Kent Hovind

Hi Butterflytyrant. Creationists' have debated Hovind. He's pretty much considered a "crackpot" in Creationist circles. I know what your saying, "their ALL crackpots". Well, none the less, he's MORE of a crackpot that most If Creationists consider him a joke/crackpot i'd say it's a waste of time for any Evolutionists to debate him. Here's a few good links to check out." Maintaining Creationist Integrity
A response to Kent Hovind
by Carl Wieland, Ken Ham and Jonathan Sarfati "Maintaining Creationist Integrity (response to Kent Hovind) - creation.com" Ross—Hovind Debate, John Ankerberg Show, October 2000
Analysis by Jonathan Sarfati21 December 2000 "Ross-Hovind Debate, John Ankerberg Show, October 2000: Analysis by Jonathan Sarfati - creation.comEdited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

You can't help yourself huh Coyote? You seem to know everything even as an "outsider"?Now your going to turn this WHOLE thread into the validity of Creation Science peer review process. Great, well, im not gonna fall into the trap of your arrogance and know it all BS attitude.Here's a freeking thought Coyote. READY Coyote? Here it is:READ THE LINKS I POSTED FOR BUTTERFLYTYRANT AND YOU'LL ACTUALLY SEE WHAT METHODS ARE USED TO DETERMINE THE CONCLUSION. IT'S ALL SPELLED OUT FOR THE ILLITERATE TO UNDERSTAND. IT SHOWS WHY CREATIONISTS THINK HOVIND IS WAY OFF. NO PICTURES, SORRY.

Here ya go Percy. Not quite what you were suggesting but there is umm, a panel It's really good. The best on youtube IMO. Check it out if you havn't already and have the time. I think the debate is a good one.1-8 Evolution -VS- Creationism DEBATE (This is part 1 of 8)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT3NZTGCtrIKenneth Miller reminds me a little of Hovand. Yeah, refuting IC with a mouse trap Although he doesn't do that in this particular debate he does struggle to explain "tansitional fossils". He basically says they are "transitional" because well, he says so.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Yeah, well don't tell me, tell Ken. He's the one making a fool of himself, im simply pointing it out Who? Never heard of Him. Are you actually saying you know more? Say michael Behe for instance? He wrote a great book called "darwins black box" which is one of the best book for ID or Creation ever written. Can you do better? And yet, you debate them day and night, right here, on this very site, day after day, night after night, comment after comment.Your actions speak louder than words. Seems you are contradicting yourself by even responding to my comment.Please do us all a favor and stick by your words. Show some integrity and take your own advise. Practice what you preach Oooooh, nice save Pressie, you seem to think your above debating in general but find it's "ok" to debate here among like minded folks. Your a brave dude.

In the 4th part Behe talks about design. I think it's more so exposing the flaws with the TOE tho, overall, it seems. Yeah, im familiar with him. I think he's great. I've listened to him a lot. He makes good arguments. Mostly from a mathimatical standpoint like "how many morphological changes does it take to go from land to water", Which is interesting. Well, it's a lot, it seems, and he breaks it down pretty good for people like me to understand. He makes a good case against evolution IMO.Here's what im talking about. He gives His view on Evolution.Dr. David Berlinski - On Evolution (1/3)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5r5cRlctLMHe does debate in that debate I posted earlier, but would like to see him one on one with someone.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.