Kent Hovind's debates, can someone help?

Whatever you may learn from Hovind, I can guaretee it is not good science , or sciece at all in most cases. I watched a few of his lectures online, and was shocked not only at how badly he understood the concepts he was talking about, but how readily accepting the audience was of his claims. I will give Hovind one thing, he can be a strong speaker, especially when catering to an audience of similar beliefs. He doesn't debate well though, which is probably why he prefers live speeches and debates to written text debates Written debates would eliminate his speaking skills from the equation and leave him to rely on his arguments, which are weak at best.

The difference is that there is substantial evidence to support the scientific theories which describe the grand canyon being carved over millenia by common proccesses which are understood. Additionally, science doesn't require you to be present at a an event to look at teh evidence after the event and find a scietific explanation. There are numerous impact craters on earth (and on virtually any planetary body we can examine with a telescope). The evidence of the impact is enough to justify the theory of enourmous impacts by meteorites which cause the deformation. In fact, being present at such an event first hand would probably be a bad idea. Meanwhile, there is no physical evidence for a world wide flood, no mechanics for it to occur, and there is a decided lack of water on this planet for it to occur. What makes Hovind's statements wrong is that he asserts opinions as fact without evidence or proper research. He is notorious for setting up strawmen attacks by misrepresting or flat out lying about what science actually does claim. Hovind, who may be a fine preacher, continues to misrepresent current scietific models so badly that even fellow christian creationists look at his arguements as poor, and often dishonest. Now, when the ICR looks at his works and calls it bullshit, and advises that his arguements are so poor that shouldn't be used, it makes one wonder why anyone would take Hovind seriously.[This message has been edited by Darwin Storm, 04-01-2004]

Actually, buzzsaw, Darwin was almost kicked off the Beagle because he continouly critized and berated the captain, who was a loud mouthed racist. Now, I am curious how you equate Darwin with extreme racism. Not that the man didn't have faults, but by the standards of his day, racism defintely wasnt one of them.

I would like to add a small caveat to that statment. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. It is possible to travel faster than the speed of light in various materials. For example, in a nuclear reactor, there are particles ejected at near C(vacuum), which are traveling faster than light in water. The result is that they do create a shockwave of sorts, which emits a strange blue glow called chernokov radiation. Sorry for being nit picky on that one. : )

I would like to add a small caveat to that statment. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. It is possible to travel faster than the speed of light in various materials. For example, in a nuclear reactor, there are particles ejected at near C(vacuum), which are traveling faster than light in water. The result is that they do create a shockwave of sorts, which emits a strange blue glow called chernokov radiation. Sorry for being nit picky on that one. : )

Actually, its nevertheless false. The speed of light is constant for all all observers. The bystander would measure the speed of light emitted by the car as the same speed measured by those in the car. The difference would depend on if the car was moving towards or away from the obsever, which would shift the wavelength (ie redshift if moving away, blueshift if moving towards.) Of course, considering how low the velocity difference is, you would be hard pressed to measure the difference, since the realitivistic effects would be very minor. All that Hovind's statement demonstrates is a complete lack of knowledge of special or general realitivity. Of course, that isn't suprising.

I think that has do with corporate charters. I think single proprieterships are treated on a yearly basis, but I am not 100% certain.

Kent Hovind may claim many things, but that doesn't mean they are true. I have heard various claims about how tax laws are unconstitutional. Of course, if he, or anyone making those claims, had read the constitution, they would know their claims are flat out lies. Now, there have been those that thought this article wasn't clear enough in giving power to the government to collect taxes on personal income, so to clear things up, amendment 16 was passed. Failure to not file your taxes or to pay them is a crime. Just because the IRS hadn't audited him previously, and discovered malfeasance, doesn't mean he hasnt been breaking laws. You misunderstand the tax laws and the powers given to the US government by the constitution if you think it is lawful to not to pay your taxes. True, there is special tax-exempt statuses that can be applied to organizations (not individuals), but those groups are tightly regulated in how they can obtains and spend money. Additionally, their finances are carefully monitered. Since Kent Hovind is an individual, his buisnesses are not tax-exempt organizations (I believe they are single proprietorships in most cases).
There are other misconceptions, but those are the big two that come to mind.