• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Micheal Shermer vs Kent Hovind

Joined
Jan 14, 2005
Messages
581
This is a debate betrween Micheal Shermer vs Kent Hovind. They are debating Evolution vs Creationism.

This is a 75 megabyte file, those with modem connections, have patience.

Here's the deal, to view this debate, download it first before viewing. Right - click on the link below, select "save file as" and you should be able to download it.
This is a personal ftp server, I will leave it on for as long as I can.

If the ftp should go down, the link will be disconnected and you will not be able to download the file. Send me a PM and I will provide info for you to gain access to the ftp server.

Hovind vs Shermer Debate
 
I've watched it. Shermer eradicates Hovind completely.

Shermer starts with pointing out that all Hovind has is "I don't get it, so God dunnit!"

And then Hovind proves him right. :D
 
It just sits there doing nothing :(

Isn't 169.254.*.* an internal IP? I was actually just trying to PM you. Speedy response time!

Ya could always email it: cleanunderpants@yahoo.co.nz
I could see about hosting it somewhere.
 
Chocolate Chip said:
This is a debate betrween Micheal Shermer vs Kent Hovind. They are debating Evolution vs Creationism.

This is a 75 megabyte file, those with modem connections, have patience.

Here's the deal, to view this debate, download it first before viewing. Right - click on the link below, select "save file as" and you should be able to download it.

I get a message saying the operation timed out.
 
It work wont. Its an internal IP address, with a faulty /../.
Email it to me chocolate chip. I'll see if I can find a server. If not I'll host it on my own box for a hour or two.
 
DavoMan said:
It work wont. Its an internal IP address, with a faulty /../.
Email it to me chocolate chip. I'll see if I can find a server. If not I'll host it on my own box for a hour or two.
Ummm... I've checked the log file and it's telling that the file has been downloaded 29 times. A total of 625 megs.
I will send it to you, but it's a 75 meg file. Is your email account large enough to handle it?

Is anyone else having problems??
Please let me know, if there is, we can try and find a better way to post this.
 
OK, I think I've got the problem resolved. Davo was right about the ip. It's been corrected. Here is a new link for those of you interested:

Shermer vs Hovind

If there are anymore problems let me know.
I will also post this in a new thread.
 
Awesome. Cheers chocolate. This will provide some evening entertainment.
 
I love listening to Dr. Kent.... he's "scary stupid".

Thanks for the link.

"Evolution is the dumbest and most dangerous idea in the history of the world! Evolution theory leads straight to Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, abortion, communism, Marxism, rejection of logic, and Hell if you don't trust Christ!"

"But I'm not anti-Evolutionist"
 
This is the first time that I've seen Hovind speak. He tries to knock down the evolution points of debate, yet he doesn't provide solid evidence to back up his creationist view. He is mainly quoting from the bible and offering up opinions as to how evolution cannot work, yet no evidence as to how creationism works.
As far as points on presenting facts to support the arguements go, I think Shermer won.
In my opinion, Hovind does present his oratorial skills very well. Even if most of what he says is crap, the way he says it is impressive, AFAIC.
I also think Hovind is rather sneaky in trying to create a "role reversal", in which he calls himself the skeptic, and that he is all for science, whereas Shermer isn't being skeptical because he is not questioning the evolution viewpoint.

edited to add comment
 
Chocolate Chip said:
This is the first time that I've seen Hovind speak. He tries to knock down the evolution points of debate, yet he doesn't provide solid evidence to back up his creationist view.

That is what creationists do. And sadly, it's often a very effective tatic. That doesn't mean what they say makes any sort of scientific sense. It just means they manage to raise doubt among the casual observer.
 
Frankly, I was disappointed that his patent drivel wasn't more effectively demolished during the 2 hours - his points were still being applauded near the end. He is brilliantly glib and disingenuous. Why not just concentrate on his most ridiculous assertion, that the earth is only 6,000 years old, and bring incontrovertable evidence to bear on that point. The whole edifice must then collapse. Even among devout Christians I find it difficult to believe many seriously embrace this ridiculous notion.
I also didn't like the format which made it too easy for him to ignore issues like the obvious contradictions in the Bible, which wouldn't be so easy if they were permitted a direct dialogue. Reminiscent of the Presidential Debates which were fatally emasculated by mutual consent.
 

Back
Top Bottom