polishing it over hundreds of times per year across the country. The only way to get him at a disadvantage is to ensure the debate is NOT about evolution, but solely about creationism. As Shermer said, it's the fallacy of the excluded middle is the issue needing resolution.

Also, having read Shermer's version of events, another point needs to be made: Hovind's target audience is NOT intellectual, so the soft-spoken but hard-hitting intellectual argument style of debate will fail on them completely. They are a bunch of thick idjits basically, and only the knee-slapping howling preachers like Hovind can make any impact on them. Especially if they are on his side from the start.

[edit for bad grammar]

[Chocolate Chip]

Originally posted by Zep
As I said, Hovind has only one "speech", and he's been polishing it over hundreds of times per year across the country. The only way to get him at a disadvantage is to ensure the debate is NOT about evolution, but solely about creationism. As Shermer said, it's the fallacy of the excluded middle is the issue needing resolution.

Also, having read Shermer's version of events, another point needs to be made: Hovind's target audience is NOT intellectual, so the soft-spoken but hard-hitting intellectual argument style of debate will fail on them completely. They are a bunch of thick idjits basically, and only the knee-slapping howling preachers like Hovind can make any impact on them. Especially if they are on his side from the start.

[edit for bad grammar]
Agreed, it would be of optimal advantage to solely debate the creationist side. Yet another reason to continue debating, get them on the defensive, and then poke holes in their points of debate. This is their tactic in debating evolutionists, turning the tables would be a great improvement, debate-wise.

I have to disagree with your statement about the audience members though. I think Hovind's audience is anyone who has ears and can hear. Be it "idjit" as you put it, or intellectual types. You claim that he only targets "idjits", yet he debates at universities across the country. There's got to be at least some intelligent people left in universities. I'm not sure if you're familiar with evangelicals, but in my experience, they do not differentiate between class, color, or intelligence, they want numbers, pure and simple.

I will try and get a hold of Hovind's itinerary so we can all see exactly where he is speaking. Perhaps this may give us a clearer understanding of WHO he is speaking to.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Chocolate Chip
I have to disagree with your statement about the audience members though. I think Hovind's audience is anyone who has ears and can hear. Be it "idjit" as you put it, or intellectual types. You claim that he only targets "idjits", yet he debates at universities across the country. There's got to be at least some intelligent people left in universities. I'm not sure if you're familiar with evangelicals, but in my experience, they do not differentiate between class, color, or intelligence, they want numbers, pure and simple.I seem to recall that it is a standard creationist tactic to bus in local church groups to these debates to pad the audiences significantly. Shermer reported a 90% affirmative response to his "belief in God" opening question - I don't think that is at all representative of any university population, let alone California, nor even the USA. And most real university students with an ounce of thinking matter usually tend to steer clear of these laughable "debates" as a matter of principle.

I also note that there is no mention that the debate chairman called either speaker to stick to the topic, although it would have been heavy odds-on that Hovind would not have been within a bull's roar of it throughout.

IOW, it's a complete creationist setup - Shermer describes in his own report about the home-team stacking by the organisers! just at the door stalls!

[Chocolate Chip]

Originally posted by Zep
I seem to recall that it is a standard creationist tactic to bus in local church groups to these debates to pad the audiences significantly. Shermer reported a 90% affirmative response to his "belief in God" opening question - I don't think that is at all representative of any university population, let alone California, nor even the USA.
Well according to this link:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_poll3.htm#god
96% of people surveyed in the U.S. believe in a god.
In this link: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=693
This survey found that 79% of Americans believe there is a God, and that 66% are absolutely certain this is true. Only 9% do not believe in God, while a further 12% are not sure.
As for universities, the percentage of people who believe in god will vary, due to demographics, what the university specializes in, etc. Some may have 90% belief, some may not. You cannot paint with a broad brush that all people who listen to hovind are "idjits". If this is what you are claiming, provide some evidence to back up this statement.
There are MANY intelligent people who believe in god and a creation, they base their view on faith, as ill-concieved as that may seem, it does not neccessarily make them "idjits".
And most real university students with an ounce of thinking matter usually tend to steer clear of these laughable "debates" as a matter of principle.
Evidence please.
IOW, it's a complete creationist setup - Shermer describes in his own report about the home-team stacking by the organisers! just at the door stalls!
Please point out this in his summary. Which paragraph does he state that the audience was stacked, and that it was a creationist setup?

[Cleon]

Wow. Now I understand why scientists are loathe to "debate" Hovind; he pulled out every dishonest trick in the book. He actually reminded me of a carny; talk fast, use a lot of jokes, and few people will realize just how full of crap you really are.

This guy is scary. I can see how someone would be wooed by that kind of crap.

[barium]

I find it funny that Kent Hovind complains that his tax dollars is being used to teach evolution in public schools...

Aside from that, Hovinds arguments are rehearsed, he's just reciting what he's said over and over again before (word by word). Even the parts that are not part of the debate are rehearsed ("This is not my wife... It's just a picture" etc.).

So debating him without having studied his lectures (a lot of them are avaliable for free at drdino.com) seems like suicide, there's now way of defending yourself from the flood of outright lies he'll spew out. Unless you've heard them before that is.

The debate between a creationist and an evolutionist will never be fair, the evolutionist will have to explain a complex theory, the creationist will just have to use some premade simple out of context quote or misinterpreted data to seemingly debunk the scientists long tedious (to the bleevers listening) explaination with a single sentence, and if he doesn't have anything ready just throw in "well, here's what i believe; God created the heaven and the earth".

And debating them the same way they debate evolution won't work... You can't very well take some random out of context quote from the bible and use that against creationism if you want to sound serious.

