Can someone send me some Kent Hovind DVDs please?

_visionary_ · #1 21st February 2009, 05:07 PM

I used to listen to his stuff back in Primary School, along with everybody else in my neighbourhood. We loved his stuff. It was something new and exciting. And I always had a mind for science. I did all sciences in high school - biology, physics and maths. And although I'm now doing animation I still love science. But now I hear old dr. dino is in Prison for refusal to pay his taxes! How sad. I hope he's doing good.

Anyways. I've gone and lost all his material since then. I'd really appreciate it if someone could post me some of his debates and lectures. Just post under this thread or give me a PM and I will send you my home address

vossler · #2 21st February 2009, 06:09 PM

As far as I know his material is no longer available. You Tube has plenty of his material available and if you should know of someone who has his DVDs they can legally copy it and give it to you. However much I've enjoyed listening to him I don't believe he is the most credible source for information. No matter how much you may agree with a speaker's primary points if they take shortcuts or obscure how they got there I tend to stay away from putting too much stock in what they have to say. His credibility has been justifiably questioned; although the motive of those who have questioned him probably isn't pure I'm content the end result has taken the man and his ministry away from the public.

crawfish · #3 21st February 2009, 06:34 PM

Maybe if people would pay for his stuff he could afford to pay his taxes.

Drekkan85 · #4 21st February 2009, 08:23 PM

I'm not entirely sure how you can describe yourself as someone who loves science and then accept the Hovind tapes. Beyond his "ice canopy idea" which would either result in no light ever actually reaching earth and/or the destruction of all life when it collapsed, and his use of arguments that AIG (answers in genesis - one of the most well known creationist think tanks) points out are arguments NOT to use when discussing evolution, he shows a singular lack of understanding of the fundamental principles of both science and evolution.

_visionary_ · #5 2nd March 2009, 01:37 PM

@ vossler : So he isn't the most credible source because of tax evasion?
@ crawfish : Not in this life. I heard his unpaid taxes were something like $845,000.
@ Drekkan85 : I did not say I love science or accept his tapes, but rather that I love his tapes and have a mind for science ( or accept science ). But I do not really love his tapes. Its just something you say. I also did not say I endorse everything he says. So you can egg on about ice canopies all day.

Drekkan85 · #6 2nd March 2009, 08:18 PM

Originally Posted by _visionary_

@ vossler : So he isn't the most credible source because of tax evasion?
@ crawfish : Not in this life. I heard his unpaid taxes were something like $845,000.
@ Drekkan85 : I did not say I love science or accept his tapes, but rather that I love his tapes and have a mind for science ( or accept science ). But I do not really love his tapes. Its just something you say. I also did not say I endorse everything he says. So you can egg on about ice canopies all day.

Wait, so you say you guys love his tapes... but you don't love his tapes. You defend the man... but you don't agree with him. You want the tapes for... what exactly? I'm not entirely sure what it means where you're from, but at least in Canada when you say "I love X's tapes" it means you love his tapes.

As for the comment to Vossler - he's a non-credible source not because of his unpaid taxes (though that does discredit him as a virtuous man, render onto Caesar and all that), he's not a credible source because he's wrong on the science. He makes basic mistakes in his understanding of evolution and the history of the theory, he makes basic mistakes in his math, in his assumptions on chemistry, and in his physics. If he claims a 300km ice asteroid impacting the earth "flash froze" the mammoth7s and caused the last ice age he deserves to be no where near teaching anyone anything about science. A 300km ice asteroid impacting the earth at cometary speeds would have vaporized all life on the planet, not "flash freeze" it.

Mr. Hovind is a rat, a liar, and ignorant of something he claims to love - watching his tapes for any purpose other than to highlight to others the complete and utter retardation of his arguments is an affront to science and human intelligence.

_visionary_ · #7 3rd March 2009, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by Drekkan85

Wait, so you say you guys love his tapes... but you don't love his tapes. You defend the man... but you don't agree with him. You want the tapes for... what exactly? I'm not entirely sure what it means where you're from, but at least in Canada when you say "I love X's tapes" it means you love his tapes.

Then Canada and Japan have something in common, bad engrish (da dum dum tssssh just kidding

)... I think you're getting heated over a word that obviously does have more than one meaning. I love my girlfriend... I love my dog... I love Bertie from next door, kinda well not really... I love God... God loves me... I love Kent Hovind's tapes. You see? There is a difference. I love his tapes, but I love my girlfriend more.

And love is not necessarily an absolute statement either. Just because I say I love someone or something, doesn't mean I completely love them or that thing or love them/that thing all the time. Or agree with everything they/that thing say.

Originally Posted by Drekkan85

As for the comment to Vossler - he's a non-credible source not because of his unpaid taxes (though that does discredit him as a virtuous man, render onto Caesar and all that),

Thank goodness we all have sin, but tax evasion is definately from Dick Cheney I mean the devil. I wonder though why people like Wesley Snipes got off easier than sir Hovind did.

Originally Posted by Drekkan85

he's not a credible source because he's wrong on the science. He makes basic mistakes in his understanding of evolution

Specifically...?

[quote=Drekkan85;50922183]and the history of the theory,

Spifically...?

[quote=Drekkan85;50922183]he makes basic mistakes in his math,

Scepifically...?

[quote=Drekkan85;50922183]in his assumptions on chemistry,

Psecifically...?

[quote=Drekkan85;50922183]and in his physics.

...Yllacificeps?

Originally Posted by Drekkan85

If he claims a 300km ice asteroid impacting the earth "flash froze" the mammoth7s and caused the last ice age he deserves to be no where near teaching anyone anything about science. A 300km ice asteroid impacting the earth at cometary speeds would have vaporized all life on the planet, not "flash freeze" it.

That does sound a bit fishy, like Chuck Norris jokes.

Originally Posted by Drekkan85

Mr. Hovind is a rat, a liar, and ignorant of something he claims to love

Hey come on be civil man. You don't hear Kent Hovind calling you a rat, liar or ignorant although I may be wrong.

Originally Posted by Drekkan85

- watching his tapes for any purpose other than to highlight to others the complete and utter retardation of his arguments is an affront to science and human intelligence.

Ice canopies and astroids, and now Kent Hovind is retarded. Well maybe he is, but maybe you are too.

Seri-os-ly though... some of the main reason I and others liked listening to Kent Hovind's lectures was because we found his material funny, interesting and new. I don't agree with everything the man says, but certainly give a few nods to his C14 observations. And I mean some of the things he says about the geologic colum and fossils is plain funny. 69837 gabazillion years ago before the semi-quasi-paleolithic era when dinosporangia bacteria roamed the chemical sludge soup of doom. Where do they come up with this stuff. Some dude carbon dates his uncles foot to like 5000 babillion years ago... I mean seriously. Scientists are still using this... And the geologic colum. Come on. Way too much artistic interpretation.

gluadys · #8 3rd March 2009, 02:57 PM

Originally Posted by _visionary_

Seri-os-ly though... some of the main reason I and others liked listening to Kent Hovind's lectures was because we found his material funny, interesting and new. I don't agree with everything the man says, but certainly give a few nods to his C14 observations. And I mean some of the things he says about the geologic colum and fossils is plain funny. 69837 gabazillion years ago before the semi-quasi-paleolithic era when dinosporangia bacteria roamed the chemical sludge soup of doom. Where do they come up with this stuff. Some dude carbon dates his uncles foot to like 5000 babillion years ago... I mean seriously. Scientists are still using this... And the geologic colum. Come on. Way too much artistic interpretation.

I hope you find them funny because you recognize how nonsensical they are. And if you knew more about C14 dating, you would recognize that Hovind knows nothing about it.

Matthewj1985 · #9 3rd March 2009, 04:50 PM

[quote=_visionary_;50936723]Then Canada and Japan have something in common, bad engrish (da dum dum tssssh just kidding

)... I think you're getting heated over a word that obviously does have more than one meaning. I love my girlfriend... I love my dog... I love Bertie from next door, kinda well not really... I love God... God loves me... I love Kent Hovind's tapes. You see? There is a difference. I love his tapes, but I love my girlfriend more.

And love is not necessarily an absolute statement either. Just because I say I love someone or something, doesn't mean I completely love them or that thing or love them/that thing all the time. Or agree with everything they/that thing say.

Thank goodness we all have sin, but tax evasion is definately from Dick Cheney I mean the devil. I wonder though why people like Wesley Snipes got off easier than sir Hovind did.

Specifically...?

[quote=Drekkan85;50922183]and the history of the theory,

Spifically...?

[quote=Drekkan85;50922183]he makes basic mistakes in his math,

Scepifically...?

[quote=Drekkan85;50922183]in his assumptions on chemistry,

Psecifically...?

Originally Posted by Drekkan85

and in his physics.

...Yllacificeps?

That does sound a bit fishy, like Chuck Norris jokes.

Hey come on be civil man. You don't hear Kent Hovind calling you a rat, liar or ignorant although I may be wrong.

Ice canopies and astroids, and now Kent Hovind is retarded. Well maybe he is, but maybe you are too.

Seri-os-ly though... some of the main reason I and others liked listening to Kent Hovind's lectures was because we found his material funny, interesting and new. I don't agree with everything the man says, but certainly give a few nods to his C14 observations. And I mean some of the things he says about the geologic colum and fossils is plain funny. 69837 gabazillion years ago before the semi-quasi-paleolithic era when dinosporangia bacteria roamed the chemical sludge soup of doom. Where do they come up with this stuff. Some dude carbon dates his uncles foot to like 5000 babillion years ago... I mean seriously. Scientists are still using this... And the geologic colum. Come on. Way too much artistic interpretation.

One of the big problems is that Hovind misrepresents evidence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwywMP4Sxgo

Drekkan85 · #10 3rd March 2009, 06:37 PM

Originally Posted by _visionary_

Then Canada and Japan have something in common, bad engrish (da dum dum tssssh just kidding )... I think you're getting heated over a word that obviously does have more than one meaning. I love my girlfriend... I love my dog... I love Bertie from next door, kinda well not really... I love God... God loves me... I love Kent Hovind's tapes. You see? There is a difference. I love his tapes, but I love my girlfriend more.

