Below is a video of Kent Hovind debating three scientists at once. Now, these three guys are amongst the poorest debaters I ever saw, and in my opinion they lost the debate even before a single word was said. But I don't want to speak about them anymore. I want to focus Kent Hovind. (If anyone wants to discuss the three scientists, please do this in a differnet thread)
YouTube - hovind debate
Below is a transcript of the first interventions of Hovind. As we might expect, Hovind is displaying the mix of oversimplification, lies and distortions we are getting used from crrationists.
First he presents himself. Who his wife is, his children etc.
And then, at 1’27” comes this:
Kent Hovind is already distorting words.How can an opinion be unbiased?
But things get even better. Hovind has realised that science makes predictions. So, to present creationism as science, he has to make predictions. This whole presentation clearly shows that creationism has nothing to do with science. It is only a masquarade of science. It is a parody of science, and it is a bad one. From 3’55” we hear this:
First, and even someone with no understanding in the working of science at all knows this, a prediction is a statement before the fact or before the observation. For example: George Gamow predicted the existence of the Cosmic Background radiation, before it was observed.
Not a single one of the testable statements done by Hovind are made before the fact.
The existence of the Bible? The bible exists for at least 2000 years. Speaking of a prediction!
Wisdom teeth? Humanity suffers long enough from them, before Hovind's prediction.
Others of his "predictions" are untestable. That you will meet your creator after your death? No one came back to confirm this, so it is useless as a prediction.
A purpose for life, again, untestable, so useless. And the claim that Evolution would take away all purpose is equally untestable.
Others are simply false. He claims that every culture would have stories about a flood, and he names a few. Well, it is already known a very long time that other cultures of the Middle East had this kind of myths. We didn't need to Hovinds late prediction for that. But if he claims that this kind of myths are seen world wide, he may always come with the flood myths of let us say, the Tibetans, or the Mongols. Or of other people living on high elevation, like the Kenyan Africans. Just three cultures from the same area and clearly influencing one another will not do. World wide is world wide.
But on still another level Hovind fails. When scientists make predictions, these are logically derived fro that theory. And scientists explain very carefully how they come to that prediction. When Einstein predicted the deviation of starlight near the Sun, it was directly derived from his theory of Relativity, and it was clearly explained how he came to this prediction.
But Hovind? Nothing of the like. He just spawns statements at will, without any care of the timeline, any care of truth or any care of the logic. He lies when he claims that you can derive existence of symbiosis from the bible. And otherwise, I challenge every biblical scholar to show me this. And he goes into a wonderfull examlpe of circular reasoning when he can predicted the existence of messengers ("and maybe even a book") from the bible. Really? The bible predicting the existence of the bible. What a wonderful and useful science.
The he continous with his "predictions:
9’10”
I will only refer the reader to this Youtube movie, by Potholer54
http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/a/f/0/_sD_7rxYoZY
Boy, your not only out of date, for you predict again nothing, you are also openly lying.
polystrate fossils are known for at least a hundred years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkrlkFp0eJY
And yes, in swamps sedimenation can go very quickly, forming layerrs around these trees in a period of years. So he is lying when he claims that people want us to believe that these layers are millions of years old.
Then comes some uninteresting part. But at 7’50” we hear this.
Then he goes on:
It would be closer to the truth that if evolution is true, than sex brought man into the world. More than death, it is procreation and succesfully getting offspring that is the hero of evolution. But again, Hovind isn't interested in truth, he is associating the Theory of Evolution death, which sounds of course very menacing. As if not all living things have to die once. Or shall we make the deathcounts of the god he is worshipping.
So, in a presentation of 12 minutes Hovind is telling lies, distorting the truth and making claims he cannot back up. He tries to present creationism as a science but fails at even the very first attempt, because he is clearly biased and because he cannot predict one single thing that isn't already known. And even thos ethin,gs that were known can not be derived from his source, the bible.
YouTube - hovind debate
Below is a transcript of the first interventions of Hovind. As we might expect, Hovind is displaying the mix of oversimplification, lies and distortions we are getting used from crrationists.
First he presents himself. Who his wife is, his children etc.
And then, at 1’27” comes this:
Unbiased opinion?
Kent Hovind is already distorting words.How can an opinion be unbiased?
But things get even better. Hovind has realised that science makes predictions. So, to present creationism as science, he has to make predictions. This whole presentation clearly shows that creationism has nothing to do with science. It is only a masquarade of science. It is a parody of science, and it is a bad one. From 3’55” we hear this:
Well, Kent Hovind has clearly not understood what a prediction is.
First, and even someone with no understanding in the working of science at all knows this, a prediction is a statement before the fact or before the observation. For example: George Gamow predicted the existence of the Cosmic Background radiation, before it was observed.
Not a single one of the testable statements done by Hovind are made before the fact.
The existence of the Bible? The bible exists for at least 2000 years. Speaking of a prediction!
Wisdom teeth? Humanity suffers long enough from them, before Hovind's prediction.
Others of his "predictions" are untestable. That you will meet your creator after your death? No one came back to confirm this, so it is useless as a prediction.
A purpose for life, again, untestable, so useless. And the claim that Evolution would take away all purpose is equally untestable.
Others are simply false. He claims that every culture would have stories about a flood, and he names a few. Well, it is already known a very long time that other cultures of the Middle East had this kind of myths. We didn't need to Hovinds late prediction for that. But if he claims that this kind of myths are seen world wide, he may always come with the flood myths of let us say, the Tibetans, or the Mongols. Or of other people living on high elevation, like the Kenyan Africans. Just three cultures from the same area and clearly influencing one another will not do. World wide is world wide.
But on still another level Hovind fails. When scientists make predictions, these are logically derived fro that theory. And scientists explain very carefully how they come to that prediction. When Einstein predicted the deviation of starlight near the Sun, it was directly derived from his theory of Relativity, and it was clearly explained how he came to this prediction.
But Hovind? Nothing of the like. He just spawns statements at will, without any care of the timeline, any care of truth or any care of the logic. He lies when he claims that you can derive existence of symbiosis from the bible. And otherwise, I challenge every biblical scholar to show me this. And he goes into a wonderfull examlpe of circular reasoning when he can predicted the existence of messengers ("and maybe even a book") from the bible. Really? The bible predicting the existence of the bible. What a wonderful and useful science.
The he continous with his "predictions:
9’10”
Again a great prediction, of what is already known for at least 200 years.
No Kent, no.
I will only refer the reader to this Youtube movie, by Potholer54
http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/a/f/0/_sD_7rxYoZY
Already known for 200 years, Kent, you predict nothing.
Rapid erosion occurs, no question about that. But it is the slow erosion that I want you to explain darling, the evidence of slow sedimentation.
see above
Really?
Boy, your not only out of date, for you predict again nothing, you are also openly lying.
polystrate fossils are known for at least a hundred years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkrlkFp0eJY
And yes, in swamps sedimenation can go very quickly, forming layerrs around these trees in a period of years. So he is lying when he claims that people want us to believe that these layers are millions of years old.
Would predict? What is it, sir, does the bible predicts it or not? If you even don't know whetther "the bible" predicts something or not - then, what is your argument worth?
Then comes some uninteresting part. But at 7’50” we hear this.
First: the theory of Evolution is a scientific one, it has nothing to do with morals. But Hovind isn't interested in science. He is not interested in convincing the scientific community. He only goal is to reach the public, and therefore all tricks are good. And the mentioning of ObL isn't by accident. It is done on purpose. It is meant to associate evolution with every thing that is hated and unpleasant, even when it makes no sense. Later in the movie he will link evolutionists with Klebold and Harris (Klebold's father is a geophysicist...
...hmm, yes, but who is also a lutheran.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleboldwikipedia said:
Then he goes on:
Hmm. No.
It would be closer to the truth that if evolution is true, than sex brought man into the world. More than death, it is procreation and succesfully getting offspring that is the hero of evolution. But again, Hovind isn't interested in truth, he is associating the Theory of Evolution death, which sounds of course very menacing. As if not all living things have to die once. Or shall we make the deathcounts of the god he is worshipping.
So, in a presentation of 12 minutes Hovind is telling lies, distorting the truth and making claims he cannot back up. He tries to present creationism as a science but fails at even the very first attempt, because he is clearly biased and because he cannot predict one single thing that isn't already known. And even thos ethin,gs that were known can not be derived from his source, the bible.
Last edited:
