Kent Hovind's debates, can someone help?

The imortal lines from "the search for the holy grail" (MPython)RUN AWAY RUN AWAY RUN AWAY !!!

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

hey quetzal, u asked me to tell u my fav line from kent hovind, well here it is:
r u familiar to the conservation of circular anguine(yeah, i know thats the wrong spelling, i cant spell, just sound it out) mometum, or something along those words. if not, ill give u an example. suppose u have a playground merry go round and u spin it clockwise while there are a whole bunch of kids on it. eventually, u keep spinning it so fast that the kids fall off. the kids start to fing off the merry go round, having to spin the same direction as the merry go round, clockwise, (please, dont try this expirement at home) now, the same thing happened with the big bang as the merry go round and the kids. a dot kept on spinning so fast that it exploded, creating the planets and life. if this happened, all the planets would have to spin the same direction, but venus and uranus spin oppisite ways then all the other planets. can u explain this?

Oh yes I love that one. It's so funny.Here's the explanation. Kent Hovind doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. It's all nonsense. The Big Bang didn't involve any spinning, wasn't an explosion and the motion of the planets has to do with how our solar system formed about 9 billion years later !

If something is flung off a spinning object, it doesn't spin.ExperimentStep 1. Take a backpack
Step 2. Hold it in your hands.
Step 3. Spin around.
Step 4. Let go of backpack.
Step 5. Watch backpack go flying.Now tell me, did the backpack spin once you let go of it?

---

Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn!

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.

quote:

---

No matter what side of the debate you're on, you will enjoy listening to Ken Hovind......and you WILL become more knowledgeable having done so.

---

--Actually, as ignorant as I confidently believe Hovind is, you could potentially become more intelligent after watching Hovinds jabber. At least for me, it gave me an impetus to research various issues I didn't know existed at the time I first watched him perform stand-up.--I find him a source of the most detestable credibility and I don't find him intelligent at all. He knows just about everything on the surface, but he ignores or maybe just doesn't have the time to look deeper. He also has a very closed mind.Cheers,
-Chris Grose

Logan Gator,Hm.. I addressed this one a while ago. Well actually, a LONG time ago. I searched my old evcforum posts and it looks like I addressed this issue...nearly 2 years ago! I Can't believe its been that long. Also, I had a peculiar, somewhat incoherent syntax back in the day so I hope it isn't that difficult to understand:http://EvC Forum: Evolution Disproven. -->EvC Forum: Evolution Disproven.Cheers,
-Chris Grose

Damn. Four people beat me to it. Sorry about not getting off the mark faster, Logan. Looks like you got the answer I'd have given you.Want to try for another compelling argument?

LOL Leever. Look, listen, laugh a little and learn enlightening lessons from the eloquent lecturer.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 04-02-2004]

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.

Those who despise Hovinds ideology naturally focus on what they consider to be the man's weak areas, throwing out the baby with the bathwater but those of us who aren't so biased against him are enlightened by him. For example, until his recent coverage of the "Origin of Species" and the ultra racist views of Darwin as well as the influence he had on the thinking of Hitler, I was unaware of all this. That's just one example of a lot of enlightening stuff Hovind talks about. This is what I meant when I said that all can learn some while being quite entertained.

Here's some silly Hovind quotes you may find amusing:http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/"The ancient horse is a Hyracotherium, which was originally called the hyrax, is still alive today in Turkey and in East Africa."The modern "hyrax" is actually a rabbit-like creature and bears no resemblance nor lineage to the equine ancestor "hyracotherium""In 1271 A.D. Marco Polo came back from China and reported that the Emperor of China was raising dragons to pull his chariots in parades. Now why on earth would Marco Polo say something like that just 700 years ago? Well, I think he probably said that because the Emperor of China was raising dragons to pull his chariots in parades.""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.""If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. Think about that. ""I believe the Great Pyramid was built to be the Bible in stone. The Egyptians did not build it.""Therefore, there may not be any other stars in the solar system that have planets around them.""Obviously, several different colors of people exist on the earth that have distinctive characteristics, but they are the same race. [.....] One theory says that Adam and Eve were medium-brown, possibly because they were made from the earth.""You say, Brother Hovind, you don't believe in fire breathing dragons do you? Yeah, you better watch video tape number three; there really were fire breathing dragons."

Darwin was against slavery, which puts him at being a lot less racist than many of his contemporaries. I'm not saying he wouldn't be considered a bigot by our standards, but he was progressive for his time. It was Victorian England for Pete's sake.Does Hovind know that misrepresenting the facts makes him a liar?

I beg to differ. Of course you wouldn't consider the flood interpretation of what is observed at the Grand Canyon as good science either. That doesn't necessarily make Hovind wrong and you right though since neither were there when it was formed.

quote:

---

For example, until his recent coverage of the "Origin of Species" and the ultra racist views of Darwin as well as the influence he had on the thinking of Hitler, I was unaware of all this.

---

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that you have never read Darwin's "Origin of Species", Buz, am I right?So why do you take the word of someone with a diploma mill PhD, a record of tax evasion, and who believes in fire-breathing dragons regarding a book you have never read?Darwin was, in fact, quite anti-racist for a white man of his day, and just as you refuse to let anyone blame Christianity for it's misuse, I'm not going to let you blame Darwin for anyone's misuse of his theory.I hope you will use your new found interest in "Origin of Species" to actually read it! Conveniently, the entire text is available on line here:The Origin of Species by Charles DarwinPlease begin another topic if you would like to discuss Darwin's ideas in greater detail as you read.