• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

My own Kent Hovind video

J

Jason Harvestdancer

Contributor
Joined
Oct 23, 2005
Messages
7,833
Location
Lots of planets have a North
Basic Beliefs
Wiccan
Mister Hovind has replaced his bogus $250k challenge with a bogus "give me your three best evidences" challenge. Aron Ra took up the challenge, and the two did talk past each other quite a bit.

So I decided to try it and give my three best lines of evidence for evolution. I somehow don't think I rate getting Kent's attention, but I think this video makes a good argument.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TF3Hn4KCvm8[/youtube]
 
Point 1) God willed it. It seems awful to suggest that God would create creatures incapable of adapting to a fallen world. To suggest otherwise means God created creatures that would fail to exist. That wouldn’t be something an omnipotent and omniscient god would do.

*mike drop*
 
Any argument against Hovind about evolution is a waste of time.
 
I'm sorry that I don't have time until next week to watch the whole thing, but I was able to listen to the first 3 minutes real quick. You were starting an "argument by webster", using the dictionary definition of "evolution" to show that "things change over time".. non-biological things, like language. I'm sure you're getting somewhere with it... but I really hate that type of argumentation if it is foundational to your claims. Can you confirm that the rest of the 40 minute video isn't based on this approach of proving that the concept of evolution exists?
 
Yes, I was going somewhere with it. I was contrasting the word evolution with the theory of evolution in order to undercut Kent's "Six types of evolution" argument where he includes big bang, star formation, abiogenesis, and nucleosynthesis. By describing even more things that change over time, my goal is to have him include either everything that changes over time, or to stick to just the Theory of Evolution. Yes, the rest of the video is not a contrast of the word and the theory, that is only preamble point number one.

Preamble point number two is how science uses multiple lines of evidence.
Evidence number one is beneficial mutations happen.
Evidence number two is natural selection happens.
Evidence number three is multiple nested hierarches, with discussion about why that is evidence and why fossils do count as evidence.
 
ah. very good. looking forward to it. I have out of town guests arriving shortly, which is why I won't have time until next week.
 
Okay, I watched the whole video. I think your arguments were well-presented, and clearly you did your homework by investigating Hovind's arguments and responding to them. Folks who've never tried creating a production-style video like this don't appreciate the work that went into it, so I commend you for it. Overall I found the video enjoyable in a cheesy way (which I think was the intention) and informative.

I felt like you left some of the arguments open enough for attack (assuming Hovind wanted to attack). Hovind is quite fond the "It's still just a bear" argument and would use it for the various examples you cited. You addressed that with the e-coli and did a good job of presenting an argument for it being new and innovative, and "not your father's e-coli." But I still had this feeling that your argument will ring hollow against "It's still just a bacteria." He really tends to get a lot of mileage out of the fact that we haven't actually produced a new species of creature.

Towards the end of the video you began using the turn of phrase, "If evolution is true." I don't particularly care for that phrase because it sounds far too much like how a creationist paints a caricature of the theory. I would prefer something more to the effect of "If the Theory of Evolution is valid we would expect to see..." but of course as many times as you used that turn of phrase it would get cumbersome.

A few observations about the production quality:

Use of the costume, gratuitous hand gestures and corny organ music provided a nice contrast to the sometimes tedious scientific banter necessary to make certain points, so kudos on that bit of creativity.

Next time close the curtains. Seeing people wandering around in the reflection (and cars driving by outside) is a distraction. Also, there were times when you were almost whispering compared to other times, meaning I was constantly having to adjust my volume to keep the audio at an acceptable level.

As I already said, overall it was enjoyable and you have a great deal to be proud of. If you keep at it you could become a player.
 
I watched it. The script is good as far as laying out your arguments, even if Hovind would never agree. Doubt there will ever be one neat trick that will DESTROY him. There were some production issues, as Atheos described. Were the people in the reflection intentional? The performance was good by itself, but if you have the skills, more visual aids would help to keep the viewer engaged, could be just some text highlighting your key points, or graphical representations of the content. Just don't overdo the graphics and cuts like a lot of videos do. If you want more views, you should probably put Hovind in the title, like "Response to Kent Hovind's challenge." You do have his name in the description, but if someone is searching on his name, they might not click if the name isn't in the title. Also include a link to Hovind's challenge. If it was by video, put a clip in your video. Question - did you record the voice live or was it dubbed in later?

Oh and thanks for the shoutout!
 
The people in the reflection were not intentional, it was my wife working the camera and my son watching. I will know to close the curtain next time.

I recorded the voice first, then played it back while pantomiming my speech. Then I synched the video to the audio and muted the sound from the video.

I will add his name to the title.

One part I'm pleased with was finally taking on his "one of these things doesn't belong, an 8 year old can figure it out" argument.
 
Yes I think your "one of these things doesn't belong" rejoinder was well done. Hovind tends to lean heavily on really dumb argument tactics that are the debate equivalent of Jedi Mind Tricks. Few things expose the absurdity of an argument better than using the same technique to demonstrate why it's wrong.
 
And you just need to have faith that the refutations exist and are sound. Obviously that lying sack of shit Hovind wouldn't lie about something like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom