... on Hovind - Ross Debate, for Four Videos

Series:

1) Creation vs. Evolution : Can Evolutionists be a Laughing Stock?
2) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Age of Earth video's by Kent Hovind
3) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Chaplains vs Councellors and on Creation vs Evolution (feat. Kent Hovind)
4) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Hovind's Dissertation Not as Bad as its Critics on Rational Wiki Think
5) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Hovind - Ross Debate, for Four Videos
6) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on History being Kent Hovind's Weaker Subject
7) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Kent Hovind's supposed failure in Carbon Dating Subject

video

Kent Hovind vs Hugh Ross (part 1, disc 1 of 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNuHuG517lI

Hans-Georg Lundahl

two comments of mine against Hugh Ross' points:

I

When Hugh Ross says that "to have planets and stars, we need to have a universe expanding for billions of years" he is basically claiming to know the laws of creation as its creator knows them from the six days or initial singularity. Rather than - big difference - as we deduce them from the things they normally result in.

That is putting in a naturalistic and non-Christian principle into the interpretaion of the evidence.

II

Hugh Ross mentions modern evidence for parallax reached by virtually combining telescopes all over earth to a gigantic telescope.

But - not so fast - the two largest observed parallaxes are backwards.

And that is not possible if parallax is what they claim it to be. If earth were spinning around sun, it would only be spinning one way and stars would only seem to spin one opposite way - not some very clearly same way, as two largest "parallaxes" do.

video

Kent Hovind vs Hugh Ross (part 2, disc 1 of 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWJPHSY63Gw

Pat Doyle

Description of Pat Doyle: Now that I am an ordained minister, I thought I'd create Atheistic Ministries. Still a snarky, satirical and sometimes serious look at the sad state of reason in America.

His actual comment here:

I love Hovind's position - if it is hard to understand, it can't be true. I have a really simple fairy tale that anyone can understand, so let's all just believe that.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It is more like, if the key witness - he supposes like Hugh Ross and me there is one - expresses his witness, it ought to be clear.

Some people think rather "if it is hard to follow the proofs, the professors must have been clever to have followed them, so let us believe the professors to pretend we are as clever as they are."

Pat Doyle

The problem is that the Bible is not clear (as it should be if a god wrote it). However, I have studied electronics and nuclear physics for nuclear power - these were not simple subjects, but they are correct - they work. If you pretend to believe a professor when you don't understand, that's dumb too. But, one can test if something is MORE LIKELY to be true by looking at it's predictive power even when don't understand it. Like quantum physics - I feel it is likely to be true because it works.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Yes, that is one thing where the difference between "operative" and "reconstructive" science comes in.

Unlike Heliocentric reconstructions like parallax of what happens far off (and unseen, unfelt with us), unlike Evolutionary reconstructions of distant past, there are theories which have at least certain testable and applicable sides.

Electronics and Nuclear physics come to mind.

Rory MacCormack

"You're wrong with this and here's two papers that prove it". Hovind's response: "I just don't believe you". To the vast majority of the American people, saying "trigonometry", "lightyear" and then "I don't believe you" is enough. Two weird words secure his credibility, then he brings it to a level that every idiot agrees with. "Give him money, honey, he doesn't make us feel dumb".

Hans-Georg Lundahl (answered by 1 Rory and 2 Pat)

And some people respond with "put him in gaol to wail, the fact he disproves what we were taught makes me feel dumb about believing it in the first place."

Some people feel dumb about the taxes they pay for science like the one proposed by Hugh Ross, unless they can be certain it is true, and therefore hate the one who challenges it.

1 Rory MacCormack

Pretty sure he was jailed by the Government for failing to pay income tax. And the US Government is largely Christian and would presumably condone his work anyway?

That aside, he disproves nothing. He's a salesman praying on the insecurity, desperation, and often stupidity of the average American Christian citizen. If he did what he did in Europe he'd be laughed out of the building.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

US Government is largely Masonic, and when nominally Christian usually Evolutionist.

It is not likely to condone his work any more than Rob Skiba's or when Lyndon LaRouche as well as Hovind challenge the ethics of Georgia Guide Stones.

He disproves a lot, but if you are too evolutionist to see that, too bad for you.

I am in Europe, they have quit innocent smiles and started campaigns. Some of which probably with reference to Hovind's case.

Rory MacCormack

I think you should reevaluate what proof is.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You are wrong there.

About me that is. But maybe you should. Pretty certainly MrBlonday should.

You know the comment in which he resumes one part of the dialogue as:

"ross:'*proof proff proof proof proof proof'

hovind:'wrong, the god i worship said this which must mean it's true with ABSOLUTELY NO speculation or evidence of anything what so ever'"

That is not what was said, and Ross does not become more "proof" because that is how he is resumed, nor Hovind less because of MrB's resumé.

2 Pat Doyle

Oh yes, I hate Hovind - but not because he challenges my beliefs - he is no challenge. I hate him because he lies to gullible people. I hate him for pretending to be a "doctor" (he bought his Phd for $100 from a diploma mill) and that he was a high school science teacher - he wasn't. He set up a home-schooling program with his fake Phd in "religious education". Then he cheated on his taxes, after having some brushes with the law for assault. He is a low-life con man, That's why I hate him.

[Note that the words about cheating on taxes are Pat Doyle's, not mine.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl (two parts which Pat answers separately below)

I actually looked up the links about his dissertation.

Rational wiki has an article about it.

I have not accessed the dissertation so far, but I have accessed the rational wiki article. Whoever wrote it included people as little meriting PhD's as Hovind, or less.

As it was in history of ideas, and as Hovind is a Protestant, I am surprised he did not make worse.

I do not count myself as gullible because I like Hovind's reasonings and debunkings of fake Old Earth "science".

Lyndon LaRouche was also in gaol for cheating on taxes.

That is why I do not trust the details of the charges.

I found a link supposedly to "58 felonies" earning him ten years.

I found no such list there and it linked in turn to pages no longer existing.

Pat Doyle (to first part of above)

Well, then you should listen to some real scientists then. Hell, my science education does not go beyond the Bachelor's level, and a lot of reading in the years since, but even I laughed uproariously the first time I saw Kent's sideshow. I tried to take some notes but literally could not keep up with the lies, distortions, misrepresentations and logical fallacies that he spewed like a mini-gun spews rounds. Seriously - the man is a clown with no scientific credentials.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sorry, but the logical fallacies are on the side of evolutionists and heliocentrics.

Pat Doyle

That's a nice assertion, but false. However, if you are a geocentrist as well as a YEC, then you are likely beyond hope. However, you might want to look at the "geocentrism debunked" series. I was surprised at first that anyone would bother to do such an excellent, detailed series on such a laughable subject, but I've since learned that there actually are people who need it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

What user?

I'd be glad to do some debunking on it!

Oh, I used a search on the phrase (not finding a series on it) and the first called Geocentrism debunked in a minute was cowardly enough to have approval of comments before publishing, and when he had answered a point of one commentator, he had understood it wrong.

Thanks for giving me a chance to smile at a bungler!

Pat Doyle (on second part of above)

Hovind did not even file taxes in 1995, 96, 97. He paid workers "under the table" to avoid paying FICA taxes, he carefully made many cash withdrawals in the amount of $9,900 to avoid the automatic reporting of withdrawals of $10,000+. Now, since I am not sure just how bright he is, it is possible that he is the victim of bad advice. He is known to have consulted Glenn Stoll, a promoter of several tax avoidance schemes, but he was guilty and his final defense was laughable.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

He might have felt something like taxes being used for unconstitutional as well as immoral purposes?

[Note my question mark.]

I can't believe that alone adds up to ten years.

[I would not want to speak falsehoods of what Kent Hovind was convicted for. Here is his son's story:

ppsimmons : Kent Hovind STILL In Prison - Son Speaks Out In Personal One-on-One with PPSIMMONS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GADfTc_j9Y]

MrBlonday

ross:"*proof proff proof proof proof proof"

hovind:"wrong, the god i worship said this which must mean it's true with ABSOLUTELY NO speculation or evidence of anything what so ever"

Hans-Georg Lundahl

ross - with telescopes all over the earth, we can measure angles less than one ten thousandth of an arc second

hovind - you do not convince me you can measure angles less than one ten thousandth of an arc second, it makes a very skinny triangle, you will have to convince me

what you bring up as his sole answer is just the third item of his answer

Of course I sympathise with Kent Hovinds point about a very skinny triangle.

I think measuring with absolute certainty an angle like 0.76 arc seconds (the parallax for four light years away, closest star in that ideology) is possibly beyond human capacity.

