31 Jan 15
Originally posted by RJHindsI did see the video. Kent Hovind is serving a ten year prison sentence after being convicted of 58 federal counts of fraud, tax evasion, obstruction of justice etc. Perhaps this does not speak well for his credibility, or for your judgement in choosing him as an example.
If you have never seen the following video please take the time. He explains the definition of evolution that we accept and those that we do not.
100 Reasons Why Evolution Is STUPID! - Kent Hovind Christian Creationist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8DDIe_2cHM
Originally posted by catstormTo me those convictions do not bother me since the apostles Paul and Peter spent time in prison too. I do not know the details of Hovind's convictions so that is another matter. What did you think of the video? Any questions?
I did see the video. Kent Hovind is serving a ten year prison sentence after being convicted of 58 federal counts of fraud, tax evasion, obstruction of justice etc. Perhaps this does not speak well for his credibility, or for your judgement in choosing him as an example.
By the way, Jesus was convicted also and sentenced to death by crucifixion. That takes nothing away from His credibility to me.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
31 Jan 15
Originally posted by RJHindsIf a political activist is arrested, convicted in a show trial, and imprisoned/executed
To me those convictions do not bother me since the apostles Paul and Peter spent time in prison too. I do not know the details of Hovind's convictions so that is another matter. What did you think of the video? Any questions?
By the way, Jesus was convicted also and sentenced to death by crucifixion. That takes nothing away from His credibility to me.
by a totalitarian regime...
Then the fact that the activist was arrested/convicted probably won't/shouldn't
effect their followers to question their arguments/motives/ect...
However, when someone in a modern civilised [ish] western democracy is convicted and
imprisoned for fraud [basically lying to people to steal their money] then that does/should
throw legitimate doubt over their honesty and credibility.
And thus any position or argument they have made, that is based on their opinion/credibility/or
endorsement, is also thrown into [greater] doubt.
Particularly if you want to convince doubting outsiders it thus becomes sensible to find someone
more credible to make your point... OR if the arguments stand on their own merits, you make
those arguments yourself.
31 Jan 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeThat seems like an ad hominem attack to me and not a valid argument against anything he said concerning evolution and creation.
If a political activist is arrested, convicted in a show trial, and imprisoned/executed
by a totalitarian regime...
Then the fact that the activist was arrested/convicted probably won't/shouldn't
effect their followers to question their arguments/motives/ect...
However, when someone in a modern civilised [ish] western democracy is convicted a ...[text shortened]... our point... OR if the arguments stand on their own merits, you make
those arguments yourself.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
31 Jan 15
Originally posted by RJHindsNo.
That seems like an ad hominem attack to me and not a valid argument against anything he said concerning evolution and creation.
An ad hominem would be if someone argued
"He's been convicted of fraud,
Therefore: everything he said about evolution is wrong."
That is a formal logical argument that fails because it is an ad hominem.
It claims that what he says is wrong BECAUSE he said it.
That is not what we are saying.
What is being argued here is something like this:
He has been convicted by a court of law of multiple counts of serious fraud [10 year sentence].
Fraud involves deceiving people and lying to them, to gain an advantage [usually money],
by gaining peoples trust and then abusing that trust, making the fraudster untrustworthy.
It is foolish to trust the word of someone who is untrustworthy.
He is a fraudster and thus untrustworthy.
Therefore: as he has been convicted of fraud, and fraudsters are untrustworthy, and it's
foolish to trust people who are untrustworthy, it would be foolish to trust his word.
This is not an ad hominem attack because it doesn't claim that what he says is wrong.
It says that he has proven to be untrustworthy and thus his claims require extra scrutiny.
Given that you are having a hard enough time convincing us you're right, sending us to a
person who is known to be untrustworthy and thus will make us extra cautious does not
seem to be in your best interests in presenting your case.
01 Feb 15
I agree with googlefudge( great name ) that the fraud-related convictions do speak against Hovind's credibility, no matter what his qualifications. About that, Hovind seems to have no scientific credentials at all, but only degrees in Christian Education from unacreditted schools. His so-called dissertation , which he claimed had twenty-five chapters, really only had four, and was sprinkled with spelling and gramatical errors! The video was not the worst I have seen, but I would need more than that to overturn the scientific establishment.
01 Feb 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeGiving extra scrutiny to what he said on evolution and creation is not what you are doing. You are discounting it all based only on federal convictions of illegal actions and not scientific facts. Whether or not he tried to swindle the federal government out of tax money does not mean his arguments against evolution are invalid.
No.
An ad hominem would be if someone argued [b]
"He's been convicted of fraud,
Therefore: everything he said about evolution is wrong."
That is a formal logical argument that fails because it is an ad hominem.
It claims that what he says is wrong BECAUSE he said it.
That is not what we are saying.
What is being argued here is somethi ...[text shortened]... ill make us extra cautious does not
seem to be in your best interests in presenting your case.[/b]
Originally posted by catstormI do not expect you to substitue Mr. Hovind's judgement for your own. I was only expecting you to give a more intelligent and logical reason why he is wrong on what he has said in the video concerning evolution. Neither you nor Mr. Googlefudge have even made any attempt to do that.
I am a professional biologist who has spent years studying and handling the evidence and fossils that you sniff at. No, I am not going to substitute Mr. Hovind's judgement for my own.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by RJHindsIn science, it is not up to the reviewers to prove submitted papers (assertions) wrong. It is up to the submitter (asserter) to prove them right. What is his claim and what has he submitted as proof?
I do not expect you to substitue Mr. Hovind's judgement for your own. I was only expecting you to give a more intelligent and logical reason why he is wrong on what he has said in the video concerning evolution. Neither you nor Mr. Googlefudge have even made any attempt to do that.
01 Feb 15
I will leave the rest of this discussion in other people' capable hands.RJHinds, honestly, until you offered the unqualified liar and thief Hovind as a presenter of scientific information I thought you were serious. Holy! Holy! Holy! Let us hope that Hovind will not drop the soap.
01 Feb 15
Originally posted by JS357If you were really interested you would have looked at his videos. 😏
In science, it is not up to the reviewers to prove submitted papers (assertions) wrong. It is up to the submitter (asserter) to prove them right. What is his claim and what has he submitted as proof?
01 Feb 15
Originally posted by catstormObviously you are unable to refute him. 😏
I will leave the rest of this discussion in other people' capable hands.RJHinds, honestly, until you offered the unqualified liar and thief Hovind as a presenter of scientific information I thought you were serious. Holy! Holy! Holy! Let us hope that Hovind will not drop the soap.
01 Feb 15
Thou shalt not steal. Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis has refuted this thief more effectively than I can. I gave you Billy Graham and all you can scrape up is a crook for whom other creationists have even more contempt than I do? You would only respond the way you always do. "It depends on what your definition of 'refute' is". Liar and thief Kent Hovind? You can not possibly be serious. Of the fraction of 1 % of scientists who reject evolution the best you can do is the fraudster Kent Hovind? The evolutionists will rest easy tonight. I can't wait to tell my students. Kent Hovind???