Open Forums for ExChristian.Net [Powered by Invision Power Board]

Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format

Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Debating with Christians > Results of debating with Hovites

Posted by: Asimov Nov 12 2004, 01:41 AM

This could accurately describe dealing with someone who brings up Hovind to me.

Posted by: Mr. Neil Nov 12 2004, 02:10 AM

I'll never forget the first time I came across a Hovindite. I hadn't even heard of Kent Hovind yet, but I was absolutely blown away by how ignorant these people are.
They may have Hovind's tactics, but they don't have his resources. Debating Hovind is an uphill battle, even for the most educated of people. He covers his bullshit with his extraordinary knowledge of useless (and often distorted) facts, which he uses in order to sound like he's just overwhelming everyone with information.
However, he's got his followers so confused, that they're the most astonishingly easy people to refute.

The reason is that Hovind will only do hit-and-run live debates, where he can machine-gun audiences with his bullshit. When you can talk fast and run faster, sure it looks like you've made your point. There isn't nearly enough time in a standard debate to address each of Hovind's lies and expose the heinous misrepresentation of facts that he offers.
But his followers run into problems when they take this shit to the internet, where evolutionists have the opportunity to check their facts. The internet gives us the time that people like Massimo Pigliucci and Michael Shermer don't have in a two-hour debate. We can actually debunk Hovind's crap on a point-by-point basis.

My favorite is "Evolution teaches that you come from a rock". I love proving that one wrong by simply pointing to practically every evolution resource in which the origin of life is clearly not part of the theory.
The other way I attack this classic Hovindism is to ask them what they mean by "rocks". They talk about rocks as if rock itself is an element (Rockium, perhaps?) in which there is nothing molecularly in common with biological lifeforms.
As if there aren't other things in rock, such as proteins, minerals, or acids.

I also love "dogs don't produce non-dogs". Why, what a positively absurd claim. Hovindites don't realize that when they make such a claim, it's up to them to define precisely what a dog is (or for that matter, a "kind"). And where are they getting these arbitrary lines that they're drawing between different animal groups?
What creationists don't have is a testable and demonstratable example of what a kind is. They can't seem to do this.
Besides, transitional fossils disprove that argument, because there are more than enough transitions between animals that Hovind would obviously not consider part of the same kind. Terrestrial fossils that show morphology into whales, for example.
The Hovind tactic... pretend that transitional fossils don't exist. No matter how far Neil goes to show them.

You know... I often make light of Hovind's obsession with bananas, but he's always talking about dogs, too. "Dogs don't produce non-dogs." What is his obsession with bananas and dogs?
Perhaps I've found the connection...

Posted by: Fweethawt Nov 12 2004, 02:42 AM

QUOTE (Mr. Neil @ Nov 12 2004, 05:10 AM)

I also love "dogs don't produce non-dogs". Why, what a positively absurd claim. Hovindites don't realize that when they make such a claim, it's up to them to define precisely what a dog is (or for that matter, a "kind"). And where are they getting these arbitrary lines that they're drawing between different animal groups?
What creationists don't have is a testable and demonstratable example of what a kind is. They can't seem to do this.
Besides, transitional fossils disprove that argument, because there are more than enough transitions between animals that Hovind would obviously not consider part of the same kind. Terrestrial fossils that show morphology into whales, for example.
The Hovind tactic... pretend that transitional fossils don't exist. No matter how far Neil goes to show them.

You know... I often make light of Hovind's obsession with bananas, but he's always talking about dogs, too. "Dogs don't produce non-dogs." What is his obsession with bananas and dogs?
Perhaps I've found the connection...
user posted image

Nobody could have said it better.....

Posted by: fortunehooks Nov 12 2004, 01:28 PM

the picture is a classic,neil.

i don't have the patience to really fuck around with hovindites.

in the above comic,it really seems that way.

Posted by: Mr. Neil Nov 18 2004, 03:12 AM

One of the neat ways to get Hovindites to squirm is to inform them that their leader fully admits that creationism isn't scientific. Hovind's tactic is to say that both creationism and evolution are beyond the realm of science and therefore neither should be taught in public schools.
Of course, this contradicts the title of Hovind's website, Creation Science Evangelism, but it's really fun to watch the Hovindites squirm under that revelation. They're so committed to calling creationism science that they always seem to miss that little detail. This of course forces them to go against the holy word of Hovind.

Posted by: Reach Nov 18 2004, 06:05 AM

QUOTE (fortunehooks @ Nov 12 2004, 12:28 PM)

the picture is a classic,neil.

Thanks for the photo, Dr. Neil. It's a keeper.

Looks like my little pug dressed up for Halloween...

QUOTE (Mr. Neil @ Nov 18 2004, 02:12 AM)

[Hovindites are] so committed to calling creationism science that they always seem to miss that little detail. This of course forces them to go against the holy word of Hovind.

In the long run it is far more dangerous to adhere to illusion than to face what the actual fact is. ~David Bohm

Posted by: MonkeyBoy Nov 18 2004, 08:54 AM

Over at evcforum.net, a fan of Kent's will occasionally post a hit and run; but the people over there have the patience of a saint. They calmly refute Kent's points, and the fan will sometimes return to copy and paste half of Kent's website.
Again, each point will be refuted, but they don not listen.

QUOTE

I also love "dogs don't produce non-dogs".

I have heard this, and usually answer with "If a dog gave birth to a cat, that would suceed in disproving evolution."

They do not want to know; they think that posting a hit and run, they will expose us to some new information that we have never seen, fall to our collective knees and cry out to Jesus.

Assclowns.

Posted by: mrtruth Nov 18 2004, 11:10 AM

LOL!!!

I love the word ASSCLOWN.

Posted by: Mr. Neil Nov 18 2004, 12:19 PM

QUOTE (MonkeyBoy @ Nov 18 2004, 10:54 AM)

I have heard this, and usually answer with "If a dog gave birth to a cat, that would suceed in disproving evolution."

That's a good point. Hovind's challenge to see a dog produce a non-dog reveals that he is either tremendously misinformed or willfully ignorant.

QUOTE

They do not want to know; they think that posting a hit and run, they will expose us to some new information that we have never seen, fall to our collective knees and cry out to Jesus.

I know. It's like, "Oh golly gee. We've never heard this arguments before. We better start praying to Jesus right quick!"
The problem with the Hovindites is that they listen to Kent's distorted caricature of evolution, which is a complete lie. They essentially argue against a theory that doesn't exist. And it's not just the Hovindites, but literally all the creationists.
I would truly be impressed if I could meet one creationist who could address the theory of evolution without making a strawman. If evolution says A, and the creationists argue against it as if it says B, then I'm not going to be moved by their arguments. Period.

QUOTE

Assclowns.

Bitchwhores.

Posted by: MonkeyBoy Nov 18 2004, 03:09 PM

QUOTE

Yeah, it's easy to refute any argument if the argument is a freakin' strawman!

QUOTE

Bitchwhores

Fuckwits

Posted by: Fweethawt Nov 19 2004, 04:06 AM

QUOTE (MonkeyBoy @ Nov 18 2004, 06:09 PM)

QUOTE

Bitchwhores

Fuckwits

Butt-pickle

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Nov 19 2004, 10:12 AM

QUOTE (Fweethawt @ Nov 19 2004, 03:06 AM)

QUOTE (MonkeyBoy @ Nov 18 2004, 06:09 PM)

QUOTE

Bitchwhores

Fuckwits

Butt-pickle

Butt-pickle! Ha!

Kind of like a sour-puss?

Posted by: Fweethawt Nov 20 2004, 02:27 AM

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Nov 19 2004, 01:12 PM)

QUOTE (Fweethawt @ Nov 19 2004, 03:06 AM)

QUOTE (MonkeyBoy @ Nov 18 2004, 06:09 PM)

QUOTE

Bitchwhores

Fuckwits

Butt-pickle

Butt-pickle! Ha!

Kind of like a sour-puss?