Dr. GH ... Hovind v. Shermer

[Jorge]

I'm starting this thread because I wish to distance myself from BillyBob's thread in which he continues to make accusations of "lying" despite having been warned. I predict ol' BillyBob's days are numbered here at TWeb IF he doesn't mend his ways soon.

************************************************************************************************

Originally posted by Dr.GH
I was attending the Kent Hovind v. Mike Schermer "debate" a few years ago. Every time Hovind lied, I said quitely "He just lied" or "He lied again, " or "That is another Lie," or "Doesn't any one care about lies?"

I was threatened with arrest. But the threats were also lies made by Hovind bully boys. I chalenged them to try to "arrest" me since they were merely punk Taliban who were on MY campus at MY university where I was FACULTY and they were not even on the campus with any legal status.

I demanded that they call the campus police or shut their mouths.

They went away.

Shermer did a miserable job because he had clearly not bothered to study the typical, constant lies promoted by Hovind. These lies are in every single video Hovind sold. It is too perfect that Hovind will spend the next 8.5 years (minimum) in jail just like the major Mafia crooks, not for their major crimes but for income tax fraud.

*****************************************************************************************************

I have several video tapes of Hovind v Shermer debates and, based on the evidence on those tapes, I challenge your vile, false accusations.

The fact that you're a rabid, blind, fanatical anti-YEC immediately suggests that your claims of "He just lied" or "He lied again" should not be taken at face value. Too bad they didn't 'arrest' you -- time behind bars may have done you some good (although I doubt it).

BTW, I'm not going to say that "Shermer lied", but Shermer has got to be amongst the stooopidest persons that I've seen. Unquestionably, stooopidity is a prerequisite for abandoning Christ and subscribing to materialistic Naturalism.

Jorge

[Barry Desborough]

I'm starting this thread because I wish to distance myself from BillyBob's thread in which he continues to make accusations of "lying" despite having been warned. I predict ol' BillyBob's days are numbered here at TWeb IF he doesn't mend his ways soon.

************************************************************************************************

Originally posted by Dr.GH

I was attending the Kent Hovind v. Mike Schermer "debate" a few years ago. Every time Hovind lied, I said quitely "He just lied" or "He lied again, " or "That is another Lie," or "Doesn't any one care about lies?"

I was threatened with arrest. But the threats were also lies made by Hovind bully boys. I chalenged them to try to "arrest" me since they were merely punk Taliban who were on MY campus at MY university where I was FACULTY and they were not even on the campus with any legal status.

I demanded that they call the campus police or shut their mouths.

They went away.

Shermer did a miserable job because he had clearly not bothered to study the typical, constant lies promoted by Hovind. These lies are in every single video Hovind sold. It is too perfect that Hovind will spend the next 8.5 years (minimum) in jail just like the major Mafia crooks, not for their major crimes but for income tax fraud.

*****************************************************************************************************

I have several video tapes of Hovind v Shermer debates and, based on the evidence on those tapes, I challenge your vile, false accusations.

The fact that you're a rabid, blind, fanatical anti-YEC immediately suggests that your claims of "He just lied" or "He lied again" should not be taken at face value. Too bad they didn't 'arrest' you -- time behind bars may have done you some good (although I doubt it).

BTW, I'm not going to say that "Shermer lied", but Shermer has got to be amongst the stooopidest persons that I've seen. Unquestionably, stooopidity is a prerequisite for abandoning Christ and subscribing to materialistic Naturalism.

Jorge

Got any transcripts?

[Jorge]

Got any transcripts?

Nope. One debate is titled How to Debate a Creationist (as you may know, Shermer wrote a book titled How to Debate a Creationist). The video of this debate lasts 2 hours and 15 minutes. It was conducted at the University of California Irvine on April 29, 2004. In this debate, Shermer makes sooooo many idiotic comments / mistakes that covering them all would be a multi-volume book in itself. Of course, those that share in Shermer's faith will likely find no fault with most of what he says. I'd be willing to bet that you would be counted amongst his flock.