[Chocolate Chip]

To clarify my viewpoint.
The belief in Young Earth Creationism to me, is illogical and unreasonable.
Does the belief in YEC automatically make someone an idiot. I do not think so. Most assuredly, I am quite sure that SOME who believe in YEC aren't what one would call intelligent. It is an idiotic belief, but there are many intelligent people who have silly beliefs.
Some would say the very belief in god is idiotic, due to the fact there is no scientific evidence of god.
Here is a quote from a good link concerning beliefs:

http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-11/beliefs.html#author

First, skeptics must not expect beliefs to change simply as the result of data or assuming that people are stupid because their beliefs don't change. They must avoid becoming critical or demeaning in response to the resilience of beliefs. People are not necessarily idiots just because their beliefs don't yield to new information. Data is always necessary, but it is rarely sufficient.

End of derail

[Chocolate Chip]

Originally posted by barium
So debating him without having studied his lectures (a lot of them are avaliable for free at drdino.com) seems like suicide, there's now way of defending yourself from the flood of outright lies he'll spew out. Unless you've heard them before that is.
Agreed. This is an extremely important point AFAIC. In order to defeat an opponent, it is always useful to know their tactics and strategies. This is why sports clubs study video footage of the upcoming opponent, to view their tactics and adjust accordingly to gain advantage.
I wonder though if we could ever get Hovind into a debate that only deals with creationism alone. The only place I think that would be remotely possible would be in a court of law though.

[CurtC]

Originally posted by Chimpy
If you want to piss off a creationist, ask about the Paluxy footprints *giggle*Just two days ago (Saturday), I was walking in the footprints and sticking my hand down into the claw impressions of dinosaurs in the Paluxy river! They're just right there, in the middle of the river (rivers in Texas are seldom more than a foot or two deep), waiting for you to find some and play around with them.

[DavoMan]

Oh MAN. What a hero. I have so much respect for this Mr Shermer. He must have been sweating. A room full of people who dont care to reason, and with that heat.

I think Mr Shermer put things into a really easy to understand argument. Man. That guy deserves a beer.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Chocolate Chip
Well according to this link:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_poll3.htm#god
96% of people surveyed in the U.S. believe in a god.
In this link: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=693
This survey found that 79% of Americans believe there is a God, and that 66% are absolutely certain this is true. Only 9% do not believe in God, while a further 12% are not sure.
As for universities, the percentage of people who believe in god will vary, due to demographics, what the university specializes in, etc. Some may have 90% belief, some may not. You cannot paint with a broad brush that all people who listen to hovind are "idjits". If this is what you are claiming, provide some evidence to back up this statement.
There are MANY intelligent people who believe in god and a creation, they base their view on faith, as ill-concieved as that may seem, it does not neccessarily make them "idjits".

Evidence please.

Please point out this in his summary. Which paragraph does he state that the audience was stacked, and that it was a creationist setup? First, I'm not saying that all people who listen to Hovind are idiots any more than I would contend all Green Bay Packer fans are Wisconsonians (or is that Michiganites? Anyhoo...). What I'm suggesting here is that the people who cheer Hovind on are more likely to be those who lack particular critical skills when they should really be demonstrating them, i.e. in evaluating a "science" debate. The whole purpose of attending a university is to instil in the graduates some critical thinking skills w.r.t. evidence and the means to express that research appropriately*, but to fail to apply these skills at this point indicates a problem for them. The idiocy is in not realising this themselves - perhaps I should refine my definition to that of selective idiocy. Would that suit better?

The "stacking of audiences" by creationists is a common tactic. These debates are usually advertised beforehand, and the faithful put them down in their diaries like clockwork. Seen this done myself. But here's a quote from Eugenie Scott to explain a bit more (note: this was from 1994, so they have probably refined this process even more!):What usually happens in these debates? Usually they take place at the invitation of the other side, and usually they take place in a religious setting or minimally under religious sponsorship. That's the first problem. The audience that is most anxious to come, and that will be recruited the most heavily, is the one that supports the creationist. In the comparatively rare situation where the debate is held on a college campus, the supporters of good science and evolution are invariably in the minority in the audience, whereas the creationist supporters seem to exercise every effort to turn out their crowd. Don't be surprised to see church busses from many local communities lined up outside the debate hall. In some cases, the sponsors advertised only among the faithful, posting up only a handful of flyers on campus. Guess who came?http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debating/globetrotters.html

Now I have seen this done here in Australia decades ago for exactly the same sort of purpose. I happened to attend one of the debates on my own campus in the late 1970's (just prior to my graduation, as I recall), and at the end of it, we students were quite surprised that a large proportion of the pro-creationist audience left the grounds in big buses - as students, we had no idea who they were nor where they came from. Anecdotal evidence at best, I know, but you can add it to a growing list of similar observations like Eugenie Scott's!


*If this isn't so, then the university is either a cramming college, or critical thinking is somehow discouraged...

[Aussie Thinker]

What shocked me was it was a college crowd who MOSTLY seemed to support Hovind.

Where in the world would a majority of 18-20 year olds give creationism any more than a passing scoff....

That is scary.. a whole room full of young adults who BELIEVED Hovind...

I think we DO need the Shermers of this world to try and get some sense into these ignorant rubes !

Where was it anyway.. Hillbilly U ?

[Gaga]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
What shocked me was it was a college crowd who MOSTLY seemed to support Hovind. [...]

I don't think those were all college students, most probably they were supporters coming on purpose (see among other things the link posted by Zep, above).
The debate was organized by one Christian campus organization of California U, therefore the audience couldn't be representative. For them Hovind won the debate. Mr. Shermer has all my admiration for not have fallen in fits of hysterical laughters in that enviroment. (when it came to dinosaurs it was pretty close though :D)
source (Skeptic society) (http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic05-10-04.html)

It was anyway really sad to see. It gives me the creeps to see someone so ignorant with so much endorsement from the people. It reminds me of the Italian government :o

[Chimpy]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
What shocked me was it was a college crowd who MOSTLY seemed to support Hovind.