And love is not necessarily an absolute statement either. Just because I say I love someone or something, doesn't mean I completely love them or that thing or love them/that thing all the time. Or agree with everything they/that thing say.

The tapes are a series of lectures. I don't know where you went to University, but at mine when you see a lecture, and then afterwards say you loved it, found it very interesting and with a lot of new information, that generally means you agreed with what was said. Whether or not you love your girlfriend is irrelevant, when you say you love a lecture series, it generally means you agree unless you caveat it with something along the lines of, "because I enjoy laughing at how ridiculous his arguments are. Man could he be any MORE wrong?"

Thank goodness we all have sin, but tax evasion is definately from Dick Cheney I mean the devil. I wonder though why people like Wesley Snipes got off easier than sir Hovind did.

Because celebrities usually do?

For specifics you should try and find a copy of Extant Dodos work on debunking his series. Hovind's studio has tried to get their videos taken down for copyright violation despite:

a) There not being copyright on the videos
b) Hovind willingly waving any implied copyright in the video
c) Even if there WAS copyright, it falls under fair use

Further, debunking every falsehood and inaccuracy would take most of today, and quite a bit longer. But for a few examples here and there. Let's start with his non-recognition of what evolution is. His big line is "lightning hitting a mud muddle" (later to be adopted by Ben Stein in his horrid little film that is also woefully inaccurate). Leaving aside that few abiogenesists would make that argument for the origin of life, that's not evolution, that's abiogenesis. Evolution purely deals with the diversification of life, not the origin of it. Secondly he doesn't understand the concept of a transitional fossil nor about the nature of nested hierarchies. He even asks the idiotic question of "If humans came from apes, why aren't apes giving birth to humans now?!?!??!?" Beyond the simple, "They are. My mother was an ape, and a human. I'm an ape, and a human. Every single human is, by definition, an ape", he ignores that there was a point of divergence in the past between an ape ancestor and a human ancestor. Even then it wasn't a sudden POOF you have a modern human with a chimp mother; it was a gradual process of the human ancestral line splitting off and changing compared to their brethren.

Wrong on the history of the theory. Not only does he not understand about Darwin's own theological beliefs, but he continues to insist that to believe in evolution is to not believe in God; which has been thoroughly disproven. He also doesn't know that evolution has long been understood by the scientific community (the Catholic church recently released work by Aquinas which related observations that animals changed over generations, though he could provide no reason).

Basic mistakes in maths. I'll stick with my answer on the ice asteroid. Alternatively, take his "ice canopy" that either would block all light from reaching a pre-flood earth, and/or destroy all life when it collapsed down onto it by changes in pressure and temperature.

For chemistry, I'm sure there's a concrete example, but I'm going by memory of a while back. I do believe he made the argument later adopted by a certain youtube user that lies a lot and nearly got into major perjury trouble for filing false DMCA claims. Basically, the argument is that nothing could have produced higher elements, and thus something must have created them in place. Ignoring of course, the bloody big fuser of atoms that resides in our solar system about 8 light minutes away.

For physics I'll use the same examples as the maths example.

That does sound a bit fishy, like Chuck Norris jokes.

It does sound fishy, it could not have possibly happened. Yet he continues to claim it did as a desperate attempt to save flood mythology as the literal truth.

Hey come on be civil man. You don't hear Kent Hovind calling you a rat, liar or ignorant although I may be wrong.

I'm not trying to be uncivil, I'm trying to give accurate descriptors of the man. He's a rat (amongst other things, he commits felonies), he's a liar (continues to claim the title "Dr." despite the fact that he got his "diploma" at a notorious degree mill where you too can get your diploma... for 99.95 plus shipping and handling), and he's ignorant (willingly or unwillingly).

Ice canopies and astroids, and now Kent Hovind is retarded. Well maybe he is, but maybe you are too.

Hmm, sadly I have science on my side for accuracy. And nice to know you enjoy insulting fellow posters.

Seri-os-ly though... some of the main reason I and others liked listening to Kent Hovind's lectures was because we found his material funny, interesting and new.

And yet you claim you don't think he's right?

I don't agree with everything the man says, but certainly give a few nods to his C14 observations. And I mean some of the things he says about the geologic colum and fossils is plain funny. 69837 gabazillion years ago before the semi-quasi-paleolithic era when dinosporangia bacteria roamed the chemical sludge soup of doom. Where do they come up with this stuff. Some dude carbon dates his uncles foot to like 5000 babillion years ago... I mean seriously. Scientists are still using this... And the geologic colum. Come on. Way too much artistic interpretation.

Which are also utterly wrong and I direct you to Gluadys' video, the work of Aron Ra on youtube for his series on the falsehoods of creationism, the work of DonExodus2, Extant Dodos, and/or Thunderf00t on youtube (all of home do fantastic deconstructions of Hovind and other idiots). Finally if you want a funny, interesting, and new presenter that actually has scientific data and evidence on his side, find any of the lectures done by Kenneth Miller.