Jorge

[SteveF]

Due to the astonishing lameness of my office computer, I can't watch any videos and have no sound (apart from that, and the frequent crashes, its great). However, this link apparently contains video of the debate:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1028748

[kuboes1831]

I'm starting this thread because I wish to distance myself from BillyBob's thread in which he continues to make accusations of "lying" despite having been warned. I predict ol' BillyBob's days are numbered here at TWeb IF he doesn't mend his ways soon.

************************************************************************************************[INDENT]
Originally posted by Dr.GH
I was attending the Kent Hovind v. Mike Schermer "debate" a few years ago. Every time Hovind lied, I said quitely "He just lied" or "He lied again, " or "That is another Lie," or "Doesn't any one care about lies?"

I was threatened with arrest. But the threats were also lies made by Hovind bully boys. I chalenged them to try to "arrest" me since they were merely punk Taliban who were on MY campus at MY university where I was FACULTY and they were not even on the campus with any legal status.

I demanded that they call the campus police or shut their mouths.

Jorge

Maybe they will arrest charge and convict Dr GH and he will have to share a cell with Hovind !!!

[Kulindrichnus]

I have several video tapes of Hovind v Shermer debates and, based on the evidence on those tapes, I challenge your vile, false accusations.

So you're going to challenge GH's accusations on the basis of some evidence from your videotape collection. Scrolling down I don't see it presented here yet.

BD asks if you have any transcripts and you say nope. Wouldn't the transcripts be your evidence? Why can't you make a transcript and post it, with a discussion? If you're not going to present transcripts, what evidence are you going to present?

Steve has posted links to some videos. Is there something in there that you can transcribe, and present here as evidence that shows that Hovind is not lying?

Note that I'm not saying Hovind is lying, and I'm not interested in Shermer at all. I'm interested in actually seeing the evidence on which you say you're basing the whole thread.

K

[Jorge]

Maybe they will arrest charge and convict Dr GH and he will have to share a cell with Hovind !!!

If so, Dr. GH will come out a YEC convert.

Jorge

[BillyBob]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: Sparko

Billybob accusations of lying are not a joking matter around here. You better start behaving or you won't be around long

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[Barry Desborough]

Due to the astonishing lameness of my office computer, I can't watch any videos and have no sound (apart from that, and the frequent crashes, its great). However, this link apparently contains video of the debate:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1028748

Thanks. Meanwhile, I found a video here, http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...vs+creationism

Dipping into it, I heard Hovind say, "No fossils prove evolution." I don't know whether to call that a lie, or just a totally insane statement. That's the trouble, I suppose. BBs "Lies" OP was about creationist lies, not about specific instances of individual creationists telling particular lies, i.e. creationists deliberately saying things they know to be false. The problem is that the entire sub-culture is permeated with faleshoods piled upon falsehoods. I can quite see that the individual indoctrinated grunt YEC will not be aware that his whole foundation is based on these falsehoods, and he will think he is serving the truth when he tries to pass them on or even tries to manufacture more of them. I can also see why the likes of Hovind are impervious to correction about whale evolution, for example. Omitting the pelvis from a drawing of a whale-like fossil on a website is not deception, if you know that such a pelvis could be pointed out as an item of evidence for evolution, and if you know that evolution is false. You are serving the truth by removing misleading evidence and refusing to restore it!

http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/...es/lie030.html

[Jorge]

So you're going to challenge GH's accusations on the basis of some evidence from your videotape collection. Scrolling down I don't see it presented here yet.

BD asks if you have any transcripts and you say nope. Wouldn't the transcripts be your evidence? Why can't you make a transcript and post it, with a discussion? If you're not going to present transcripts, what evidence are you going to present?

Steve has posted links to some videos. Is there something in there that you can transcribe, and present here as evidence that shows that Hovind is not lying?

Note that I'm not saying Hovind is lying, and I'm not interested in Shermer at all. I'm interested in actually seeing the evidence on which you say you're basing the whole thread.

K

(sigh ..........) Why do they allow children in here? I'd like to know!

Listen, kiddo, if someone makes an accusation then they need to present the evidence supporting that accusation. If I accuse you of lying then it is I that needs to be able to support my case by demonstrating where you lied.

