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

I'm watching the debate now, too. Hovind just completed his initial 25 minute presentation. It was just as you say, one scientific howler after another.Hovind's not only a heck of a lot more entertaining than Shermer, his presentation is geared toward his audience. So far Shermer's been spouting lots of facts whose significance must be lost on most of the audience. It will be interesting to see if Shermer can muster a rebuttal where he's able to maintain self-control, which should be quite a challenge after Hovind's "you're a liar", fallacy filled presentation.Back to the show...--Percy

,He did win the debate. And I said whether either of their presentation was factual bears little relevance to whether or not one of them won the debate. That was sweet of you. Now if you don't mind, I'm going to wipe off the frothy spittle you left on my screen.

---

"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

quote:

---

He did win the debate.

---

As judged by whom?People who know anything about science?Isn't the debate about science, after all?

quote:

---

And I said whether either of their presentation was factual bears little relevance to whether or not one of them won the debate.

---

And if this is how you think debates are won or lost in any way that is meaningful and not just a reward for well-delivered, baseless rhetoric, it explains a great deal about you.

quote:

---

That was sweet of you. Now if you don't mind, I'm going to wipe off the frothy spittle you left on my screen.

---

Frothy spittle?Didn't you notice my winking smilie?

Lawyers battling over the fate of a defendant are appealing to the jury. There are times when truth is supplanted with half-truths. It isn't right, but sometimes facts bear no reflection one's debate skills. Case in point, I think virtually everyone agrees that O.J. Simpson was guilty, however, his dream team defense simply put on a better demonstration and won the jury. In another instance, I think we'd all agree that Hitler was completely wrong in his approach, but he was an excellent orator. My point is, even if Shermer had all the facts and Hovind had half-truths, it means nothing as far as the debate is concerned. Hovind won that debate. I don't know how he does it, but he wins most of them, which is particularly interesting because his debate appraoch is so transparent.

quote:

---

And I said whether either of their presentation was factual bears little relevance to whether or not one of them won the debate.

---

Hitler spewed well-delivered, baseless rhetoric. Him being a persuasive orator bears no reflection on the fact that I think his beliefs are terrible. You can think the same of Hovind and that wouldn't be much of a compliment for him.

quote:

---

That was sweet of you. Now if you don't mind, I'm going to wipe off the frothy spittle you left on my screen.

---

I was just assaulted by a harangue in chat only moments before I replied to this post. You had some other colorful remarks about me in there, so if I misinterpreted your intentions, I don't think it was completely unfounded in how I came to my conclusion.

---

"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

Okay, I've watched the Shermer rebuttal, Hovind is about to begin his own rebuttal.Shermer managed to spout many fewer facts during his rebuttal. He addressed what I guess he felt were the more significant issues that Hovind raised, and his rebuttals were factually accurate. This portion seemed better tailored to his audience than his opening presentation.Now I've seen Hovind's rebuttal. Addressing Shermer's points about vestigial organs, he begins with the appendix and simply asserts that it isn't vestigial, that it is a required part of our immune system. I'm not going to dissect everything Hovind says, but this is a good example of the kinds of howlers he comes out with, one right after another. If there's any pattern, it's that he keeps calling scientific positions that are well supported with evidence lies.Here's a great line: "Shermer says the Pope accepts evolution. Well, that's because the Pope has never been to my seminar."Shermer's doing his final summary now, and he's using it to explain why science is not religion, concluding with, "Science is the best way to understand how the world works."Hovind's in his final summary. He makes clear that he never said science is religion, he said that evolution is religion, and evolution is not part of science. He's putting lots of Bible quotes up on the screen. I guess at heart Hovind's position is that he may not be doing science, but neither is evolution, and he's just honest about doing religion. He's a good preacher.Notable comments from the question/answer portion.Hovind: "The best evidence for creation is the absolute impossibility of the contrary."Shermer: "That's not any positive evidence in support of a position."Hovind: He repeats his 2nd law of thermo howler. Energy cannot build things up, it only destroys, with the exception of chrolophyll.Hovind: "No fossils count as evidence for evolution."Hovind: "Evolution is only believed because teachers have an academic and psychological advantage over their students."Shermer: "It isn't just evolution, it's all of science. If he's right, then all of science is wrong."Hovind: "Evolution is an absolutely useless theory, even if it's true."Hovind: "The counter-revolution of at least two planets, Uranus and Venus, is evidence against the Big Bang...Some galaxies spin backwards. This just can't happen with the Big Bang." (this got a hefty applause)Hovind: "It's interesting, evolutionists argue against design using arguments they designed."Hovind: Cites a long list of erroneous carbon dating incidents, draws big applause.Hovind: "The atheist can't find God for the same reason the thief can't find a policeman." (draws big applause)By the end Shermer seems visibly stricken at how poorly he has fared. Shermer was correct in everything he said while Hovind's statements were as error filled as grammar can allow, yet Shermer was destroyed. My measure is my estimate of how many in the audience from each side were persuaded to the other to some extent, major or minor, doesn't matter. I can't imagine Shermer's forced and nervous presentation presuading anyone, while Hovind's glib and friendly style appeared to be extremely effective.Of course, if instead of watching the performances you were evaluating the debate by reading the transcript and judging against the body of scientific knowledge, then Shermer won hands down, not even close. Like a 6-year old debating a Nobel-prize winner. Hovind could not have made more errors had he tried.--Percy

In defense of Michael he states concerning his experience. Imagine if this debate took place before an audience at a paleontology convention - fast talking Hovind would be stuttering trying to get some sort of traction over the groans from the audience.

quote:

---

With nine out of ten people in attendance for the sole purpose of rooting their team to victory, I stood about as much chance of winning them over as the Los Angeles Lakers would in convincing the fans of their bitter rivals, the Sacramento Kings, that they are the better basketball team, regardless of the score.

---

I don't see why that bears any reflection on the ability to debate. That's a slippery-slope argument for Shermer if you ask me. But if that's your contention, Hovind in this debate faces a panel of three pro-evolutionists at Emery-Riddle, which is hardly a school that supports ID, and the outcome is the same as he single-handedly makes them look like stammering buffoons who know nothing about their own beliefs.The fact is Hovind is a good orator and he comes prepared to his debates, whereas, his detractors seem to just sort of wing it. But, if you watch this debate also, you will notice the striking similarity between all of his debates. This is Hovind's downfall. He uses the same slides, in sequential order, and uses the same cheesy catch-phrases everytime. All it would take is for somebody to study his arguments and tailor their counter-points accordingly. Lets face it though, Hovind really isn't as impressive as he can fool the audience into believing.

---

"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 haven't looked at / listened to the debate, but it apparently was quite something to see/hear. And the debate here on the matter was also quite interesting. All this happening under the pretty worthless subtitle "Re: Who is Michael Shermer? Read this."Adminnemooseus

---

NJ you are correct and being fair in acknowledging that a debate favors the prepared. It does help considerably to have the energy of the crowd with you as Hovind did.I don't have the time to view the debate but I did watch the beginning. I find Hovind's smug haughty stilleto style irritating.One thing I did notice is that Hovind attempts to make predictions based on his premise. He claims this is "what science does" in a faint attempt to look, scientific.However, he is not really making predictions but taking what is known and trying to force an explanation from his premise.Making a prediction would be something like predicting that someday a fossil will be found linking whales and land mammals. From his premise we would predict that someday we would find the remains of a large mammal in the same strata as dinosaurs, or maybe find Triassic dinosaurs in the same strata as cretaceous.However I noticed that he predicts we should find "order in the universe" (i think it was his second point). I read below that Percy noted that Hovind claims: Well based on Hovind's prediction, and since the universe is so new, one would expect all the planets lined up and spinning the same way with the same tilt. Just a nice clean workshop, but sadly for him they don't.The exceptions to planetary spin that Hovind noted, Venus and Uranus, bear the obvious marks of a inter-solar system fender bender early in the formation of the solar system. Venus has a marked slow spin with a day roughly the length of a earth year. Uranus doesn't have a reverse spin like he claimed but is spinning sideways with a tilt near 90 degrees.On the contrary, I would predict that most solar systems consisting of a dozen odd planets with a significant number of large sub=planetary objects orbiting in large elliptic orbits one would expect to find some disorder in orbital plane and spin.As far as galaxies go, does he explain why Galaxies spinning in different directions somehow invalidate the Big Bang? Or is this left as some implied ignorant assumption that he obviously shares with the crowd as evidently he got a big "hefty applause".I sure hope the crowd at this University didn't include too many Engineering students.Maybe Hovind believes God capriciously takes his thumb and forefinger and spins this galaxy this way and that galaxy that way. Where is the "predicted" order in that.Edited by iceage, : speling

Surprisingly, I don't think you're wrong. Why would you be? Hovind has the advantage.When you're not constrained by what is true, you're free to make up whatever will be most compelling, whatever plays to your audience's predjudice and preconceptions. Whatever confirms what they think they knew all along.When you're committed to what is true you're confined to it. The best you can do is present the truth in the way that's most compelling, but even the most compelling truth is less compelling than a perfectly crafted lie.It's a good thing science isn't done by debate, is all.

Wonder why Kent doesn`t take up the Skeptic`s million-dollar challenge?
Hang on, he`s got his own $250,000 challenge. That`s less tax. Lots and lots of tax.

methinks you are confusing rhetoric and debating.in a true debate, how you support your position is what gives you the win. think of a high school debate team. logic and evidence are key, here.what hovind, and those lawyers are doing, is trying to persuade the audience. that's not exactly a debate. it's in this arena that using better rhetoric will get you the win.as to the three man panel stumped by hovind--i'm going to take a guess that hovind rattled off a bunch a PRATTS and did the gish gallop. but then, you'd have to get me the transcript or the video so I can give more than just a guess.

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

quote:

---

My point is, even if Shermer had all the facts and Hovind had half-truths, it means nothing as far as the debate is concerned. Hovind won that debate.

---

Well, I guess I just evaluate debate differently.I don't think people win when they lie, regardless of the outcome with the crowd or whatever.If my high school forensics coach had been there and had knowledgeably evaluated the debate, Hovind would have lost, because he lied. A lot.As somebody else said, rhetoric and debate are not the same thing.

quote:

---

I was just assaulted by a harangue in chat only moments before I replied to this post.

---

I'm sure it was unpleasant to be told, and shown, that you are wrong about so many things.But let me assure you, I am, and have never been, upset or angry or anything other than calm in chat or on the board.If you are upset by that sort of forthright argument, you might want to stay out of the scientific field, if you were ever tempted to get into it. Scientists need to have thick skin, as their ideas and methods are scrutinized and criticized by their peers every single day.Take it as a compliment, juggs. If we thought you couldn't learn, we wouldn't bother.Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The fact is Hovind is a good orator and he comes prepared to his debates, whereas, his detractors seem to just sort of wing it.

---

They seem to wing it, but what they are actually doing is responding honestly to what Hovind says, whereas Hovind doesn't bother to do the reverse.

I've watched more Hovind debates than I care to speak about. He says himself he does hundreds of them every year. As such, he has his set pieces well rehearsed. His intro is universally similar at each debate.Because his intro is something he does about once a day, he has managed to develop a way of presenting the information very quickly, yet maintaining his charismatic style and presentation. He is not debating. He's performing.That is why he doesn't seem to address his opponent's actual points. A good actor will be able to do a little bit of ad libbing - and Hovind is no exception - but if you see enough of him, you see the same 'spontaneous' jokes, the same words with the same slides...its theatre!His rebuttal works quite simply. If his opponent mentions fossils, dig out the fraud charges. If his opponent mentions the stratigraphy, discuss polystratigraphic trees and how the 'so called' collumn can't be found anywhere in the world. If thermodynamics is mentioned, its time to break out the paint peeling pictures.In essence, Hovind looks so damned good at the debate format because he is very very practiced at it. It is basically all he does! And there is little wonder he refused to have a written debate, because that would be problematic.An opponent who hasn't studied Hovind's bag of tricks will be taken aback by the sheer quantity of rubbish being spouted that they will not know where to begin. Of course, as Gish's famous Gallop has shown, if you throw enough crap out there, evolutionists simply don't have time to refute them all so it looks like you've won.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.