Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8846 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-21-2018 5:10 PM
235 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, DrJones*, jar, kjsimons, PaulK, Tangle (6 members, 229 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MrTim
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 835,460 Year: 10,283/29,783 Month: 947/1,583 Week: 416/291 Day: 65/59 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
13NextFF
Author Topic:   Kent Hovind
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2255 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 1 of 182 (625467)
07-23-2011 8:41 AM


This appears on the Dr Dino webpage in relation to a brochure produced bt the Skeptics Society title 'Top 10 Myths about Evolution'...

Written by Kent Hovind.

Anyway, I’ve debated Michael Shermer twice (see debates “Three Views” and “How to Debate a Creationist”) and will do it again (plus 10 other evolution experts to assist him) any day of the week! I’ll even buy dinner AND pay him $500 to debate with me again based on a few simple conditions:

1. Anyone is allowed to videotape the debate and sell copies that are not edited other than improving the quality of graphs, charts and visuals used.
2. Each side (not each person) gets equal time.
3. We talk about one topic at a time. (My experience has been that they will throw out 10 topics in rapid succession—as this pamphlet does—and only give you time to respond to one or two. Then they claim you couldn’t answer the others.)

Is there anything we can do to help this debate happen?

I would be willing to put in some funds to help it along.

Would this forum consider putting together a team to challenge Kent Hovind?

Edited by Butterflytyrant, : typo


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 07-23-2011 10:09 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded
 Message 15 by Chuck77, posted 07-24-2011 12:51 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12555
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 2 of 182 (625468)
07-23-2011 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Butterflytyrant
07-23-2011 8:41 AM


Hovind is currently in the 5th year of a 10 year prison sentence for tax evasion in the Federal penitentiary system, see Hovind's solitary considerations. I don't know when he's eligible for parole.

But I'll move this to the Coffee House forum.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-23-2011 8:41 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12555
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 3 of 182 (625470)
07-23-2011 10:09 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Kent Hovind thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 63 days)
Posts: 3181
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 4 of 182 (625477)
07-23-2011 10:30 AM


So let me get this straight....Kent fucking Hovind accuses evolutionists of the Gish Gallop? How is that possible? Does he not know who it is named after???? Or is he just that deceitful?


"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square
Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Larni, posted 07-23-2011 12:38 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30509
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 5 of 182 (625482)
07-23-2011 10:44 AM


Make sure you schedule any such sideshow after August 11, 2015 (praise God).


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by fearandloathing, posted 07-23-2011 11:55 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

Coyote
Member
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 6 of 182 (625483)
07-23-2011 11:07 AM


Debating creationists
Check Mazzy's posts in the "Why are there no human apes alive today?" thread.

This will clearly illustrate why it is futile for scientists to try to debate hard core creationists.

And doing so in a venue with an audience, where showmanship and glib count much more than empirical evidence, would be even worse.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by ZenMonkey, posted 07-23-2011 11:40 AM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 11 by DBlevins, posted 07-23-2011 8:05 PM Coyote has responded
 Message 92 by IamJoseph, posted 07-30-2011 10:45 PM Coyote has responded

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2343 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 7 of 182 (625485)
07-23-2011 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Coyote
07-23-2011 11:07 AM


Re: Debating creationists
I agree. Stepping on stage with any of these clowns - as if it were a contest between two evenly matched positions - gives them far more credibility than they deserve.

On the other hand, refusing to debate lets them trot back to their minions crowing about how no evolutionist is brave enough to go up against them.

Spam if you do, ham if you don't.


Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Coyote, posted 07-23-2011 11:07 AM Coyote has not yet responded

fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 1978 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 8 of 182 (625487)
07-23-2011 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by jar
07-23-2011 10:44 AM


He is in The Administrative Maximum (ADX) facility in Florence, Colorado, houses offenders requiring the tightest controls.

1. KENT E HOVIND 06452-017 58-White-M 08-11-2015 FLORENCE ADMAX USP

Still in administrative segregation, probably for his own protection, if it was because he couldn't follow the rules he would be in disciplinary segregation where he wouldn't have the same privileges of A-Seg.

It kills me to think how much money is being spent to keep him in A-Seg as compared to general population for 10 years, makes me want to send him a bunch of Atheist or Hindu, Islam...ect literature to him. Maybe someone could get Dennis Markuse to write him, anything to drive him crazy, or crazier.


"No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride...and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mind, well...maybe chalk it off to forced conscious expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten."
— Hunter S. Thompson

Ad astra per aspera

Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by jar, posted 07-23-2011 10:44 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by ZenMonkey, posted 07-23-2011 6:41 PM fearandloathing has acknowledged this reply

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3953
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 9 of 182 (625489)
07-23-2011 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by hooah212002
07-23-2011 10:30 AM


So let me get this straight....Kent fucking Hovind accuses evolutionists of the Gish Gallop?

Yeah, I could not get my head round that one, either.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by hooah212002, posted 07-23-2011 10:30 AM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2343 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 10 of 182 (625526)
07-23-2011 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by fearandloathing
07-23-2011 11:55 AM


fearandloathing writes:

Maybe someone could get Dennis Markuse to write him, anything to drive him crazy, or crazier.

Maybe they could put Markuse/Mabus in the cage with him and then let the hilarity ensue.


Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by fearandloathing, posted 07-23-2011 11:55 AM fearandloathing has acknowledged this reply

DBlevins
Member (Idle past 1608 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


(2)
Message 11 of 182 (625530)
07-23-2011 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Coyote
07-23-2011 11:07 AM


Re: Debating creationists
It depends on the format.

Debating a creationist on stage or on a media format constrained by time and in front of an audience is pretty foolish, imo. The amount of information required to refute particular assertions runs into the basic limit of many audiences attention span and when confronted with the "gish gallop" littany of false assertions and falacies, the scientist is running against time.

The big difference between this kind of debate and a "forum" debate is we can have debates run into the months or even years. This provides plenty of time for positions to be strengthened or changed, research to be described, and data to be explained. While we are ostensibly speaking to the individual "creationist" we are replying to, it is practically the audience, the lurkers, who we are really speaking to. I think of it as speaking to a class answering questions to the best of my ability. I expect that no matter how eloquent or careful I am with my explanations, not everyone will absorb the material and understand it, but there will be others that do. Someone out there, it is hoped, learns something. I know I do (I am not perfect by any means). Showmanship and glibness aside, this would seem to me to allow a greater degree of insight and understanding, than a 1 hour "debate" on TV or radio.

*showmanship...some of the best teachers are good showman.

As far as Glibness is concerned, we do have moderators who frown on such behavior. While not perfect I wouldn't discount these debates purely because of the glibness that posters fall back upon.

Edited by DBlevins, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Coyote, posted 07-23-2011 11:07 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Coyote, posted 07-23-2011 9:14 PM DBlevins has responded

Coyote
Member
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 12 of 182 (625541)
07-23-2011 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by DBlevins
07-23-2011 8:05 PM


Re: Debating creationists
I agree.

To clarify, the "showmanship and glib" referred to a debate in front of a live audience, not a forum such as this. Think Gish et al.

Presentation and discussion of the evidence in written form is the best format. You see this in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, but that venue is seldom available to creationists because they are most often anti-science and fail to follow the scientific method. You also see evidence in written form on the web, including at this site.

But even in a forum such as this, debating a hard core creationist can be futile because 1) many often don't read the responses, 2) they wouldn't believe any evidence you posted anyway, and 3) many are here to preach to the heathens, not to debate and learn from them. One telltale characteristic of hard core creationistsis that they repeat the same PRATTs over and over no matter how often those points are refuted. They simply can't accept any answer contrary to their religious beliefs.

We have seen such an example recently. It may be more productive and less painful to beat one's head against a brick wall than try to engage such a poster in serious debate.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by DBlevins, posted 07-23-2011 8:05 PM DBlevins has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-23-2011 11:04 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply
 Message 14 by DBlevins, posted 07-23-2011 11:32 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3655
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 13 of 182 (625551)
07-23-2011 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Coyote
07-23-2011 9:14 PM


Debating creationists - Force the debate to a narrow focus
Certainly, debating creationists live in front of an audience is something to be approached with caution. I've seen some excellent thought on how the best way one of the evolution side can go about it, but I don't have a link at hand.

As best I recall, some of the relevant aspects are:

1) Know your opponents past history. The big name creationists have a routine they follow debate after debate.

2) Don't let them get away with a Gish gallop. When presented with such, I would respond with something like "Well, you just served up a heaping pile of baloney. Given the proper experts and enough time, all your points could be massively refuted. Alas, in the context of this debate, we have neither a broad supply of experts nor the needed time. Shall we start by narrowing things down to a specific point?"

Now, facing a young Earth creationist (YEC), my personal choice (being a quasi-geologist) would be to hammer on "there is massive evidence that the Earth is not remotely as young as your perspective". As I see it, refuting a young Earth does much to harpoon young Earth creationism.

Moose

Added by edit - A couple of possibly interesting relevant links:

http://www.creationtheory.org/Arguments/DebatingTips.xhtml
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4065

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Add links.


Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Coyote, posted 07-23-2011 9:14 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 1608 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 14 of 182 (625552)
07-23-2011 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Coyote
07-23-2011 9:14 PM


Re: Debating creationists
I guess I see things differently. Especially with a format such as this one. I don't think the debate is futile, though trying to educate that individual person might be so. While I'm ostensibly debating the individual, I'm really trying to taylor my replies toward providing information and discussing the research to the so-called "lurkers." That is the audience I am aiming for. I don't expect to change people's minds, but perhaps someone will learn something. I know I pick up nuggets of information, even when debating the hard core creationsists.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Coyote, posted 07-23-2011 9:14 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 182 (625563)
07-24-2011 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Butterflytyrant
07-23-2011 8:41 AM


Why bother
Hi Butterflytyrant. Creationists' have debated Hovind. He's pretty much considered a "crackpot" in Creationist circles. I know what your saying, "their ALL crackpots". Well, none the less, he's MORE of a crackpot that most

If Creationists consider him a joke/crackpot i'd say it's a waste of time for any Evolutionists to debate him. Here's a few good links to check out.

" Maintaining Creationist Integrity
A response to Kent Hovind
by Carl Wieland, Ken Ham and Jonathan Sarfati "

http://creation.com/...ist-integrity-response-to-kent-hovind

" Ross–Hovind Debate, John Ankerberg Show, October 2000
Analysis by Jonathan Sarfati

21 December 2000 "

http://creation.com/...ber-2000-analysis-by-jonathan-sarfati

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-23-2011 8:41 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Coyote, posted 07-24-2011 1:54 AM Chuck77 has responded

1
23456
...
13NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018