One would have to ask from which college they are. Are they students from unaccredited bible colleges? What this highlights is the real need to teach science, ignorance keeps people in the dark ages. People like Hovind know very well that education is a very dangerous thing.

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Where in the world would a majority of 18-20 year olds give creationism any more than a passing scoff....

Okay here's a personal anecdote. Three years ago I stumbled on a yahoo group called DebunkCreation. I was about to take my final exams at uni and thought this sounded like an interesting place. So I walked in and there was a creationist being smacked about. And I said: C'mon you guys, you can't be serious. No one takes creationism seriously. It's just another fringe belief like Atlantis right? Wroooooooooooooooong, the group set me straight pretty quickly and I realized that creationism/ID were (and are) a real threat to American education. And now they're infiltrating Britain via the US-funded Vardy foundation.

Aussie, in your neck of the woods there is cretinist supreme Ken Ham. And on various lists there is a critter by the name of Laurie Appleton, a very nasty piece of work, utterly stupid and quote mines all the time. He has a little red book of "quotes against evolution". He is also known to misquote himself, claim that water flows uphill and that there is no such thing as Germ Theory since all disase is caused by sin. Fortunately, Appleton inhabits some isolated corner of Australia so he doesn't get to bother too many people.

[Chocolate Chip]

Originally posted by Zep
The "stacking of audiences" by creationists is a common tactic. These debates are usually advertised beforehand, and the faithful put them down in their diaries like clockwork. Seen this done myself. But here's a quote from Eugenie Scott to explain a bit more (note: this was from 1994, so they have probably refined this process even more!):http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debating/globetrotters.html
Now I have seen this done here in Australia decades ago for exactly the same sort of purpose. I happened to attend one of the debates on my own campus in the late 1970's (just prior to my graduation, as I recall), and at the end of it, we students were quite surprised that a large proportion of the pro-creationist audience left the grounds in big buses - as students, we had no idea who they were nor where they came from. Anecdotal evidence at best, I know, but you can add it to a growing list of similar observations like Eugenie Scott's!
Thanks for the link and info, appreciated.
In regard to stacking the audiences, can anybody explain the purpose of preaching to the converted then? This seems like what hovind and other creationists are doing, why bother, if the audience, or most of the audience, has been stacked and is already on their side? Are these debates televised? Are they piped out to the general public (besides the net) somehow? That would be the only advantage I can see at the moment of stacking the audience, to try and "impress" fencesitters. Do they hold meetings where videos of these debates are distributed to fencesitters?

[Moose]

It's as much to reinforce their hold on their flock than to convert others, although there is a component of that, I think.

Basically, if you take eighty converted people, all nodding and clapping, then even if half of them are unsure, they're each seeing seventy-nine of their peers who appear to have no doubts. Pretty much the same deal with any fence-sitters among the other twenty.

[Edit: If this sounds like I'm describing cult tactics, then you've caught my intent. Marketting outfits routinely abuse the same flaws in our psyche that cults and religions do.]

[Zep]

Originally posted by Chimpy
Aussie, in your neck of the woods there is cretinist supreme Ken Ham. And on various lists there is a critter by the name of Laurie Appleton, a very nasty piece of work, utterly stupid and quote mines all the time. He has a little red book of "quotes against evolution". He is also known to misquote himself, claim that water flows uphill and that there is no such thing as Germ Theory since all disase is caused by sin. Fortunately, Appleton inhabits some isolated corner of Australia so he doesn't get to bother too many people. Actually, Ken Ham was laughed at so hard here by all and sundry that he had to move to Kentucky to keep his spiel alive and the money rolling in. And that's where he is now, and they continue to pay him to spout this stuff!

Laurie Appleton - never heard of him until now, which says a lot for his popularity! Even our regular homegrown fruitcake, Victor Zammit, rates more mention locally (but not much, thankfully). But I did find this: http://www.skeptictank.org/aplnut.htm?FACTNet

[P.S.A.]

Originally posted by Alkatran
Come to think of it, I can't BELIEVE Hovind actually said

"NO fossil gives ANY evidence for evolution because you can't prove that thing had a kid!"

Apparently Hovind has never heard of "inferrence". If evolution didn't happen the fossils wouldn't go from simple to complex.

I was rummaging around trying to find a photo replica of an ichthyosaur fossil in the process of giving birth, one of which I've seen for myself in the Bristol Museum a few months back, but I came across this much funnier link instead; Apparently Hovind hasn't even heard of his own fellow creationists, who think they can prove just that.

In this spectacular case, not only is the fossil exquisitely preserved, but the fact that mother and infant are 'trapped' in a not-yet-completed birth process makes it profoundly clear that both were rapidly overwhelmed by catastrophic burial, consistent with the world flood of Noah's day. It is, of course, not feasible that mother just lay on the bottom of the ocean floor giving birth for thousands of years while being slowly covered up by accumulating sediments!

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i3/birth.asp

[Zep]

Originally posted by Chocolate Chip
Thanks for the link and info, appreciated.
In regard to stacking the audiences, can anybody explain the purpose of preaching to the converted then? This seems like what hovind and other creationists are doing, why bother, if the audience, or most of the audience, has been stacked and is already on their side? Are these debates televised? Are they piped out to the general public (besides the net) somehow? That would be the only advantage I can see at the moment of stacking the audience, to try and "impress" fencesitters. Do they hold meetings where videos of these debates are distributed to fencesitters? What Moose said! And it looks so much better in the brochures too to have pictures of "big" audiences.

Another point is that the whole idea of all these fringe religious nutcases is, as I have oft repeated, to make themselves rich. And to make money you have to market your "product" to the maximum audience. And more than once to the same people, wherever possible - your repeat market! And if they are stupid enough to be taken in twice, they are stupid enough to be taken in many more times! Really, "spreading the word" be buggered, it's all about the money, honey. They're just would-be Scientologists. ;)

[Zep]

Originally posted by P.S.A.
I was rummaging around trying to find a photo replica of an ichthyosaur fossil in the process of giving birth, one of which I've seen for myself in the Bristol Museum a few months back, but I came across this much funnier link instead; Apparently Hovind hasn't even heard of his own fellow creationists, who think they can prove just that. Hovind has never EVER let facts stand in the way of his preaching. Neither has AiG. The amusing things is as you pointed out - their separate laughable refutations of the actual facts contradict each other so wildly that they both look more silly than ever.

Like the Dire Straits song says, "Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong!"

[Chimpy]

Originally posted by Zep
Actually, Ken Ham was laughed at so hard here by all and sundry that he had to move to Kentucky to keep his spiel alive and the money rolling in. And that's where he is now, and they continue to pay him to spout this stuff!

Yup... he's busy creating creationist theme parks *Giggle* I reckon we should all go... it would be er fun

Originally posted by Zep
Even our regular homegrown fruitcake, Victor Zammit, rates more mention locally (but not much, thankfully). But I did find this: http://www.skeptictank.org/aplnut.htm?FACTNet

*cry* not Zammit again. His surname means he has Maltese origins somewhere and I'm Maltese and I think he should change his surname and stop giving our little island a bad name. TELL YOU WHAT next time you lot are playing rugby, please please please throw him in the middle of a scrum. Pretty please with flowers on top?

Re the URL that's an urban legend, although it is said that another lunatic by the name of Ed Conrad actually harassed Smithsonian stuff with similar. IIRC someone changed his name with that of Appleton just for a bit of light relief.

[Chocolate Chip]

Originally posted by Zep
Really, "spreading the word" be buggered, it's all about the money, honey. They're just would-be Scientologists. ;)
Well.... It seems money may be what brings Kent Hovind down, if not all the way, then maybe a few pegs. Check these out:

From Here (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/116/11.0.html)
He's also had trouble with the law, having been charged with assault, battery, and burglary (the charges were dropped), and faces other charges over his refusal to get building permits for his properties.
Now Hovind, who goes by the name "Dr. Dino" and runs Dino Adventure Land, Faith Baptist Church, and Creation Science Evangelism in Pensacola, Florida, is being investigated by the IRS for tax evasion.
This article is from a CHRISTIAN source.


Another
Link (http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/housechu/hovind.htm)
This journal, must break fellowship with brother Hovind. Even if he "beats the rap" with the IRS, he is, nevertheless, teaching rebellion against the king. We have heard all the Libertarian, militia, and extra-biblical rationalism for this, and we reject it out of hand. Jesus paid his taxes, and every saint must follow his example.
It seems even his own could be turning on him.

He also declared bankruptcy (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind-decision.html) in 1996.

Oh dear, brother kent !!! :rolleyes:

I couldn't find any updates in regard to his current IRS problems, anybody have any idea?

edited for formatting

[Zep]

Better question about Hovind:

Anyone care?

[prewitt81]

When did the dinosaurs die? During the flood? What happened to two of every kind?

[cyr]

They didn't die, they live in loch ness! ;)

The fact that anyone actually takes this guy seriously makes me want to cry...

[thatguywhojuggles]

Shermer briefly showed a slide of a drawing of what a "intelligently designed" human would look like. It had thick legs, and a very thick spine. I've been trying to find a copy of that image. Has anyone seen it online?

thanks...

[thaiboxerken]

If I designed a human, it would have wheels and built-in internet capabilities.

[Garrette]

And a really cute, busty redhead.


I don't really consider this a derail; Hovind deserves this much serious attention.

Breaking his hold on his followers, though, deserves quite a bit of attention, I suppose.

[Alkatran]

Ya, the whole "This is what we would look like if we were designed" argument was a bad idea IMO. There's no way you can say "this is what we would look like", as if you could know the BEST way to design something.



Does anyone know anything about the eyes argument Hovind used?

[Garrette]

Originally posted by Alkatran:

Does anyone know anything about the eyes argument Hovind used?

You mean the eyes as an example of irreducible complexity?

It's wrong.

[Garrette]

Sorry, Alkatran, that was unnecessarily blunt.

My non-scientist understanding is this:

Hovind (and other creationists) say that the eye is an example of an irreducibly complex structure, i.e., something that could not have evolved because its constituent parts confer no advantage on the larger organism of which they are part.

Besides the fact that even some of their creationist brethren admit this is wrong (e.g. Michael Behe admits the eye could have evolved), they really are wrong. Intermediate eyes are quite viable and useful. A photo-sensitive patch of skin would confer an advantage over other slugs to the slug that possessed it.

You can find more at Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/outline.html)

[Alkatran]

No that's not what I meant.

Shermer said the eye was badly designed. "Upside down" he put it, with the cones and rods at the back. Hovind said that this was beneficial because it provided necessary UV protection. He said the reason some animals underwater have 'correct' eyes is that the water gives that protection.

My question was if this was correct (it definitely sounds plausible, but I don't know enough to be sure).


Also, one more point against Hovind:
"If you copy a program a thousand times between computers and try to run it it's not going to run."
Uh.... yes it will. Hell, if we lost a single bit in any program the whole program would probably crash incessantly.
The mere existance of 'open source' software, where people trade the code around thousands of times... :hit:

[Chocolate Chip]

Originally posted by Zep
Better question about Hovind:

Anyone care?
I think it might be an important question. It's an indication of his credibility. Certainly some of you might not care, but I think that anything that shows what this guy's character is like would surely have an impression on fencesitters, not to mention some of his own followers.
Look at Jim Bakker. One of the largest scandals in evangelical history, due to monetary problems and scandal. That pretty much ended the PTL club, even though it did continue for a short while before collapsing in bankruptcy.
Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Bakker)

[Garrette]

Ah. Got it, Alkatran.

Can't help you with that bit, though.

[Chocolate Chip]

Originally posted by Alkatran
Shermer said the eye was badly designed. "Upside down" he put it, with the cones and rods at the back. Hovind said that this was beneficial because it provided necessary UV protection. He said the reason some animals underwater have 'correct' eyes is that the water gives that protection.

My question was if this was correct (it definitely sounds plausible, but I don't know enough to be sure).

Perhaps this link will clarify for you:
http://www.schools.net.au/edu/lesson_ideas/optics/optics_wksht4_p1.html

The cones and rods are closer to the front of the eye on a fish because light helps them to see in the water. The location of the cones and rods enable the fish to see light better.
Quote from above link:

The fish eye fundamentally has the same visual components as the human eye, but because fish have to make the most out of any light available to them some of these components show special modifications in order to enable the fish to respond to the level of available light and capture it most effectively.

[Yeah_Right]

When Hovind mentioned that Dinosaurs are still alive in Loch Ness, I wonder if he did lose any credibility points with the bleevers? I know that if I were listening from a fundie perspective I'd certainly dismiss Hovind as a representative of my beliefs. His argument reminds me of this other chap that said: "Scientists say that there is no water in heaven, so the flood could not have happened. But there is a polar ice cap on Mars and that's water". I am paraphrasing there, but that is essentially what he said. As with Hovind, I hope that there were some thinking fundies out there that were shaking their heads in shame.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Yeah_Right
...some thinking fundies... Sorry? You've lost me on that. What are these people exactly?

[Alkatran]

Originally posted by Yeah_Right
When Hovind mentioned that Dinosaurs are still alive in Loch Ness, I wonder if he did lose any credibility points with the bleevers?

Something tells me it made them go "OH! Well that solves that mystery!"

[c4ts]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
If I designed a human, it would have wheels and built-in internet capabilities.

Stephen Hawking?

[DavoMan]

Baaahahahhaha! :D Brilliant.

[Ryokan]

Originally posted by c4ts
Stephen Hawking?

OMG, you just made me spit tea all over the screen! Brilliant, simply brilliant! :D

[Oso]

Here's some comments I sent to Dr Shermer shortly after the debates God I wish I had been there, well that's a lie, I couldn't possibly sit through a Hovind sermon. I grew up in the Church of Christ in Arkansas and Texas, so I'm familiar with the Hovind style. No offense but I suspect the 'atheists' were right, you got your ass kicked and never even realized what the rules were.

BUT... there are rules. It is more a sport than any kind of debate. Unfortunately the guy who's making the pitch sets all the rules and it's done in his house. It may seem different from a tent revival but not much. I suspect it didn't really make any difference whether you were there are not, he could do the whole thing to an empty seat and I doubt it would change much.

I agree with your conclusion that further 'debates' are counter productive but only because it's not worth it to develop the skill set necessary to be successful in the game. Hovind does this very specific shtick for a living but he can be beat. The problem is he sets all the rules, to beat him you have to either accept his rules or introduce new ones. If you accept his rules then you'll have to spend months developing effective rebuttals and then years forcing him to reveal all his tools. Establishing new rules will be extremely difficult. You can't do it in advance. He would never agree, for example, to limit the debate to specifics such as "The theory of evolution is a religion that leads to communism, abortion, and atheism". You would have to do something like, in your introduction simply say you will only continue the discussion if Hovind will first entertain a few simple questions such as "Is it possible to debate Creationism vs Evolution?". Of course you could only do this once.

But even if someone were willing to spend the time to become competitive in the Hovind arena he would only debate them once, and Hovind would still probably win, because I guarantee you no one's going to get far enough ahead of him to beat him with only one swing. So your talking about a career debating Hovind. I think Hell has now been defined. He agreed.

Thanks for the file Chocolate Chip, It'll be my Saturday night movie.
.

[Chocolate Chip]

Originally posted by Oso
Here's some comments I sent to Dr Shermer shortly after the debates He agreed.

Thanks for the file Chocolate Chip, It'll be my Saturday night movie.
Your Welcome Oso.

[EGarrett]

I don't see how Kent Hovind can be considered a threat when he got embarrassed by Ali G.

(Anyone else remember that episode?)

[Chocolate Chip]

Originally posted by EGarrett
I don't see how Kent Hovind can be considered a threat when he got embarrassed by Ali G.

(Anyone else remember that episode?)
Reference?
As long as he can preach, lecture, debate, whatever you want to call it. He is a threat. He has opportunity to convince others of his views.

Or we could just poo-poo the whole thing and ignore it. Tell ourselves he's not worth confronting in some way, shape or form because we don't want to give him any kind of recognition he is supposed to be wanting and craving.
While we're at it, let's just ignore Sylvia Browne too. Hell, her woo is just as incredible. Mr Randi, are you reading this? Let it go, don't bother with Sylvia Browne, take that counter down off your homepage. I mean really, we think she's a fraud, therefore how can anyone else NOT see she's a fraud too, how could they not?
Leave John Edward alone Mr Randi. We see he is using cold reading methods, therefore everyone else should be able to as well. How could they not?
Don't bother with Dr Schwartz Mr Randi. We can see he is probably fudging his results, and using poor controls in his experiments with PSI. Oh hell, WE understand what he's up to, everyone else should be able to as well. How could they not?
I guess just because guys like Dawkins and Shermer don't want to engage these cretins in SOME kind of way, it's OK that the rest of us should just follow along? Is that what's happening?
Why bother Mr Randi? Why give ANY of these people any kind of recognition they supposedly crave? Maybe it's time to retire.:mad: :mad: :mad:

[EGarrett]

Reference? He was on the Ali G Show. That was the point of the post. Chill.

[Chocolate Chip]

Originally posted by EGarrett
Reference? He was on the Ali G Show. That was the point of the post. Chill.
Originally posted by EGarrett
I don't see how Kent Hovind can be considered a threat when he got embarrassed by Ali G.
(Anyone else remember that episode?)
So you're saying that the point of the above quoted post was that he was on the Ali G show and not that you don't see how Kent Hovind can be considered a threat?
I ask you for a reference of the show, or a link if possible so that I can see for myself if I think ALi G embarassed Hovind.
Chill.
No.
Know that I am not targeting you specifically. But the laissez-faire attitude of some people towards this guy. Here is a quote from the very front of Hovind's web page:

Welcome to Creation Science Evangelism. Here at CSE, our goal is to share the gospel of Jesus Christ to those who have not heard, and to strengthen your faith if you are already a believer. We do this by showing how Science actually gives glory to God by supporting the Biblical account of creation. (http://www.drdino.com:8080/)

He is dedicated to trying to convert as many people as possible to this belief. Some of you may make jokes about this guy and ridicule as to how could anybody believe him.
But people do believe him, and he will most likely continue getting people to believe him. That is what one of the things religion is good at, spreading the "word". He is an evangelical, evangelism is specifically preaching and missionary work. This is Hovind's specialty, getting people to believe him. Unless we want to have a fortress mentality, we should consider confronting this. Question THEIR ideas, debate them on what THEY put forward. If they refuse, then it is THEY who are "scared", it is they who cannot defend their position, thus refusal to debate.

[Chocolate Chip]

Sometime in the 1980s when I was on a visit to the United States, a television station wanted to stage a debate between me and a prominent creationist called, I think, Duane P Gish. I telephoned Stephen Gould for advice. He was friendly and decisive: "Don't do it." The point is not, he said, whether or not you would "win" the debate. Winning is not what the creationists realistically aspire to. For them, it is sufficient that the debate happens at all. They need the publicity. We don't. To the gullible public that is their natural constituency, it is enough that their man is seen sharing a platform with a real scientist.....snip.....I have followed his advice ever since, (http://pages.sbcglobal.net/amun_ra/)
Richard Dawkins

Thursday, 14 March, 2002
Professor Richard Dawkins and others claim fundamentalist Christian teachers at the top school are steering children towards a purely biblical explanation of how the world was created. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/1872331.stm)

Tuesday, November 30, 2004
Anti-evolution teachings gain foothold in U.S. schools (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/11/30/MNGVNA3PE11.DTL)

May 7, 2001
Creationism, With New Name, Is Taught in Schools (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=7034&c=139)

11/29/2004
School science debate has evolved (http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2004-11-28-schools-evolution_x.htm)

Nov 6, 2004
Wis. City's Schools Allowing Creationism (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=232573)

I do not mean to spam. But I hope that some of you get what I mean.

[dann]

Originally posted by Alkatran
Shermer said the eye was badly designed. "Upside down" he put it, with the cones and rods at the back. Hovind said that this was beneficial because it provided necessary UV protection. He said the reason some animals underwater have 'correct' eyes is that the water gives that protection.

My question was if this was correct (it definitely sounds plausible, but I don't know enough to be sure).
As I understand it the eyes of all vertebrates are basically the same. The 'wiring', i.e. the nerves that transmit impulses from the cones and rods to the brain, are placed above the cones and rods, which, of course, is an obvious 'designer' flaw caused by the eyes of vertebrates having evolved from parts of the brain, unlike the eyes of squid and octopusses that have the 'wiring' in the back because the eye evolved from skin cells. This also means that their vision is not impaired by our own blind spot where the wiring is collected and enters the brain.

But look it up for yourselves. If you google "evolution of the eye", you get a lot of very good links, the best of them illustrated. In my experience anybody who wants to confront creationists should know as much as possible about this question. It has turned into their favourite argument.

Sometimes when I read texts about creationism versus darwinism with my students, I play the devil's (the devil's? whatever!) advocate and attack their belief in evolution with the creationist eye argument, and it never fails to work because their belief in evolution isn't much more than a belief. They have no real idea how evolution works. They tend to argue like this: 1) We need eyes! (which, of course, is the reason why God in his wisdom gave them to us! :) ) 2) Therefore, given enough time, evolution will provide us with them. (at this point a reference to our lack of wheels comes in handy!).
They simply don't have a clue, and sometimes I've succeeded in convincing even groups of (is seniors the right word?) very bright 20-year-olds that the eye couldn't possibly be a result of evolution - in spite of the fact that I had started out being a defender of evolution, but, of course, they were confused about when exactly I was playing the devil's advocate.

It is usually very easy to undo my creationist indoctrination with the help from illustrations found on the internet. And here in Denmark I can even see the relief in their eyes when they realize that I'm not a creationist and that it's fairly easy to explain eyes as a result of evolution. I can imagine that it may be harder in the US ...

Some creationists who have a degree in biology and know about evolution favour this argument, too, and fail to disclose the well-known fact that eyes of all 'stages' and models exist in living animals even today. They are also trying hard to dismiss the evolutionist explanation. Their favourite argument right now seems to be: OK, sure, when you've got the beginning of an eye, then it's very easy to explain how an eye could 'evolve', but where did the beginning come from?
As always, they recourse to the 'missing links' in any explanation. If there is one little step that isn't covered in the stepladder of fossil evidence for evolution, they are quick to use this - not as an example of a lack of knowledge, but as positive proof of creationism - as if they were holding God's casting mold in their hands!

[dann]

Just one out of many:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/grand/

[Zamzara]

Originally posted by Chocolate Chip

I ask you for a reference of the show, or a link if possible so that I can see for myself if I think ALi G embarassed Hovind.


Ali G in the USAiii:
http://www.play.com/play247.asp?page=title&r=R2&title=125453&p=57&g=72&pa=sr

It also has the Buzz Aldrin interview.

[Kiless]

This may be of interest:

http://www.infidelguy.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=viewdownload&cid=97

[Chocolate Chip]

Originally posted by Zamzara
Ali G in the USAiii:
http://www.play.com/play247.asp?page=title&r=R2&title=125453&p=57&g=72&pa=sr
It also has the Buzz Aldrin interview.

Originally posted by Kiless
This may be of interest:
http://www.infidelguy.com/modules.p...download&cid=97

Thank you both for the links, much appreciated.

[DavoMan]

This does not, despite the fears of "intelligent design" advocates, amount to evidence against the existence of a Deity. Properly understood, as Darwin himself pointed out, it only deepens our respect for the power and subtlety of the Creator's remarkable ways
Whats this crap? I'm bothered by the whole 'you can beleive in jesus without beleiving creationism' bit put in the end of lectures by pro-evolution debaters.
It really seems like a gimmick to get christians to let go of thier 'if i beleive evolution, my entire faith is out the door' idea.

Is wise to take this stance? Is it even possible? If its not possible, then is it honest to take this stance & say this to people?

Also, with regards to the articles use of the eye: That creationist advocate said the reason our eye's nerve cells are infront of our photo-receptor cells is to stop nasty rays coming in. Whereas the octopus and other water-friends' eyes are under water & don't need the protection?

Is that a valid point?

[apoger]

Whats this crap? I'm bothered by the whole 'you can beleive in jesus without beleiving creationism' bit put in the end of lectures by pro-evolution debaters.

It's correct. There is no conflict between biological evolution and creation stories.

Evolution describes how life changes over time.
Creation describes how life came into being.

It is completely plausible to hold the belief that a creator made the world and life, and that evolution is a description of how things proceeded from there (via the creators influence or otherwise).

If Creation advocates were honest, they would compare creation with abiogenisis, which is the scientific discipline that trys to explain how life came into being. Of course even if abiogenisis never produces a convincing theory, that still does not mean that by default "some creator did it".

Hope that helps clear things up. :)

[Chimpy]

Originally posted by apoger
It is completely plausible to hold the belief that a creator made the world and life, and that evolution is a description of how things proceeded from there (via the creators influence or otherwise).

Theistic evolution accepts all the biological stuff with the proviso that god did it, it does not conflict in any way with science. ANYWAYS if anyone is having doubts and their faith shaken a good book is Kenneth Miller's Finding Darwin's God

[DavoMan]

Originally posted by apoger
It's correct. There is no conflict between biological evolution and creation stories.
.......................................
Hope that helps clear things up. :)

Yeah and no. That first sentence you said..well how that is correct is beyond me. Hmm no it isn't. I think its wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. (3 wrongs). The rest of what you said is correct & clued me up a bit.

Okay one more time for the camera:
Originally posted by apoger
There is no conflict between biological evolution and creation stories.

Then why the insane debates? Pro-evolution/science advocates disagree with creationists. Even I disagree with the creationists.

Creation story "and then god took adam's rib and made eve from it. no wait. i changed my mind. adam and eve were made at the same time. no wait i changed my mind again. go with the rib thing".
Does that conflict with evolution?

[Chocolate Chip]

Originally posted by DavoMan
Then why the insane debates? Pro-evolution/science advocates disagree with creationists. Even I disagree with the creationists.

Creation story "and then god took adam's rib and made eve from it. no wait. i changed my mind. adam and eve were made at the same time. no wait i changed my mind again. go with the rib thing".
Does that conflict with evolution?
Creationists attribute god with creating all life. Evolutionists attribute life as a natural, gradual development.

Dogs were always dogs because that is how god decided to make them. Creationist arguement.

Dogs evolved from single cell life. Evolutionary view.

The "compromise" is that god started life off (like a push-start), once started, god stood back and let life develop on it's own.

The problem I have with this compromise, is that god is supposed to know all things, past, present, and future, according to any believer you'll encounter. Well if he knows all things, then he knew that man would eventually develop, the entire development was already planned out, then we have to ask, did life therefore really develop on it's own? There was already a preconcieved goal for life, create man to worship god.

[apoger]

I think its wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. (3 wrongs).

Explain what part, or even three parts are wrong.



Then why the insane debates?

Mostly becuase scientifically illiterate creationists offer them.




Pro-evolution/science advocates disagree with creationists.

Due to their pro-science, not pro-evolution stance.


Even I disagree with the creationists.

As do I, but not becuase the science of understanding how life changes has somehow begun to include theory about how life came into being.

Perhaps this analogy will help;

Dave has a car.
Dave believes his car was made by Ford.
This is the Ford Creation Theory.
Dave takes his car to the corner gas station where it gets worked on by Jose.
This is the Jose Maintenance Theory.
Jane thinks Dave is daft. She thinks his car was made by Honda.
This is the Honda Creation Theory.

Both Dave and Jane believe that Jose does maintain the car.
Does the Jose Maintenance Therory tell us anything about where the car was created? No it does not. It only describes what happened to the car once it was already created. The Jose Maintenance Theory is not validated or invalidated by either creation method. It stands alone.

It doesn't matter whether life was formed naturally from a chemical soup, or if God zapped it into being. The theory of biological evolution picks up once life starts changing. It has nothing to do with how life began.


Hope this helps make things less confusing.

[DavoMan]

I understood, and I understand.
However Kent Hovind would disagree with you, right? He decided that evolution didn't exist because it conflicted with his idea of each species evolving from equally as complex species. Dog from a dog etc. Holden from a Holden. That was my understanding.

But don't ya just love Hovind's example of Microsoft software to demonstrate 'intelegent design'? I'm sure a few Linux & Apple geeks had a laugh at that.:D

Also his idea of 'If ya understood how a computer worked, that doesnt mean you knew how the computer was made' made me look sideways.

The very reason we all have x86 PC's now is because Compaq reverse engineered the first IBM PC BIOS to make their 'IBM clone PC'.

Shermer, obviusly the smarter of the two men - uses an Apple.:D

[apoger]

However Kent Hovind would disagree with you, right?

Yes he would.

However this is either due to;
A> Massive scientific illiteracy.

or, more likely

B> Massive hypocrisy, as he feels it's fine to lie when doing so in the service of his God.


Just because Hovind is willing to agrue, doesn't make it a valid argument. Indeed this is excatly why so many in the scientific community refuse to debate this topic, becuase it creates the impression that there is something to argue about.

[Chocolate Chip]

Originally posted by apoger
Yes he would.

However this is either due to;
A> Massive scientific illiteracy.

or, more likely

B> Massive hypocrisy, as he feels it's fine to lie when doing so in the service of his God.


Just because Hovind is willing to agrue, doesn't make it a valid argument. Indeed this is excatly why so many in the scientific community refuse to debate this topic, becuase it creates the impression that there is something to argue about.
I put to you though, that exposing Hovind and this type of hypocrisy would be beneficial to the evolutionist side, and science. I think that NOT debating him creates the impression that scientists are avoiding the issue because there may be creedance to Hovind's arguement, and scientists "know" it.

[DavoMan]

I think you two are both correct, and that is our delemma. What we need is a tactic which corrodes the creationists' support in both of those scenarios. I don't know what that tactic is, but I am open for suggestions. :(

[Zep]

You could try contacting directly the people who ask Hovind to lecture them, and politely invite them to a beginner's introduction to science presentation, WITHOUT Hovind ranting in the background. Allow any and all questions to be fielded, and answered truthfully. Show them how science REALLY works, show them that no certainty exists on the subject of abiogenisis, but that evolutionary development is far more supported by evidence than Hovind can possibly deny without lying. And that science does not preclude or deny their own faith.

In short, short-cut Hovind and his ilk right out of the arena, and pull his whole shoddy house-of-cards out from under him.

[Questioninggeller]

Originally posted by Chocolate Chip
This is a debate betrween Micheal Shermer vs Kent Hovind. They are debating Evolution vs Creationism.

This is a 75 megabyte file, those with modem connections, have patience.

Here's the deal, to view this debate, download it first before viewing. Right - click on the link below, select "save file as" and you should be able to download it.
This is a personal ftp server, I will leave it on for as long as I can.

If the ftp should go down, the link will be disconnected and you will not be able to download the file. Send me a PM and I will provide info for you to gain access to the ftp server.

Hovind vs Shermer Debate (ftp://169.254.112.106/../shermer_Large.wmv)

I posted this same debate with a identical title in April at http://www.skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=5909

but with a different link to download the video.

[Questioninggeller]

Here is the Hugh Ross (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Ross_(creationist)) vs Kent Hovind debate (disc 2 of 3). Note that Hovind's material is copyright free (http://www.drdino.com/copyright.php) for distribution. Download then unrar (http://www.rarlab.com/rar_add.htm).

1) http://www.ziddu.com/download/3064671/Kent_Hovind_Vs._Hugh_Ross_Part_02_Of_03.part01.rar .html
2) http://www.ziddu.com/download/3065003/Kent_Hovind_Vs._Hugh_Ross_Part_02_Of_03.part02.rar .html
3) http://www.ziddu.com/download/3116884/Kent_Hovind_Vs._Hugh_Ross_Part_02_Of_03.part03.rar .html
4) http://www.ziddu.com/download/3118341/Kent_Hovind_Vs._Hugh_Ross_Part_02_Of_03.part04.rar .html
5) http://www.ziddu.com/download/3119206/Kent_Hovind_Vs._Hugh_Ross_Part_02_Of_03.part05.rar .html
6) http://www.ziddu.com/download/3135787/Kent_Hovind_Vs._Hugh_Ross_Part_02_Of_03.part06.rar .html
7) http://www.ziddu.com/download/3136703/Kent_Hovind_Vs._Hugh_Ross_Part_02_Of_03.part07.rar .html
8) http://www.ziddu.com/download/3144248/Kent_Hovind_Vs._Hugh_Ross_Part_02_Of_03.part08.rar .html
9) http://www.ziddu.com/download/3145053/Kent_Hovind_Vs._Hugh_Ross_Part_02_Of_03.part09.rar .html
10) http://www.ziddu.com/download/3146576/Kent_Hovind_Vs._Hugh_Ross_Part_02_Of_03.part10.rar .html
11) http://www.ziddu.com/download/3171729/Kent_Hovind_Vs._Hugh_Ross_Part_02_Of_03.part11.rar .html
12) http://www.ziddu.com/download/3172188/Kent_Hovind_Vs._Hugh_Ross_Part_02_Of_03.part12.rar .html
13) http://www.ziddu.com/download/3178464/Kent_Hovind_Vs._Hugh_Ross_Part_02_Of_03.part13.rar .html
14) http://www.ziddu.com/download/3178851/Kent_Hovind_Vs._Hugh_Ross_Part_02_Of_03.part14.rar .html
15) http://www.ziddu.com/download/3179081/Kent_Hovind_Vs._Hugh_Ross_Part_02_Of_03.part15.rar .html

[pnerd]

Do you think I should download the debate? I mean is it worth it? Is it worth listening to a guy who says things like "Mathematics is religion"? :)

[UnrepentantSinner]

Found this debate on Youtube and wanted to bump this if anyone was interested in watching it.

eL-cORRZdng

[PbFoot]

If you have not yet read Kent Hovinds "Doctoral Dissertation" - it is a work of comic genius. Utterly hilarious. Seriously, you will split a gut laughing.


http://www.megaupload.com/?d=STERW274

[pnerd]

If you have not yet read Kent Hovinds "Doctoral Dissertation" - it is a work of comic genius. Utterly hilarious. Seriously, you will split a gut laughing.


http://www.megaupload.com/?d=STERW274
.
:) There's a whole thread about the "dissertation": http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=161665