You want me to first make and then refute GH's case? To act as prosecutor and then as defense? Get a life ... get a brain ... get real!

You do know what 'lying' is, yes?

Allow me to help : the fact that you or Dr. GH don't agree with something that Hovind says doesn't make it a "lie". If, OTOH, Hovind claims that he saw you three months ago walking down Main Street wearing a pink chiffon dress -- when in fact you've never done such a thing -- that would constitute a lie.

So let's see it -- real evidence of Hovind lying.

Jorge

[Viktor Scott]

Its funny - we are all to merely accept at face value anything Jorge the great posts, yet he demands some sort of 'evidence' for everything anyone else says.

Well, I sawa Hovind 'debate' several years ago. He made his usual claim (lie) about a moon rock being dated at 3 different ages. His opponant had been made aware that Kent might make that claim, and had the original papers describing what Hovind refers to - it was 2 rocks, and one rock was dated using 2 methods which produced ages within the margins of error for each method.

When it was Hovind's turn to respond, he just matrched across the stage wielding his bible and says, 'So, you're calling me a liar? Well, I know the TRUTH!' as he held his bible above his head, much to the delight of the trucked-in audience who cheered.

Not only is Hovind a liar, he is proud of his lies. He does not even try to explain himslef, because he knows he does not have to - the gullible pew-warmers will swallow anything uttered by these people without question.

Like Jorge...

[fool]

I used to have a couple of Hovinds tapes from his age of the Earth series.
But I stopped replaceing broken VCRs sometime ago so his great pearls of wisdom are now lost to time.

[Jorge]

Thanks. Meanwhile, I found a video here, http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...vs+creationism

Dipping into it, I heard Hovind say, "No fossils prove evolution." I don't know whether to call that a lie, or just a totally insane statement.

I'm going to make one -- just one -- attempt at showing you why it's absolutely true - NO fossils prove evolution (a statement that you find to be either a "lie" or "insane" and I find you to be wholly ignorant for not agreeing with it).

First, the obvious : 'proof' of this is not possible ... it may support evolution but certainly not "prove" it.

Setting that aside, suppose you go out into the field and dig up a fossil skull. You put that fossilized skull on a table and stare at it for a while. You measure it, weigh it, photograph it. Does any of this support evolution?

Nope - it doesn't do a thing for or against evolution.

Now comes the part that "supports" evolution. You begin interpreting this fossil in light of a scientific paradigm - your scientific paradigm. So you notice that this skull is similar to another skull except that the nostril opening is a few millimeters more towards the top than that other skull. [It doesn't seem to occur to you that this may be a mere variation just as the limitless variations that we observe within same species ... that aside ...]

One possibility : "Oh ... whales have their blowhole at the top and I "know" that evolution is a FACT so I may have found an ancestor to the whale .... an animal that was evolving from land into the sea ... "

The fossil skull BY ITSELF provided nothing for or against the ToE. It was only after you attached an interpretation to that fossil that it spoke for or against evolution. Of course, because of your preconceptions that fossil had no choice but to speak FOR evolution. But that's another subject.

Furthermore (related to the above) and as Kent correctly states, a fossil cannot be shown to be the ancestor of anything. For instance, suppose that the above fossil skull was the remains of a species that went extinct and left no "evolutionary descendants". For example, maybe it was a subpopulation living in a region that was totally wiped out by a volcanic eruption. Thus, that 'skull' did not have ANY descendants and did not lead to ANY evolution. This can't be proven one way or the other. If you think otherwise then show us, i.e., show us that the fossilized skull belonged to a creature that indeed had descendants and that those descendants went on to evolve into other creatures.

Bottom line : NO fossils (by themselves) "prove" evolution. It is what comes afterwards -- the 'baggage' that gets attached by people like you -- that "proves" ("supports") evolution. Kent was correct and, ahem, so am I. No "lie" or "insanity" here, BD.

If you can't grasp the above lesson, BD, (and I doubt you will) then I can't help you. I hope others 'get it'.

Jorge

[fool]

I love google.
http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...&q=Hovind+lies

[fool]

I love google.
http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...&q=Hovind+lies

I think this is my favorite

http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/...ies/index.html