Kent Hovind

Hello everyone!I'm going to cease participating in this thread and begin moderating, but I won't take any actions
for a couple days.First, kudos to the creationists for maintaining their composure and to the evolutionists for making sense.Second, this thread began as an attempt to promote a debate with Kent Hovind, but since he's in jail it quickly morphed into discussing the nature of creation/evolution debates. If there's no longer any interest in discussing this topic then perhaps the thread should be closed.I think the recent discussion contained several good examples of the techniques employed by creationists and evolutionists in debate, and perhaps some attention could be focused on those.

Here we go: Ah so you think I'm a new comer do you? Is that because I haven't bothered posting to you before or because of my relatively low post count? Either way you are wrong - I've been on EvC for over 4 years - I just don't post flurries of babbling nonsense as you do. By the way - what you've done there is an 'ad hominem fallacy' - attack the man not the argument - classic creationist live debate technique! Hasty generalisation fallacy - another classic creationist hallmark. Well, to give you a little background - I am scientifically trained (in the biological sciences) so have a good understanding of both the scientific method and the ToE. My job currently involves me drafting communication re government regulatory changes. This means my use of English and specifically the content I use has to be explicit and as free from possible misinterpretation as possible (given the modern propensity to litigative recourse). I have become very adept at spotting 'crap' inserted in the English language. Are you really sure you want to debate me? You seem to use the word 'logic' quite a lot in your posts I've noticed. But do you really understand the limitations of its application? Logic isn't used to say that something is true or not. Logic is the formal process of the validity of inferences.for example a statement may say that "If A is equal to such and such this means B must be so and so" Logic provides that inference between the conditions of A and B. It does not say A is correct (and therefore B) only that given starting conditions, logic can be used to provide inference between conditions. How is this relevant for your 'God' theory? Simply, religion starts out assuming there IS a god and going on from there. Logic is then applied onwards - BUT if the opening premise is wrong (there ISN'T a God) then all subsequent logic is invalid - there are no relevant inferential links applicable.In a nutshell this is your problem. Your grand opening statement (there IS a God) is assumption (built on 2000 year old bronze-age texts written, translated, re-written over time, languages and via political and cultural agendas. And this is the ONLY 'evidence' you use for your opening premise. Please don't use the word 'logic' anymore in your word salads -it's an affront to the Boolean language! Is reading and comprehension so difficult for you? I was explaining the verbal snake-oil techniques used in live creationist debates and you asked the above question. When did I say YOU, specifically have used those techniques in a live debate? So you value style over substance do you? Are you really so clueless that you don't recognise stage-managed guile and deception? Give me one reason that live debates are 'better' than written ones. I'll give reasons why written ones better - let's see your countermand:1. Written debates are permanent. Neither debater can retract statements without it being obvious his position is jeopardised.
2. Written debates can cover every issue - no chance of a debater 'forgetting' to answer things he found difficult
3. Written debates give each side time to reflect and research questions. This is the ACADEMIC way to proceed - and we are dealing with academic issues here aren't we? Live debates appeal to the media and public lust for live 'action' - but that is no way to progress issues requiring deep reflection.
4. Written debates eliminate showmanship trickery. A debate should not revolve around which personality can best 'play' an audience, but instead it should only focus on the subject under discussion. If you need to 'play' to a live audience there is something fundamentally weak about your position.Now - give me reasons why you think a live debate is preferable. The above sentence is pure word-salad - English words strung together with no sense at all - if I did this in my job I'd be looking for another post by now. Incidentally this is another ploy used in live creationist debates (you should get in touch with Gish - he'd see you as a natural). If you said the above statement to a scientist in a live debate he'd look puzzled and would remain silent. The audience would lap it up thinking - "that great Dawn - hasn't he got that scientist in trouble", when in reality the scientist would be thinking "Well he seems to be talking English - I understand each word he has uttered - but the sentences just don't seem to make sense - what is he actually trying to ask me?"You see, scientists deal with concretes and specifics. Word-salad is alien and strange to them. Do you not think the Gish's of this world don't know that?By the way - do you really read all the posts sent back to you? If so then please re-read dwise1's post number 71 - the perfect post laying out the creationist 'strategy' to dealing with the tiresome 'scientific' objection to their fairyland beliefs.

Thanks for that - interesting character!By the way - your post No. 71 was awesome - the whole dishonest creationist campaign form its roots onwards laid out beatuifully.........unfortunately it's very much a case of 'peals before swine' with Dawn!

I knew one man who lived and died a tax protester, not unlike Hovind and I know of one living, not unlike Hovind, a long time tax protester. There are many other lifetime un-prosecuted tax protesters, some deceased and some still alive.Perhaps it would take a constitutional amendment to lawfully convict these folks, or perhaps, were they prosecuted, the government is concerned about opening some cans of worms, so to speak, which they want kept closed.I believe the reason Hovind got busted is because of his notoriety as a creationist, whether or not his science was well founded.Though Hovind, like other YECs, considered himself to be a Biblical literalist, in reality, he was not. He was a very intelligent and witty debater who convinced a lot of the creationist minded sheeple into believing he was a Biblical literalist, but he did not reason out what Genesis one says regarding the timing of the creation of the celestial bodies of the Solar System relative to the role of the sun and moon, etc.

How much did they steal?Given what the Bible says about respect for civil authority, are you planning to turn them in? You can always test this hypothesis by informing the duly constituted civil authorities of their crimes. Go for it. Or maybe he was a flagrant crook.C'mon, you might as well say that Al Capone was only busted because of anti-Italian prejudice.

So - I say that your terminology is unknown to me (and google) and your response is to ask me what I think your terminology means?Do you truly think that your English is understandable?
Why do you not believe us when we say that your English makes little sense?
How many people would it take for you to accept that your grasp of English is very confused?

OK. Perhaps my writings is too capsulated and requires better and expanded clarifications.

I think this claim is not well thought of or analysed:

quote:

---

That was the situation in the beginning of the creationist "debates" in the 1970's. Those poor scientists went in thinking that the debate would be about what science is and says and shows us. Instead, they got hit by an avalanche of creationist bullshit the likes of which they had never seen before and could have never imagined in their wildest nightmares. They were totally unable to deal with the mass of misrepresentations, misquotes, and outright lies that was being thrown at them.

---

Can we see some examples of what is called BS in the Hebrew bible - whether from a view of science, history, geography, math or anything which has been disproven - none were given?

Here's a start: get the fuck on topic. See what the topic of the thread is? KENT HOVIND. This isn't a thread where you can show how little you know about any and everything. You can try that in other threads.

Hows about the flood, the exodus, the leprosy cure, talking animals, the sun stopping, shadow of a sundial going backwards ...... i could go on forever As for the creationist claims cmmon just look at why do people laugh at creationists on youtube 34 episodes of pure bullshit and explenations why it is bullshit.

quote:

---

This isn't a thread where you can show how little you know about any and everything. You can try that in other threads.

---

I quoted a statement made by the thread starter which appears deficient. You seem to have a problem with that. It is not how the term BS can be evidenced.

Was Willy Nelson a famed creationist as well? Did you ever stop to think that it maybe was because of the egregious income he took in? The authorities tend to look the other way when you are a poor sap. But when you rake in millions and millions, you kind of owe your fair share and the authorities take notice. Rest assured that it wasn't.

quote:

---

Hows about the flood, the exodus, the leprosy cure, talking animals, the sun stopping, shadow of a sundial going backwards ...... i could go on forever

​

As for the creationist claims cmmon just look at why do people laugh at creationists on youtube 34 episodes of pure bullshit and explenations why it is bullshit.

---

With respect to Hovind and not disrupting his subject, there is no issue with the flood, which contains the first reference to actual geographical sites and reports of a huge flood. The exodus is also not without evidences: we know that the ancient Israelites were in a war with Egypt [A stelle confirms this], and that they later settled in Canaan till 70 CE: it proves they got from one place to another, and that the human count was 3 M - aka an exodus. Yes, the text for leprosy represents the first initiation of medicine as a faculty of science. The talking animals is a tricky one, but this is posed as a miraculous FX, not another daily occurence. Not bad for an ancient writings - which other can compete?

I know you think the world revolves around you. But alas, my response to dwise was not concerning you. Secondly, every word you have typed has been deficient. Every sentence you've composed has been horribly lacking in clarity.Which, I suppose, isn't actually so far off topic. We can just use you as an example of how dishonest creationists are and how horribly they mangle debates. You've gish galloped your way close to EVC infamy.Now, if you don't mind: I have NO intention of even trying to have any sort of discourse with you. Be gone from me.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

I'm not convinced that they are not supported by the constitution of the US of A. Jesus advocated to render to Caesar, i.e. the government what was Caesar's and to God what was God's.These folks are convinced in their own minds that they are fulfilling their obligations to Caesar. If they are not, why is the government not going after all of them as was the case with Hovind? Why have many lived and died, never having been prosecuted?