Kent Hovind

Ow, my ears!Here are your two links, which were unaccompanied by any claims or discussion, just a suggestion that they were "good links to check out":

• Maintaining Creationist Integrity (response to Kent Hovind) - creation.com
  ​
• Ross-Hovind Debate, John Ankerberg Show, October 2000: Analysis by Jonathan Sarfati - creation.com

And here is the relevant rule from the Forum Guidelines:

5. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

So once you did make a claim about those links it would have been helpful to describe some of what was in them.I did take a quick look at your links and the they do appear to provide good illustrations of one creationist organization chiding other creationist organizations for dismissing and ignoring valid scientific evidence while themselves dismissing and ignoring other valid scientific evidence.Once one chooses to give greater credence to revelation than to real-world evidence then decisions about which real-word evidence to accept becomes based upon other factors like politics, personal preference, etc. One important factor is that people care what other people think and don't like to look ridiculous. The primary difference between Hovind and CMI is their tolerance for looking foolish to the scientific world.--Percy

I believe the "case pending in the courts" is the motion Hovind filed last year alleging errors by both the prosecution and defense.I've read enough of Kent Hovind's prison correspondence to be amazed that there is never a break in the facade, and I've come to think that it is no facade. Hard to believe, but even inside he apparently believes everything he says ranging from Noah's flood to vaccinations to being a citizen of the world and not the US to income taxes.I don't think we'll ever see a contrite or remorseful Hovind, certainly we haven't as yet. This might be because, as I understand it, there is no parole system for federal prisons, the entire sentence must be served. Thus Hovind has no motivation to set the stage for going before a parole board to say things like that he understands his errors, he'll pay taxes, and if released will work to make restitution to the federal government.Hovind will be 62 when released and must then serve 3 years of parole. I'm sure he'll be spouting the same nonsense about evolution and vaccinations and all the rest, but I bet pays his federal income taxes.--Percy

This thread's opening post proposes working toward a debate with Hovind, but he's in jail, so the topic quickly morphed into debating creationists in general.Probably the best way for evolutionists to achieve victory in a debate would be to debate not one creationist but a panel of them. A panel of Kent Hovind, Ken Ham and Hugh Ross would be perfect. Not wanting to contradict each other in public, they would have to remain silent and cede all their time to the lone evolutionist. --Percy

That's the 1997 Firing Line debate. It's kind of long and in the first 15 minutes seems only to discuss evolution, not creation. Where in this debate do the positions of creation get discussed?Nice to see a young(er) Eugenie Scott, and I'd never seen Michael Ruse before. By the way, Berlinski, the first creationist to take the podium, is an agnostic and a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute.--Percy

Hi Chuck,You seem to be missing the point of my original comment, that a panel of creationists committed to no public disagreements must necessarily be silent on the topic of creationism. The primary area of agreement among creationists is that evolution is wrong. Beyond that their beliefs are all over the map.So when you said, "Here ya go Percy," what you really have is, "Here you ain't." What you need to find in order to counter my point is a place in the debate where the creationists talk about the positions of creationism.--Percy

Hi Dawn,This thread began with a proposal to set up a debate with Hovind, but as he is in jail it has morphed into a discussion of difficulties that lie outside the actual science when debating creationists . We're not actually debating creation/evolution in this thread. If we were then it wouldn't be in the Coffee House forum.--Percy