Kent Hovind's debates, can someone help?

Buz be bidding byby for bedyby. I'll check back in when I can.

I'm not talking about a hardcopy book. And yes, I know that many PUBLISHERS have shortened the name.The link that Shraf gave you was to Talk.Origin's online copy of the book. That is the post you were answering when you made the comment about an altered name. The link does NOT have an altered name.

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

OK I see what you mean. I didn't open the link because I didn't have time to read a book. Nevertheless, Hovind is right in that most of the title has been edited out in subsequent editions. Is that correct?

quote:

---

If you are traveling down the highway at sixty miles an hour, and turn your headlights on, how fast is the light going from your headlights? Compared to you, it is going at the speed of light. Compared to someone on the sidewalk it is going at the speed of light plus sixty miles an hour.

---

quote:

---

Is one light ray emitted or are multiple rays being perpetually emitted from the radiating filament?

---

Light isn't described as "rays" in physics.Light is described as waves and/or particles.Furthermore, the speed of light in a given medium is a physical constant, just like the speed of sound in a given medium is a physical constant.You know about the sonic booms that happen when an aircraft breaks the sound barrier? An observer on the ground hears the boom after the plane has passed because there is a limit to how fast sound travels through air.The speed of light is much, much faster than the speed of sound (actually, nothing can go faster than the speed of light), but the principal is the same.If a jet is travelling at mach 2, the sound the jet is making doesn't travel at mach 2 plus the speed of sound.It's less obvious, but still true at 60 mph both for sound and for light.The "red shift" you hear Astronomers talking about is like the Doppler effect, only with light, not sound.It shows a lack of understanding of the most basic high school physics for Hovind to say "to someone on the sidewalk that car's headlights appear to be "going" at the speed of light plus sixty miles an hour."It would be one thing if he was just some guy, but he is irresponsibly spouting his uninformed nonsense to lots and lots of people as if he knew what he was talking about.It is clear that he is completely uninformed of what he is pretending to be an authority about.

quote:

---

With the snow there's no question as it is observed frequently. (GONG!)

---

Ahhh, so you actually DON'T require a person to actually witness an event in order to determine that it happened.You DO believe that, even though not a single person witnessed how the snow got on the ground, you were able to INFER how it got there from the INCOMPLETE available evidence right?Gradual erosion and snowfall, are natural processes that we observe all the time.That means you will never, ever again say that we cannot INFER FROM EVIDENCE, because there were no eye witnesses, that some natural process ocurred, right?

I have read the material in "message 6 in RACIAL EVOLUTION 101"Darwin *predicted* extermination. He did not say that it was desirable. And given what was happening in the world at that time - in the U.S. especially - it is hard to say that his prediction was unreasonable.Your source only quotes the prediction: "...the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world".. True harrub tries to deny that it was a prediction - but nowhere does he provide any evidence ot suggest theat Darwin actually favoured extermination.Here is the link to the actual article http://killdevilhill.com/srchat/read.php?f=143&i=4996&t=4996So do you have any real evidence that Darwin was in favour of extermination ? Because Brad Harrub didn't provide any.

quote:

---

OK I see what you mean. I didn't open the link because I didn't have time to read a book. Nevertheless, Hovind is right in that most of the title has been edited out in subsequent editions. Is that correct?

---

Buz, your quibbling over the title of the book seems very much like a adolescent attempt to obfuscate the issue.My copy of Origins has the whole, long, clunky, Victorian-style title on the front cover. Other copies have shortened versions on the cover and the whole title on the title page inside.Who the hell cares?Read the book yourself and then open a thread and discuss the details.If you don't read the book yourself, you are just letting Hovind do your thinking for you, and that is just lazy. Or, you could at least look up the parts Hovind talks about and read them in context.Don't let someone who believes in fire-breathing dragons and who has a degree from a diploma mill do your thinking for you.

The court decision transcribed here is relevantThe Hovind Bankruptcy DecisionHovind tried to get out of paying taxes by declaring himself bankrupt.Some choice quotes In other words the judge concluded that Hovind was a tax evader and that his bankruptcy claim was a sham to try to retreive items seized by the IRS for non-payment of taxes.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 04-02-2004]

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.

---

You missed Hovind's point. Read it carefully. The point of his statement was that the light was moving 60 miles faster away from the bystander than from the car occupants, the speed of the auto being 60 mph. It's purpose was to entertain and stimulate thought but nevertheless true.Anyhow, thanks for the lesson on physics and light.

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]

While I would disagree that it is High School physics - I took Special Relativity at University - Hovind is wrong.The speed of the light relative to the bystander is the same as it is relative to the car.Or to put it more formally the speed of light is a constant in all inertial frames of reference. I know that this is counter-intuitive and that it doesn't apply to the relatively low speeds we normally deal with but it is true nonetheless.

I see no conviction in Paul's posted quotes. What was the punishment for alleged conviction?As I understand, Kent is going about his business openly and hiding nothing as usual to this day because he is legally correct and tax smart enough to do what he does about taxes without being convicted of any lawless proceedure.I'm still researching so open to correction but so far have concluded that he is not being unlawful. So far, as I see it, Hovind is demonstrating that it is the government that is being Constitutionally unlawful in the first place in regard to tax policy.Frequently Asked Questions... My question is this - If you think that the straw ... why do you fully agree with Kent Hovind's letter upon ... to build the foundation for his views of income tax? ...
Frequently Asked Questions

This would be true only at the split second point that the auto is at the location of the bystander. Ahh, now we're admitting that the argument does not fairly address Hovind's low speed model.