Kent Hovind's debates, can someone help?

You are kidding, right?Hovind is a charlatan and a con man. He purposefully uses lies that sound good to those with no knowledge of science.Better do some research before you defend him.

Is this a conspiracy? This is the third time in the last week or so that this incredibaly bad "argument" has been brought up.There is a Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. It does not require things to spin in the same direction. It requires the total angular momentum of an isolated system to remain constant.Since we do not know the angular momentum of the Universe at the time of the Big Bang and we do not know the angular momentum of the Universe now, there's no way that anyone can say anything meaningful about the angular momentum of the Universe over time. But that doesn't stop ol' Kent.The fact that some bodies in the Solar System spin in a different direction than the others does not violate the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. As long as you can add up the angular momenta of the individual bodies and get the same number, angular momentum is conserved. The bodies that spin "backwards" trasferred angular momentum to other bodies through collisions and gravitational interactions, or came from outside the Solar System with their own angular momentum and were captured.

He's crudely trying to lay a trap for you. As you know, the original title is "On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" (the "On" was dropped in the third edition). Creationists commonly claim that "Favoured Races" means that Darwin was a racist in the modern sense. They do not take into account the meaning of the word "race" in Darwin's day, which was something like what we would call "subspecies" today.John Wilkins concludes his excellent analysis of this claim with:

quote:

---

It is pretty well clear that every single case of Darwin referring to races involves subspecific varieties, and he does not distinguish between varieties and races. This was the usual usage at the time, as Darwin, who had substantial experience as a systematist, well knew.

​

On the contrary, the sense of race involved in racism today has more to do with fixed varieties (Darwin did not distinguish, as can be seen by the quote from chapter 2, between species and varieties except to say that they grade into each other, and he argued that there was considerable variation and changeability in varieties). There is no way in which an honest reader of the Origin, rather than the title of the Origin, could call Darwin racist in the modern sense.

---

As PaulK pointed out, he has been convicted of being a tax evader. Hovind's PhD is from a diploma mill. Darwin's degree was not in theology, he had a Bachelor of Arts and Master of Arts and and honorary PhD (see Famous alumni). In his time Christ's College did not give the equivalent of today's scintific degrees. He was a trained and accomplished naturalist, the equivalent of a biologist in his day.However, the ultimate answer to "who is a scientist?" is not degrees or training or experience, it's "them as does science". We evaluate the works of people to decide. We have done so; Darwin did science, Hovind does not. Nope. That's a flat-out lie. See Re: Quote Mining for Darwin, Item IThe original title has not been omitted from the site to which he referred, and nothing else has been omitted.

The light was not moving 60 miles faster away from the bystander than from the car occupants, no matter what the speed of the auto was. Hovind made an elementary and stupid mistake.[This message has been edited by JonF, 04-02-2004]

NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!!!!!The speed of light from ANY source relative to ANY observer at ANY time under ANY circumstances is the same. Hovind's wrong, and you are wrong. No, now he's making an error. The constancy of the speed of light DOES apply at the relatively low speeds we normally deal with. We typically don't see the effects because they are small for most situations ... but in the case we have been talking about, the effect is not small. The speed of the light beam leaving the car is exactly 299,792,458 meters per second (670,616,629.4 miles per hour) no matter how fast the car is traveling and no matter how the observer who is measuring the speed is moving or nor moving or where the car is relative to the observer.

Do you ever consider the possibility of finding things out for yourself? Following the link that Paul provided? Hovind contends that paying taxes is voluntary, which decades of court decision denies. Taxes are not voluntary. He is not legally corect; the Supreme COurt is the final ruling on the law of the land, and they have ruled that paying taxes is not voluntary.

You haven't proivided any evidence of an edited edition. Darwin was, for his day, notably non-racist. See the link I posted above. There's a quite a bit of evidence that the Christian Bible had a lot more effect that Darwin did on Hitler. But so what? The question is whether or not Darwin and the later modern synthesis was right .. and that question was setteld long ago. Similarly, the question of whether Kent Hovind is an honest reporter of the truth was settled long ago. He's not.

The principles aren't really the same.

His petition for relief from the penalty that the IRS imposed was denied, and he had to pay the IRS penalty. This is explicitly stated in the decision that you claim you read. Just because he's not in jail does not mean he hasn't been formaly declared wrong by the court; he has.