It is two lines crossing each other at centre of earth and surfacing at a distance of about 30 yards or little more.

video

Kent Hovind vs Hugh Ross (part 3, disc 1 of 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zo5C95v7-aY

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I

One wrong for Kent: The only thing God wrote with His own fingers [Ten Commandments God write for Moses] ... sure that that was what Jesus wrote in the sand?

II

Exegetics of "there was evening and there was morning" ...

The order for each day of the six is:

1) God's work for the day

2) "there was evening"

3) night, in which God does nothing

4) "and there was morning, the nth day" = end of the day, scene set for next day's work.

"First day" is actually called "one day", but that seems to be for grammatical reasons.

No closure on day seven ... maybe because that was when the evening started to belong to the following day?

III

James Barr was a Professor in Hebrew, and he said all such upheld that the authors of Genesis meant 6*24 hours or something closely similar.

Hugh Ross says the guys he meets in Seminaries are all agreed they mean long periods of time.

Sorry, but most people he meets at seminaries are not professors of Hebrew, they are Seminarians, i e future priests or clergymen or pastors.

It's like "no oranges are green", and "you are wrong, plenty of apples are green". Hugh Ross, points off on credibility!

Other discrepancy, James Barr (cited by Kent Hovind) spoke about professors at world class univeristies, and Hugh Ross speaks about Semaniares and campuses where he speaks - sure he was in Oxford and Cambridge and Harvard and Ivy League and Sorbonne all that much?

I am not.

IV

Day like a thousand years.

Adam died the same "day" = "millennium" in which he ate the apple.

The traditional exegesis on that one.

video

Kent Hovind vs Hugh Ross (part 4, disc 1 of 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obVYL-vi20U

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Hovind, what did you just say about the God you worship and readers knowing Hebrew not mattering for them understanding if they can access translation?

You are of course absolutely right, but that has two corrolaries:

• about Church (and not an Anglo-Scottish king James VI & I) being guaranteed the ability from God to provide right translations, when it really matters
  
  
• about Zwingli's take on Christ's words on the Last Supper.

Are you a Catholic? Sounds Catholic to me, if you go on!

Skulmaker90

It really upsets me that Hovind repeatedly tries to commit the fallacies of Ad Populum and Ad Hominem Abusive, in that he both appeals to the population as "Most people would say this is what the bible says" and a personal attack in that "I just want to point out that you don't actually know hebrew" and "I've read most of your books so i know to check out what you REALLY mean" It simply undermines his credibility completely and makes his argument weaker.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ad Populum is not a fallacy.

"I just want to point out you do not know Hebrew" is putting it gently. What he says about qa'l perfect is true of any perfect. Qa'l vs Pi'el and Hitpa'el are not about time or tense but about intensity or reflexivity or activity or passivity (qa'l being the simplest active), and perfects sometimes can be translated as pluperfect, but why did not LXX or St Jerome ever do so for "had made the sun" instead of "made the sun" if that was true?

I do not know Hebrew either by the way, ma studied it at University, and I know what status constructus is and how perfect and imperfect work.

It was Qa'l, Pi'el, Hitpa'el, Nif'al, Hif'il and in total 15 of them which scared me off from trying to learn Hebrew.

Skulmaker90

If you took the 2 seconds to google the term "Ad Populum" you would see that it is indeed a fallacy and I am not educated in the ways of Hebrew so I cannot argue the point of what was said in the original text.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ad Populum is not a fallacy when it comes to deciding points of grammar or to understand what a text is conveying. At least the most obvious of it.

I can say that if "perfect" here had meant "past action previous to the rest of the verse", translators should have chosen a translation with meaning of "previous action" as opposed to simply "past action".

And I know St Jerome for making of "great lights" has fecitque, not feceratque. Nor luminariis magnis factis. Past action in told in sequence.

MoveOrder

I think it's pretty obvious that the priests and other scholars who wrote the Bible believed that 1 day = sunrise and sunset.

In everything else Hugh Ross is right and he completely owns poor Kent.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You have just made a point meaning that Hugh Ross is incompatible with Genesis being a Revelation from God - and that Kent's standpoint does not produce such incompatibilty.

By the way, your p o v is pretty much that of James Barr, cited by Kent Hovind back in part three. He believed Bible became inspired in later parts, like Gospel, but not back in Genesis.

Travis Lawrence

Ross: We know this, we have many ways to prove this.

Hovind: I don't believe you.

Just because something is complicated doesn't mean it is wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ever heard of The Emperor's New Clothes by H.C.Anderson?