A little motivational speech by Micheal Shermer (Why do people believe weird things?)

That's the same reason I don't like him. In my opinion, he does more harm than good, even in spite of his intentions. His predictions are ridiculous because they are anything but. They are postdictions as an after-the-fact conflation of ideas. He speaks about predicting that cultures would some day speak about the "Golden Age," but they already spoke about that long before he was a live. That's obviously not a prediction.

---

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2^nd Corinthians 10:4-5

No, I meant debate. Shermer could be the world's most knowledgeable man and still lose a debate if he can't even compose a coherent sentence. Hovind could be the dumbest man alive, but as long as he can create the illusion with his used-car-salesman speech, he will still win in a debate. Well, certainly you know that I agree that this is what all debate should be premised upon. That isn't always the case. That is a debate-- its a verbal jousting. And if you can't joust or can't find a way to articulate the points in your mind, its all for nothing in a debate. Hovind can debate. I really don't know why anyone is arguing that point. Actually I do know why. You just wish it wasn't so because he makes 'respectable' folks look foolish. Its like Gould. Its unquestionable that Gould was a highly intelligent man. However, he knew that he didn't have the debate skills to get his points across quickly, convincingly, and sharply. That doesn't poorly against him. I, like him, am a poor communicator at the speaking level. I find it much easier to get my points across on paper than I can speaking. That's just how I am. And Gould was very articulate on paper. But he understood that his weakness was in debate.Is that more clear? I don't like Hovind. I don't Shermer. I just judged them on the debate. Hovind won the debate. And all of the critics who say otherwise don't have a right to unless they sit down and take the time to listen to it themselves.

---

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2^nd Corinthians 10:4-5

I have been holding the belief that academics should not engage in debates with people like Hovind at all. People like Hovind have already signed a contract with the devil giving their souls in exchange for the gift of making the masses think lies are truths.I have attended debates where the scientists got creamed by the preachers simply because the audience was more willing to swallow easy-to-digest lies.

---

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc

​

The thread about this map can be found here.

You're assuming his intentions are good, but I doubt that. I think Hovind is mainly in it for the money. The fact that he keeps promoting his tapes, which he sells at his shows, and the fact that he is currently on trial for tax evasion, should make anyone think twice about this man's "good" intentions. I think he's a charlatan, and a fraudulent vaudeville artist. But does a debate not also consist of engaging your opponent's points? Earlier, someone said that people like Shermer seem to wing it. I think that impression is due to the fact that they actually address the points made by their opponents, which may make it seem that they've come unprepared, because they have to stop and think about their rebuttals.Not so with Hovind. He just reels off a tape with preconcocted jocular pseudo-scientific nonsense, hoping to impress the gullible part of the audience. By not engaging the points his opponent makes, Hovind is not really debating, he is presenting an intermitted monologue. It's a show, not a debate.Edited by Parasomnium, : All right, a real title to please the grumpy Adminnemooseus. Now, it would be nice if someone reacted.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.