Anyone catch the Hovind vs. Infidel Guy debate?

warispeace · Sep 25, 2004

I just listened to it today. It was pretty entertaining. The callers were pretty rough on him. Especially this Scottish biologist who called in. He absolutely grilled him on the validity of creation 'science'. He was getting skewered so bad that even the host was trying not to laugh. It was great.

But what really floored me was when Hovind admitted that the only proof he would accept for evolution was disproof. [A dog giving birth to a pinecone, overnight.] So basically he admits that he ignores the facts when it comes to whether evolution is true or not.

http://www.infidelguy.com/

Starstreak M86 · Sep 25, 2004

Man, they were hard on him!

I didn't really have any sympathy for him, because he is obviously ignoring the facts and just trying to hold on to a unjustifiable position.

On a side note, I saw something that said "Elisha the Cruel" at the site. Elisha and the whole bear and kids situation was not cruel:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qmeanelisha.html

http://www.apologeticspress.org/faq/r&r8706a.htm

The "kids" were not so young, and were not so innocent after all.

Just a clarification.

versastyle · Sep 26, 2004

I agree with Hovind very little in this debate especially but about the books being incorrect in High Schools I do agree. Public School Boards should make it abundantly clear that evolution is a theory and that they should pursue harsh scrutiny when it comes to the accuracy of their textbooks. Other than that, I think Kent is pretty much dismissable.

But on the other hand...

I hate the fact that he tries to cover himself by saying "I do this for the schools".

^Sure ya do mang.

Justin Horne · Sep 26, 2004

I think they make it clear enough about making people known it's a theory.. Like when they say the Theory of Evolution... If you need it clearer than that, you don't even need to hear about it, as it's a waste of the class's time.

Any place to listen to it without having to become a paid member? No, I'm not implying stealing it someway, just wondering...

Ondoher · Sep 26, 2004

warispeace said:
I just listened to it today. It was pretty entertaining. The callers were pretty rough on him. Especially this Scottish biologist who called in. He absolutely grilled him on the validity of creation 'science'. He was getting skewered so bad that even the host was trying not to laugh. It was great.

But what really floored me was when Hovind admitted that the only proof he would accept for evolution was disproof. [A dog giving birth to a pinecone, overnight.] So basically he admits that he ignores the facts when it comes to whether evolution is true or not.

http://www.infidelguy.com/

Yes, not only that, I was one of the callers. I asked him about endogenous retroviruses, educated him on the defintion of transitional fossils, and explained how the creationist taxonomic predictions are clearly falsified. All in all, it was a fun time. I just wish Reggie had let me make a few more points.

Ondoher · Sep 26, 2004

versastyle said:
I agree with Hovind very little in this debate especially but about the books being incorrect in High Schools I do agree. Public School Boards should make it abundantly clear that evolution is a theory and that they should pursue harsh scrutiny when it comes to the accuracy of their textbooks. Other than that, I think Kent is pretty much dismissable.

But on the other hand...

I hate the fact that he tries to cover himself by saying "I do this for the schools".

^Sure ya do mang.

Text book should be accurate. I'll agree with that. The "just a theory" stance however, has no merit. Here is how 72 nobel laureates responded to such a position: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html

The Louisiana legislature chose a different path. Instead of requiring that schoolchildren be educated about the uniformly tentative nature of science, the Louisiana legislature drew a false and misleading distinction among scientific disciplines. By restricting its "taught as a theory" mandate to the matter of "origins," the Act implicitly tells Louisiana's schoolchildren that while most of what they learn in science class is "proven scientific fact," evolution is not. Indeed, by juxtaposing the unmodified word "theory" with the twice-modified word "fact," the statute suggests that evolutionary theory is a particularly flimsy sort of theory. Not "proven" or "scientific," but speculative and baseless.[31]

The Act's false dichotomy between "origins" and all other scientific concepts not only invites students to mistake all those other concepts for "proven facts"; it actively deprecates evolution. By so doing, the Act grossly misrepresents the status of evolutionary theory within the universe of scientific theories. The evolutionary history of organisms has been as extensively tested and as thoroughly corroborated as any biological concept. E.g., E. Mayr, Populations, Species and Evolution 1 (1970) ("The theory of evolution is quite rightly called the greatest unifying theory in biology."); National Academy of Sciences, Science and Creationism 14-22 (1984); P. Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism 54 (1983); Dobzhansky, Nothing in Science Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution, 35 American Biology Teacher 125 (1973).

Vinegar · Sep 26, 2004

versastyle said:
Public School Boards should make it abundantly clear that evolution is a theory ...

But don't for goodness' sake tell students that gravity is a theory, or they'll all start floating away!

Note: "Theory" in science means a statement about how something works, based on tested evidence. Evolutionary biology actually contains a number of core theories, all of them supported by mountains of evidence and for which no rational contrary explanation has been forthcoming. Ever.

"Theory" in science does not mean "idle speculation" or "something some joker dreamed up while having a shower", or "something a bunch of desert-dwelling dreamers and schemers had a mind to write down 3,000 years ago."

The best the critics have been able to do is found in "intelligent design theory" (notice the word theory in there), which uses a heap of pseudo-scientific gibberish to dress up an utterly unscientific notion that amounts to no more than a profession of awe. "Golly, ain't it all so glorious, someone must've thunk it up like that".

versastyle · Sep 26, 2004

I withdraw my statement.

Science books should say "Science is based on theories."

Once that simple statement is made, any and all claims can be made that have not been disproven.

Oh yeah....this is already done.

In a high pitched 14 yr old skinny girls voice...."GOOOOOOO Science!"

Sanguine · Sep 26, 2004

Hovind loves the court of law retreat, not at all suprising that a huckster would fall back on the legal system.

edit: just got to the Irish geneticists segment, Hovind was categorically annihilated. All he could do was frantically attempt to change the topic

Godzman · Sep 26, 2004

Secular culture puts its faith in science and only science can prove things, wait a second, I think people are jumping a little ahead of themselves right there.

michabo · Sep 26, 2004

Justin Horne said:
Any place to listen to it without having to become a paid member? No, I'm not implying stealing it someway, just wondering...

It's linked right off of www.infidelguy.com. It'll be taken down after a few weeks so download it now.

funyun · Sep 26, 2004

The Louisiana legislature chose a different path. Instead of requiring that schoolchildren be educated about the uniformly tentative nature of science, the Louisiana legislature drew a false and misleading distinction among scientific disciplines. By restricting its "taught as a theory" mandate to the matter of "origins," the Act implicitly tells Louisiana's schoolchildren that while most of what they learn in science class is "proven scientific fact," evolution is not. Indeed, by juxtaposing the unmodified word "theory" with the twice-modified word "fact," the statute suggests that evolutionary theory is a particularly flimsy sort of theory. Not "proven" or "scientific," but speculative and baseless.[31]

The Act's false dichotomy between "origins" and all other scientific concepts not only invites students to mistake all those other concepts for "proven facts"; it actively deprecates evolution. By so doing, the Act grossly misrepresents the status of evolutionary theory within the universe of scientific theories. The evolutionary history of organisms has been as extensively tested and as thoroughly corroborated as any biological concept. E.g., E. Mayr, Populations, Species and Evolution 1 (1970) ("The theory of evolution is quite rightly called the greatest unifying theory in biology."); National Academy of Sciences, Science and Creationism 14-22 (1984); P. Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism 54 (1983); Dobzhansky, Nothing in Science Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution, 35 American Biology Teacher 125 (1973).

I live in Louisiana and, while I didn't know about this until just now, it doesn't surprise me in the least. This state is very conservative. I go to a private school, and so I wasn't subjected to this misrepresentation, but it definetely scares me that they're able to pass legislation like this and lie to the students.

Prometheus_ash · Sep 26, 2004

For more information about creationism and the legal system, check out this thread I posted a while ago.

warispeace · Sep 26, 2004

Ondoher said:
Yes, not only that, I was one of the callers. I asked him about endogenous retroviruses, educated him on the defintion of transitional fossils, and explained how the creationist taxonomic predictions are clearly falsified. All in all, it was a fun time. I just wish Reggie had let me make a few more points.

Oh, that was you? Now I know how to pronounce the phrase endogenous retroviruses.

All in all, I thought it was entertaining and informative. I thought the host was very fair and impartial. He even agreed with Hovind on a couple points.

What really bugged me, though, was how every time Hovind was backed into a corner, he would sputter, 'But... but... I'm not supported by tax dollars!' As if it's okay to lie to the general public as long as you're not getting any government funding.

michabo · Sep 26, 2004

I hate his continual whinging about gill slits when any competent biologist should take him to task. They aren't referring to Haeckel's gill slits which he deceptively implies. What a frustrating, painful show.

SIXDAYCREATIONIST · Sep 26, 2004

that was a good show too! man, hovind never stops to amaze me. the guy is going to be the next van til.

Asimov · Sep 26, 2004

I listened to that debate, and was astounded at his hypocracy. In the beginning of the debate, Hovind states that he believes the Bible is 100% scientifically accurate.

Later on in the debate, Hovind states that his view is not scientifically provable but neither is evolution, so we shouldn't be teaching it in schools.

The Bellman · Sep 27, 2004

Starstreak M86 said:
On a side note, I saw something that said "Elisha the Cruel" at the site. Elisha and the whole bear and kids situation was not cruel:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qmeanelisha.html

http://www.apologeticspress.org/faq/r&r8706a.htm

The "kids" were not so young, and were not so innocent after all.

Just a clarification.

Nice try, but sorry...Elisha and the whole bears situation WAS cruel, and completely unjust. Your apologetics sites are wonderful at inventing information that isn't in the text...but I guess you have to do that to somehow believe bears ripping up children/youths is somehow not cruel.

Asimov · Sep 27, 2004

The Bellman said:
Nice try, but sorry...Elisha and the whole bears situation WAS cruel, and completely unjust. Your apologetics sites are wonderful at inventing information that isn't in the text...but I guess you have to do that to somehow believe bears ripping up children/youths is somehow not cruel.

ah yes...the ol' Elisha thing. I laugh at people trying to explain it.

Christian Fundy: "But they were 'BAD' youths, who didn't worship God"

Atheist: "but...it's killing....and that's wrong!"

Christian Fundy: "It was righteous killing, and that's ok!"

Mistermystery · Sep 27, 2004

Asimov said:
ah yes...the ol' Elisha thing. I laugh at people trying to explain it.

Christian Fundy: "But they were 'BAD' youths, who didn't worship God"

Atheist: "but...it's killing....and that's wrong!"

Christian Fundy: "It was righteous killing, and that's ok!"

If you're killing for Jesus, it's okay ?

Anyone catch the Hovind vs. Infidel Guy debate?

ubi dubium, ibi libertas

Atheist Turned Christian

hopeless guide

Senior Member

Veteran

Veteran

Active Member

hopeless guide

Neutiquam erro

Peace

reason, evidence

aude sapere...sed praeterea, aude esse

Metaphysical Bet Taker

ubi dubium, ibi libertas

reason, evidence

SIXDAYCREATIONIST

Guest

Objectivist

The Bellman

Guest

Objectivist

Here's looking at you kid

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency