• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Micheal Shermer vs Kent Hovind

Chocolate Chip

Muse
C
Joined
Jan 14, 2005
Messages
581
This is a debate betrween Micheal Shermer vs Kent Hovind. They are debating Evolution vs Creationism.

This is a 75 megabyte file, those with modem connections, have patience.

Here's the deal, to view this debate, download it first before viewing. Right - click on the link below, select "save file as" and you should be able to download it.
This is a personal ftp server, I will leave it on for as long as I can.

If the ftp should go down, the link will be disconnected and you will not be able to download the file. Send me a PM and I will provide info for you to gain access to the ftp server.

Hovind vs Shermer Debate
 
I've watched it. Shermer eradicates Hovind completely.

Shermer starts with pointing out that all Hovind has is "I don't get it, so God dunnit!"

And then Hovind proves him right. :D
 
It just sits there doing nothing :(

Isn't 169.254.*.* an internal IP? I was actually just trying to PM you. Speedy response time!

Ya could always email it: cleanunderpants@yahoo.co.nz
I could see about hosting it somewhere.
 
Chocolate Chip said:
This is a debate betrween Micheal Shermer vs Kent Hovind. They are debating Evolution vs Creationism.

This is a 75 megabyte file, those with modem connections, have patience.

Here's the deal, to view this debate, download it first before viewing. Right - click on the link below, select "save file as" and you should be able to download it.
Click to expand...

I get a message saying the operation timed out.
 
It work wont. Its an internal IP address, with a faulty /../.
Email it to me chocolate chip. I'll see if I can find a server. If not I'll host it on my own box for a hour or two.
 
DavoMan said:
It work wont. Its an internal IP address, with a faulty /../.
Email it to me chocolate chip. I'll see if I can find a server. If not I'll host it on my own box for a hour or two.
Click to expand...
Ummm... I've checked the log file and it's telling that the file has been downloaded 29 times. A total of 625 megs.
I will send it to you, but it's a 75 meg file. Is your email account large enough to handle it?

Is anyone else having problems??
Please let me know, if there is, we can try and find a better way to post this.
 
OK, I think I've got the problem resolved. Davo was right about the ip. It's been corrected. Here is a new link for those of you interested:

Shermer vs Hovind

If there are anymore problems let me know.
I will also post this in a new thread.
 
Awesome. Cheers chocolate. This will provide some evening entertainment.
 
I love listening to Dr. Kent.... he's "scary stupid".

Thanks for the link.

"Evolution is the dumbest and most dangerous idea in the history of the world! Evolution theory leads straight to Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, abortion, communism, Marxism, rejection of logic, and Hell if you don't trust Christ!"

"But I'm not anti-Evolutionist"
 
This is the first time that I've seen Hovind speak. He tries to knock down the evolution points of debate, yet he doesn't provide solid evidence to back up his creationist view. He is mainly quoting from the bible and offering up opinions as to how evolution cannot work, yet no evidence as to how creationism works.
As far as points on presenting facts to support the arguements go, I think Shermer won.
In my opinion, Hovind does present his oratorial skills very well. Even if most of what he says is crap, the way he says it is impressive, AFAIC.
I also think Hovind is rather sneaky in trying to create a "role reversal", in which he calls himself the skeptic, and that he is all for science, whereas Shermer isn't being skeptical because he is not questioning the evolution viewpoint.

edited to add comment
 
Chocolate Chip said:
This is the first time that I've seen Hovind speak. He tries to knock down the evolution points of debate, yet he doesn't provide solid evidence to back up his creationist view.
Click to expand...

That is what creationists do. And sadly, it's often a very effective tatic. That doesn't mean what they say makes any sort of scientific sense. It just means they manage to raise doubt among the casual observer.
 
Frankly, I was disappointed that his patent drivel wasn't more effectively demolished during the 2 hours - his points were still being applauded near the end. He is brilliantly glib and disingenuous. Why not just concentrate on his most ridiculous assertion, that the earth is only 6,000 years old, and bring incontrovertable evidence to bear on that point. The whole edifice must then collapse. Even among devout Christians I find it difficult to believe many seriously embrace this ridiculous notion.
I also didn't like the format which made it too easy for him to ignore issues like the obvious contradictions in the Bible, which wouldn't be so easy if they were permitted a direct dialogue. Reminiscent of the Presidential Debates which were fatally emasculated by mutual consent.
 
I think, in the eyes of the audience, Hovind won. Just because he seemed more confident in what he said and more at ease in the situation.

But that's just because what he believes is very narrow: God did it. Evolution is a massive subject where it's not that hard to find someone (important) who doesn't agree with something (important).

And why the hell does he throw in the beginning of the universe and life? Evolution is about what happens after life (and therefore the universe) is started.

Personnaly, I think Hovind lost the second he said "Literal interpretation." :D

I especially liked the last question too. "What order did the eleven systems evolve in. (circular, skeletal, ...) LOL.
 
Wow, I just watched the video and I'm actually shocked that Shermer even bothers engaging in a debate with a guy like Hovind. He's not a scientist, he's a preacher. The majority of his evidence is based on scripture.

It's easy to see though, why Hovind grabs the religious crowd's attention. He talks fast, he's personable, he cracks jokes, and he is very confident. But when you really listen to what he says he is a nutbar.

I was reminded of a quote by Stephen J. Gould:

Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments.
It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain
rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do
with establishing fact -- which they are very good at. Some of
those rules are: never say anything positive about your own
position because it can be attacked, but chip away at the
weaknesses in your opponent's position. They are good at that.
I don't think I could beat the creationists in debate. I can tie them. But in the courtroom they are terrible, because in courtrooms you cannot give speeches. In a courtroom you have to answer direct questions about the positive status of your belief. (Caltech lecture, 1985)
Click to expand...

Do these debates really accomplish anything. Do any believers leave the debate having changed their position or vice versa? Does agreeing to debate someone like Hovind end up giving him a sense of legitimacy that he doesn't deserve?
 
KelvinG said:
Wow, I just watched the video and I'm actually shocked that Shermer even bothers engaging in a debate with a guy like Hovind. He's not a scientist, he's a preacher. The majority of his evidence is based on scripture.

It's easy to see though, why Hovind grabs the religious crowd's attention. He talks fast, he's personable, he cracks jokes, and he is very confident. But when you really listen to what he says he is a nutbar.

I was reminded of a quote by Stephen J. Gould:



Do these debates really accomplish anything. Do any believers leave the debate having changed their position or vice versa? Does agreeing to debate someone like Hovind end up giving him a sense of legitimacy that he doesn't deserve?
Click to expand...
That's the big problem. You have this glib, confident guy knocking out answers as fast as is biologically feasible for the human mouth combined with only a quasi-understanding of how scientists have come to the conclusions they have held by the lay person watching the debate and that spells trouble. The average audience member isn't as likely to judge the outcome of the debate by quality of the substance of the presentations given by the debaters as they are to make their final decisions based on the quality of mode of delivery, because that's really the only thing they'll understand. Luckily in this case, Shermer tends to have a very easygoing, gentle disposition, and Hovind's exuberance contrasted with this calmness at some points caused his confidence to look more like belittling and smarmy arrogance, which, when the smoke and mirrors are taken away, it actually turns out to be.
 
The funniest thing is Hovind doing his Chick tract bit at the end:roll:
 
duggie said:
Frankly, I was disappointed that his patent drivel wasn't more effectively demolished during the 2 hours - his points were still being applauded near the end. He is brilliantly glib and disingenuous. Why not just concentrate on his most ridiculous assertion, that the earth is only 6,000 years old, and bring incontrovertable evidence to bear on that point. The whole edifice must then collapse. Even among devout Christians I find it difficult to believe many seriously embrace this ridiculous notion.
I also didn't like the format which made it too easy for him to ignore issues like the obvious contradictions in the Bible, which wouldn't be so easy if they were permitted a direct dialogue. Reminiscent of the Presidential Debates which were fatally emasculated by mutual consent.
Click to expand...

What I'd like to see, in addition to strong debate points of course, is a list of scientists that support evolution running in the background. I bet you could make a list so long it could easily be continually displayed throughout the entire presentation.
 
Come to think of it, I can't BELIEVE Hovind actually said

"NO fossil gives ANY evidence for evolution because you can't prove that thing had a kid!"

Apparently Hovind has never heard of "inferrence". If evolution didn't happen the fossils wouldn't go from simple to complex.
 
Alkatran said:
Come to think of it, I can't BELIEVE Hovind actually said

"NO fossil gives ANY evidence for evolution because you can't prove that thing had a kid!"

Apparently Hovind has never heard of "inferrence". If evolution didn't happen the fossils wouldn't go from simple to complex.
Click to expand...

I caught that too. It comes down to the claim that, unless you (as in humans) actually observe something, it doesn't happen.

I guess he doesn't think trees fall in the woods unless there are people to observe it. :rolleyes:

Kent Hovind, meet Shirley MacLaine.
 
Thanks for the file, it was really interesting (and saddening too)
I fear anyway that there's no way to have a decent debate in any format with that dr. dino... It's just too easy to spout out 2 dozens false / wrong information in 20 minutes that no one in this world could disprove in the following half...
Moreother, afaik, Hovind has always refused to take part in internet debates, i.e. those places in which his 'arguments' could be ordinately and thoroughly shredded...:)
 
I've only seen bits of it so far, but what was Hovind saying about penicillin?
 
I'm still downloading the file but am reminded of a chapter written by Richard Dawkins in "The Devils Chaplain"...

"just to appear on a platform with them is to lend them the respectability they crave. Whatever the outcome of the debate, the mere fact that it is staged at all suggests to ignorant bystanders that there must be something worth debating, on something like equal terms"

... and then later when detailing a co-authored letter between himself and Stephen Gould

"What we shall not do is abet creationists in their disreputable quest for free publicity and unearned academic respectability".

Should scientists (anybody) publicly engage creationists in this manner as the only "winners" appear to be the creationists?
 
MalvernHills said:


Should scientists (anybody) publicly engage creationists in this manner as the only "winners" appear to be the creationists?
Click to expand...

The problem is that the creationists will claim no one dares to debate them.
 
Odin said:
I've only seen bits of it so far, but what was Hovind saying about penicillin?
Click to expand...

He said two people were dug up and found to have a resistance to penicillin (they died before penicillin was invented). He did this to show that anything that ever shows up is not random mutation, but was already there and is just being brought out. :hit:



I also hated his examples of how enery input didn't reverse entropy. He gave examples of CARS AND ROOFS.

Well, no kidding, the sun can do damage? But you're missing the point aren't you Mr. Hovind? Entropy has a physical MEANING (I think it's energy per temperature or temprature per energy?) and if there is energy being input entropy can therefore be reversed!

The air is highly disorganized, but when the sun heats it it becomes more organized by having hotter air try to rise and colder air trying to fall, creating winds. (Yes, wind is more orderly than calm air everywhere)
 
Alkatran said:
And why the hell does he throw in the beginning of the universe and life? Evolution is about what happens after life (and therefore the universe) is started.
Click to expand...

Because creationists are incredibly stupid and couldn't tell their backside from their big toe. I say this from experience.
 
jzs said:
What I'd like to see, in addition to strong debate points of course, is a list of scientists that support evolution running in the background. I bet you could make a list so long it could easily be continually displayed throughout the entire presentation.
Click to expand...

You will find that the creationist knowledge of the fossil record is equivalent to their knowledge of basic biology, ie just not there. If you want to piss off a creationist, ask about the Paluxy footprints *giggle*

And if they rant about a worldwide flood, ask about evidence for flood layers at...oh I dunno, Klasies River Mouth, Jericho, Nabta Playa... keep harassing them until they answer, they'll soon run away, tails between legs, whingeing that everyone just hates whatever religion they follow.
 
I'm watching this now, and this Hovind ◊◊◊◊ is really making me angry. Does he know the rubbish that he is spewing out of his mouth?
 
I'm pretty sure that Hovind knows what he spouts out are lies. But he's doing it for the betterment of mankind, to convert people and cement their faith in his god.
 
I'm listening to it now.

My goodness.

"You can't tell how a computer originated 'naturally' from the inside." Uh, yes you can. The marketing labels even tell you who created each component of the computer.

"How do you tell right from wrong if evolution is true?" Uh, because societal morality helps herd animals survive against predators, and because the lack of societal morality helps predators prey. And since humans tend to be pack predators, the distinction and balance between the two is intimitely relevant to our survival.

Oh my, and count the ad homoneims and straw man arguments. "So and so came from a rock." A rock?

Yeek.
 
jzs said:
What I'd like to see, in addition to strong debate points of course, is a list of scientists that support evolution running in the background. I bet you could make a list so long it could easily be continually displayed throughout the entire presentation.
Click to expand...
Not me. I am very leery of "might makes right" arguments based on the number of adherents to a point of view. There are more God-botherers in the US than not, but that doesn't make God exist. Shermer makes the mistake at the beginning of asking how many of the audience believe in a supreme being, and it appears he is outnumbered. He should have asked how many believe the world is only 6,000 years old. Or, he could have asked where they placed themselves on the Creation/Evolution continuim, i.e. divide and conquer.
 
jzs said:
What I'd like to see, in addition to strong debate points of course, is a list of scientists that support evolution running in the background. I bet you could make a list so long it could easily be continually displayed throughout the entire presentation.
Click to expand...

:o

Now that's a good idea! I'm shocked.

The only problem would be getting permission to use all those names :(, that might be really tough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom