Kent Hovind

[Jet Black]

I've heard many of his debates and he seems to absolutely punish the opponent... I havn't seen or heard them all, but I do find them amusing. How come the evolutionist come back with half-hearted or in simpliar terms, sorry rebutals? If they knew "their science" I would think that their rebutals would crush Hovind if they pertained to be true.

The problem with this is that Hovind's debating style is of the gunshot approach, and he makes statements so wildly untrue and so full of misconceptions, that it takes a significant amount of time to discuss each point, of which there may be several within one single point of Hovind's. He also bounces his arguments around several different areas of science at once. Should he ever engage in a written debate, where time and sentence length is not a pressure, then he would quite simply be pulled apart at the seams.

And although I understand your analogy I think Hovind does have some strong points. Escpecially with the "lies" in the textbooks.

such as?

 

[Arikay]

I have read some debate transcripts where hovind got his donkey handed to him, but I think he chooses his battles wisely. He is a great verbal debater and unfortunatly not as many scientists are (too busy doing real science I guess). Written however he would get crushed, which is why he refusses written debates.

Its important to mention that often debates don't prove who is right, they prove who is a better debater. Since evidence and science are not on his side, he chooses debates that do not favor evidence or science. Now the question should be, why?

The problem with verbal debates is that its so much easier to make a claim than to refute it, this can be shown where creationist groups write a "10 pieces of evidence disproving evolution" that is a page long, but a refutation is often 3 or 4 pages long.
So hovind throws something out, such as, "The decay of the magnetic field proves the earth can't be 10,000 years old." Now in a written debate the scientist would have the room to refute this and then go on to other things, but in a verbal debate, the scientist is screwed. The answer to the decay of the magnetic field is much longer and more complicated than Hovinds sound bite and it either forces him to waste time explaining away the claim, or appear to give a half answer making people think the claim might be valid. Allowing Hovind to control the debate.
Hovind works through sound bites, few scientists work this way, so in a verbal debate the sound bite will often win out over the long complicated explination.

As a politician Hovind is great, as a scientist he is Funny.

I've heard many of his debates and he seems to absolutely punish the opponent... I havn't seen or heard them all, but I do find them amusing. How come the evolutionist come back with half-hearted or in simpliar terms, sorry rebutals? If they knew "their science" I would think that their rebutals would crush Hovind if they pertained to be true.
And although I understand your analogy I think Hovind does have some strong points. Escpecially with the "lies" in the textbooks.

 

[Skillz151]

Ok, I'll give you that..... Since I do notice he does infact refuse written debates...

 

[michabo]

such as?

His favorite example (actually the only one I've heard) is gill slits in the human embryo as evidence for evolution. He says it was discredited a hundred years ago, but still appears in textbooks.

I don't know anything about the subject, but Hovind seems most adamant about it.

 

[Jet Black]

I never saw those in any of my biology textbooks.

 

[Debaser]

Kent Hovind is fast becoming my favourite celebrity moron. More so than even Van Impe

 

[Ishmael Borg]

From Hovind's CSE site's merchandise section:

Phacops Trilobite Replica [ 5.25in. ]
Trilobites of all kinds once roamed the ocean floor, but not many are alive anymore, at least not that we know of. Trilobites had segmented bodies like a shrimp or lobster, and the ability to curl up into a ball when frightened. Some are found curled but most are found flat. This shows us that they were buried in mud slides too quickly to even curl up! Noah’s flood is the best explanation for the death of billions of these amazing creatures. Evolutionists believe trilobites lived “millions of years ago” but they cannot explain how they got their incredible compound eyes with thousand of lenses in one eye. The evolutionary theory is silly. God created the world in six days about 6,000 years ago. See our video series for much more on this.

 

[the_gloaming]

His favorite example (actually the only one I've heard) is gill slits in the human embryo as evidence for evolution. He says it was discredited a hundred years ago, but still appears in textbooks.

I don't know anything about the subject, but Hovind seems most adamant about it.

The idea is that during development the embryo shows characteristics of common ancestors of humans and other vertebrates. The characteristics should be shown in chronological order, i.e oldest ancestors first. One of the characteristics is the retention of gill slits in the embryo (which disappear during development), which would represent ancient fish. I think the argument used against this as evidence of evolution is that the gill slits are not actually gill slits and merely look like them. There are other features which are supposed to support evolution...embryos having a post-anal tail, notochord etc etc. Because the individual who essentially founded evolutionary embryology in the 1800s (Ernst Haeckal) exaggerated/faked his drawings which he used as evidence, creationists often use this to discredit the whole idea. There ARE errors with the idea and as far as im aware embryology does not use Haeckals theory, but a more up to date version (which still doesnt explain all the flaws).

 

[ilwjc]

I suppose you want me to believe they are transitional fossils?

They must be apes, monkeys, orangutans or ancient people with big heads with diseases maybe, but definitely not transitional.

I believe Kent Hovind and Henry Morris and John McArthur are intelligent educated men who know of what they speak.There are more.

So, remember mathematics destroys evolution, but evolution is merely a theory and not to be taken as a science.

Darwin himself said transitional fossils would probably never be found and on that he was right. Because he somehow knew there weren't any to find.

The mind must be accounted for and the Bible does this.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

I suppose you want me to believe they are transitional fossils?

They must be apes, monkeys, orangutans or ancient people with big heads with diseases maybe, but definitely not transitional.

I believe Kent Hovind and Henry Morris and John McArthur are intelligent educated men who know of what they speak.There are more.

So, remember mathematics destroys evolution, but evolution is merely a theory and not to be taken as a science.

Darwin himself said transitional fossils would probably never be found and on that he was right. Because he somehow knew there weren't any to find.

The mind must be accounted for and the Bible does this.

Don't quit your day job!

Since when is theory not = science?

Nevermind - don't answer - it wont add anything to any debate.

 

[MartinM]

I believe Kent Hovind and Henry Morris and John McArthur are intelligent educated men who know of what they speak

You believe a lot of absurd things.

 

[LorentzHA]

Hello everyone. First of all I am not a man.
And I do not copy and paste. I read and remember. The request for me to prove the skulls my fellow poster graciously placed on our screens to see are the same skulls Broca and Morton used are the same skulls is not anything I see me doing in the near future..lol since it would take considerable research.
Then again Gould might be able to help me out.

The soul of man is his being, existence, who he is. Man is not a body, but lives in one, is capable of thinking and reasoning and such.

God said man's spirit is His candle. Interesting indeed.

Our breath is God's spirit as Genesis says he breathed into Adam (man) and Adam (man) became a living soul.

How do we know there is a "soul"? You deny fossils we can see, yet you accept a "soul"? ... Why is that?

 

[LorentzHA]

I've heard many of his debates and he seems to absolutely punish the opponent... I havn't seen or heard them all, but I do find them amusing. How come the evolutionist come back with half-hearted or in simpliar terms, sorry rebutals? If they knew "their science" I would think that their rebutals would crush Hovind if they pertained to be true.
And although I understand your analogy I think Hovind does have some strong points. Escpecially with the "lies" in the textbooks.

The only way that he "punishes" the oppenent is that they have to listen to him in the first place. It may appear like this to you because he is a showman. He does not stick with facts and data and appeals to the emotions of an almost completely scientifically ignorant constituency. The people he plays to think this man is using science to prove their mythologies, sadly, this man is not a student of sciene, at all... It is hard for those who come to argue science with him, to answer retorts that have little or nothing to do with the price of tea in china. I heard of a similartype situation recently: A Doctor was telling a mother, "You are overfeeding your child". The mothers response was, "Well at least I have food to feed him!!!" I mean what do you say to that???? It was totally dodging the problem at hand and creating a false issue to jump behind.....Hovind is a master at this!!

 

[Sphere]

--This has by far been THE most amount of laughs I have ever gotten out of a post on these forums.

The sheer amount of stupidity--or ignorance(whichever you want to excuse it with) is on such a level I can hardly fathom.

I would never ever in a million years believe someone could possibly believe the nonsense thrown about from ilwjc

You all need to stop trying to bebunk ILWJC's claims, and just let him continue living in a fantasy world--do you honestly want to convert this guy onto OUR side and have him arguing for us?

ilwjc, your next post should be an APOLOGY to your fellow christians, also state in bold letters for their sake that you do not represent them. Im sure they will thank you.

 

[MartinM]

Oh, I very much doubt if he actually believes any of that ****.

 

[Sphere]

Oh, I very much doubt if he actually believes any of that ****.

No troll could possibly hold onto such nonsense for that long. I infact to believe he thinks its true. He should adopt other ideas too--perhaps man never did land on the moon?

 

[JohnR7]

he is a showman. He does not stick with facts

He does start with facts though. He says everything he needs to say, to get his audience comfortable with him. It goes something like this: Jesus christ died on the cross so that I could be forgiven, so that even though I am still a sinner and there is no real change in my life I am going to go to heaven, because I believe what these people are telling me is true.

What did Jesus really teach? To repent and be saved. Your not saved because you join a church and get dunked in water and shake the pastors hand. Your saved because you repent and turn away from you sin and live right before God.

But Jesus said to let the wheat and the weeds grow together, so we are not to mess with them, we are to leave them alone. Least we uproot some of the wheat, trying to pull out the weeds.

 

[Jacey]

So, remember mathematics destroys evolution, but evolution is merely a theory and not to be taken as a science.

Someone else who doesn't understand the difference between theory and hypothesis.

 

[JohnR7]

How do we know there is a "soul"?

Because there is soul food. We are made up of a body, mind and a soul. When we are born again, we become spiritually alive.

You spend a lot of time to feed your body and your mind. I keep telling you that you should feed your soul every now and then

Actually, your soul is your own individual, unique personality. It is what makes us different from each other.

 

[Justin04]

Have ya'll just been waiting to vent about kent?