Kent Hovind: Broccoli man

[phands]

LOL
Don't you mean evidence that nobody was up to the challenge?

That is your comeback? Yeez...
No, i did not. Now go and play with your imaginary friend.

No, he's right. NO one was up to the challenge, and that's how Hovind designed it. It's a challenge that's impossible to meet, to allow him to pretend to a position of superiority in the debate, not to find the truth.

Some of the elements of the challenge require proving things that are NOT part of the theory of evolution. Plus unscientific statements, like having to prove that certain theories were THE ONLY POSSIBLE way things happened. That's not what science claims about evolution.

And even if it were possible, he maintained complete control over the judges who would be used to determine that the challenge had been met. If such a group existed, there was no way to validate their credentials or their ability o understand the the material they were judging. And, no way to be sure that whatever they said was what that lying idiot Hovind actually reported.

It was always a con.

But it was a con that at least offered the conclusion Lion prefers, so of course he would need no further details.

It was indeed always a con. It also underlines how little LIRC and the criminal Hovind actually know about evolution. Evolution often finds more than one possible way of arriving at similar features in different lineages - convergent evolution - which isn't surprising when the mutations which trigger changes happen randomly.

 

[bilby]

Wait.
If Kent Hovind was putting up a challenge for people to prove something about evolution which Hovind thinks ISNT true, and the people he is challenging say...
"yes it's unproven but that's not a part of evolution"
...then aren't they conceding Hovind's point?

Logic has been around for at least 2,300 years; Is it really too much to ask that you make at least some attempt to use it correctly?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Wait.
If Kent Hovind was putting up a challenge for people to prove something about evolution which Hovind thinks ISNT true, and the people he is challenging say...
"yes it's unproven but that's not a part of evolution"
...then aren't they conceding Hovind's point?

Hovind had the mother of all umbrellas covering his ‘challenge’. If memory serves it went to even needing to explain astrophysics... of which evolution isn’t remotely dealing with.

Suggesting Hovind made a point is pretty much exposing an iceberg worth of ignorance.

It’d be akin to mentioning, “...but Dembeski (sp) was right about that mutated shrimp thing.”

 

[Lion IRC]

Evolution is easy to describe in theistic terms.
Kent Hovind would pay out if claimants used the bible to corroborate their theory.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If memory serves it went to even needing to explain astrophysics... of which evolution isn’t remotely dealing with.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html

I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.

Footnote:

*NOTE: When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:
1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
3. Matter created life by itself.
4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).

 

[Keith&Co.]

Hovind has been in tax court, where he swore to the Judge that he didn't own any property.
When that session broke for lunch, he went to some apartments he owned and told the tenants they had to move out, immediately.
The tenants had some silly idea that they had a lease, and rights, and a minimum amount of time to find a new place before leaving, end of the month, and so on.
Hovind started beating them to get them to move out immediately.

When the police arrived, he stated that since HE owned the property, he was allowed to do that.

Hovind is a lying liar, a tax cheat, and a scam artist, but he professes to be a Christain, working for Christain principles, and fighting the deadly sinful lie of Evolution in God's Name, so he knows that people like Lion are disabled when it comes to detecting his true nature...

 

[Copernicus]

Evolution is easy to describe in theistic terms.
Kent Hovind would pay out if claimants used the bible to corroborate their theory.

Have you ever watched Christians arguing over the meaning of the Bible? They use it to argue both sides of an issue. I doubt that anyone would convince Hovind that the Bible contradicted any of his biases. The Bible is like a Ouija board. It points in the direction of whichever advice the people controlling the pointer want it to point to. Hovind will never yield control of the pointer to anyone else.

 

[Elixir]

Kent Hovind's "doctoral" dissertation
Begins:
'"Hello, my name is Kent Hovind. I am a creation/science evangelist. I live in Pensacola, Florida."

You'd think that a lying cheat like Hovind would at least know to looks at some ACTUAL doctoral dissertations, and try to emulate what an actual PhD student might write. But that's what passes for excellence at Patriot "University".
Actual picture of Hovind's Alma Mater:

 

[Lion IRC]

Attacking Hovinds character doesn't strike me as a rational/intellectual argument against his position on evolution.

 

[Elixir]

Attacking Hovinds character doesn't strike me as a rational/intellectual argument against his position on evolution.

Lol! In case you didn't know, "a rational/intellectual argument against his position on evolution" would be like a rational argument against the existence of gravity. In fact, "Intelligent Falling" is a scientific tour de force, compared to Hovind's ridiculous "position", which is as follows:

 

[Lion IRC]

Evolution is easy to describe in theistic terms.
Kent Hovind would pay out if claimants used the bible to corroborate their theory.

Have you ever watched Christians arguing over the meaning of the Bible?

Sure. Theistic evolution vs young earth creationism debates are very interesting.
Of course both sides agree that God plays a causal role.

They use it to argue both sides of an issue.

Yes. The bible (Genesis) is open to wide latitudes of interpretation. And that's Kent Hovinds point about how we should interpret the so-called evidence for evolution. Like his non-theist opponents, he is saying that evidence can be interpreted differently - or even dismissed as evidence - and that the word evolution itself is open to interpretation.

Does a unified theory of non-theistic evolution necessarily include a verifiable explanation for how life began? (Abiogenesis) If so, Kent Hovind won't be losing his Wager in his lifetime.

I doubt that anyone would convince Hovind that the Bible contradicted any of his biases.

Maybe not, but you'd have a better chance of winning the money if you cited verses such as the one in Genesis where God says "Let the Earth bring forth..."
This would harmonize with the appearance of the Earth itself 'spontaneously' bringing forth life.
Likewise, there are countless verses suggesting that God doesn't just sit back and watch the liliies of the field and the sparrows and the foxes which have places to lay their head at night. So it's not unscriptural to argue that the shape of a birds beak might change advantageously to confer a survival advantage.

At the heart of Kent Hovinds objection to evolution is the insistence by some that evolution somehow disproves God.

 

[Copernicus]

I doubt that anyone would convince Hovind that the Bible contradicted any of his biases.

Maybe not, but you'd have a better chance of winning the money if you cited verses such as the one in Genesis where God says "Let the Earth bring forth..."
This would harmonize with the appearance of the Earth itself 'spontaneously' bringing forth life.
Likewise, there are countless verses suggesting that God doesn't just sit back and watch the liliies of the field and the sparrows and the foxes which have places to lay their head at night. So it's not unscriptural to argue that the shape of a birds beak might change advantageously to confer a survival advantage.

At the heart of Kent Hovinds objection to evolution is the insistence by some that evolution somehow disproves God.

Yes, well you are a Christian, and devout Christians do love to argue over how precisely the Bible ought to be interpreted. Atheists are a bit more jaded in that regard, but you may consider it well worth your time to engage him in theological disputes over interpretations of biblical passages. I remain unconvinced that he would be any more likely to concede biblical expertise to other Christians than to atheists. But I will concede that there are atheists out there who would have a go at him over Bible quotes. Some are quite well read in that document. I'm too old and jaded now to think it worth spending my last few years worrying about what the Bible has to tell us. I'll probably live longer if I don't.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Lion is just wrong.

Hovind insists that evolutionary theory is a religion, and not science. Presenting the theory in religious terms does not meet the farcical challenge, and rather plays into the bullshit Hovind is flogging to his victims.

So, no, Hovibd would not pay the money he never set aside for this challenge he never intended to make a fair evaluation of science.

I also feel that attacking Hovind's character is something the people who consider themselves among the faithful should be doing.
He's an obvious fraud and a criminal, and everyone who defends him is either part of his scam, or willing to overlook quite a bit of evidence just to tty to preserve the anti-evolutionary stance they want to be true.

 

[Underseer]

Sure. Theistic evolution vs young earth creationism debates are very interesting.
Of course both sides agree that God plays a causal role. [...]

If you are a young Earth creationist, what is your evidence for god creating the universe/life? What is your evidence for a young universe?

If theistic evolution, then what is your evidence for god influencing evolution?

How do you know the universe wasn't created by the Hindu gods? I mean, if you don't need evidence for any of your claims, then why should we demand evidence of any of the claims of any other religion? If your best explanation is "How else do you explain it?" then you have nothing supporting your claim. Otherwise, you have to accept the Space Goat explanation.

This would harmonize with the appearance of the Earth itself 'spontaneously' bringing forth life.

Don't make us explain argument from ignorance fallacies to you yet again. No one owes you an alternate explanation. If you want to claim that god created life, you have to provide evidence of god creating life. If you cannot provide evidence of your god creating life, then you have no basis for stating that as a truth.

 

[whollygoats]

How do you know the universe wasn't created by the Hindu gods? I mean, if you don't need evidence for any of your claims, then why should we demand evidence of any of the claims of any other religion? If your best explanation is "How else do you explain it?" then you have nothing supporting your claim. Otherwise, you have to accept the Space Goat explanation.

You cite that like it's a bad thing....

 

[Underseer]

How do you know the universe wasn't created by the Hindu gods? I mean, if you don't need evidence for any of your claims, then why should we demand evidence of any of the claims of any other religion? If your best explanation is "How else do you explain it?" then you have nothing supporting your claim. Otherwise, you have to accept the Space Goat explanation.

You cite that like it's a bad thing....

Something unprovable cannot be good nor bad.

 

[Lion IRC]

Don't make us explain argument from ignorance fallacies to you yet again.

No need to splain stuff to us. We don't argue from ignorance. We have our rational conclusions in hand. Atheists are the ones who are ignorant - atheism of the gaps.

No one owes you an alternate explanation

We don't need an alternate explanation. We never asked you for one. You can relax.

 

[Juma]

Don't make us explain argument from ignorance fallacies to you yet again.

No need to splain stuff to us. We don't argue from ignorance. We have our rational conclusions in hand. Atheists are the ones who are ignorant - atheism of the gaps.

No one owes you an alternate explanation

We don't need an alternate explanation. We never asked you for one. You can relax.

”Atheism of the gaps”??? Do you even know what ”of the gaps” expression means?

 

[Lion IRC]

No. I just wrote it because it sounded like a zinger.

Deep down I know that atheism doesn't represent a knowledge 'gap'. It's a fully formed substantial worldview backed by overwhelming evidence and reason.

 

[phands]

”Atheism of the gaps”??? Do you even know what ”of the gaps” expression means?

LIRC shamelessly stole the "gaps" comment from Atheists, as gawd is being forced into smaller and smaller gaps as science disproves claim after claim. As for claiming rationality...well that's just preposterous, given what god-botherers believe in the face of evidence to the contrary.