• 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.

Shermer debates Dr Dino

ringo

Student
R
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
25
I was searching for some random stuff on google video, and stumbled across a very good debate with Michael Shermer and "Dr Dino" (Sorry, I forget his real name!)

It was the first real debate I've seen in this field, and it was very interesting. The search term was just "Shermer", and it's a 2hr+ debate. Dr Dino was like a robot - I've no idea how Michael Shermer has the patience to do what he does, but he handled it well and with good humour.

Incidently, searching for "Randi" returns a very interesting video of Randi debunking both Geller and Poppof. Searching for "Carl Sagan" returns a good interview of the Mr Sagan on Charlie Rose.

Anyone else have any good videos from Google video they'd like to share? :)

Ringo
 
I'm interested in getting audio material like this - I have been listening to podcasts lately. If you know of good sources, I'd like to hear.

Kent Hovind (Dr Dino) would be difficult to debate. He can spew out enough crap in five minutes that it would take five hours to explain how he's wrong, but you don't have that luxury in a debate format. And he's very practiced - he's been doing this exact same pitch for many years, and if he gets cornered in one particular area, he can quickly shift to an unrelated area.

And Michael Shermer, as a good skeptic, can sound uncertain. To a lay audience who is already pre-disposed to believe the stuff Hovind sells, Hovind is quite skilled. He's the classic fast-talking con man.
 
Kent Hovind aka Dr. Dino (lol, he's trying to get some kind of credibility by accepting the idea that dinosaurs existed, of course beyond that he rejects the remainder of the fossil record) is notable for being a d!<k. He resorts to ad hominem by claiming that no less than the entire establishment of mainstream science is a bunch of liars that are intentionally misleading the public to advance their own atheistic views. If that wasn't bad enough, his arguments are mostly straw men that completely mislead the audience about the actual views of mainstream science. The classic example of this is his argument that "you can't get from a rock to a human in 4 billion years". This is a gross missrepresentation of what mainstream science thinks about the origin of life. He's confused abiogenesis (complex chemical reactions) with spontaneous generation (flies are formed by rotting flesh rather than laying eggs in it). Then he does what every other creationist does; he mixes the big bang, abiogenesis, and evolution into one theory and calls it evolution and efutes the entire fossil record with a few examples of contaminated samples that gave false dates and trees whose roots pass through multiple geologic layers.
 
Well as far as I can tell from watching it, Dr Dino is either ignorant or a liar.
 
fsol said:
Well as far as I can tell from watching it, Dr Dino is either ignorant or a liar.
Click to expand...
If by "ignorant" you mean that he's not smart, he's pretty obviously a smart guy. If you mean that he just has not been exposed to evolution, that can't be, because he's been talking about it in detail for 15 years.

That pretty much leaves one option standing.
 
fsol said:
Well as far as I can tell from watching it, Dr Dino is either both ignorant or and a liar.
Click to expand...
Fixed for accuracy.

The truth of the situation is that Kent is just one small step away from being the next Unabomber. He has ongoing "issues" with the IRS that he sees as persecution by an atheist government hell-bent on targetting HIM ALONE and his divine mission to "Christianise" the world, from his Home Base and Operations Centre in northern Florida. It is obvious to everyone but himself that he is not even tangentially impinging on reality - he's an A-grade card-carrying tuberculin-free kOoK. Debating him is an exercise in demonstrating his ability to avoid the point, and any facts at all. The word "rationality" doesn't even appear.

So to expect him to be "de-converted" from his activities is going to need some rather strong medicine of the anti-hallucinogenic kind. And ECT too, I expect.


[edit: reely badd spel!]
 
Last edited:
CurtC said:
If by "ignorant" you mean that he's not smart, he's pretty obviously a smart guy. If you mean that he just has not been exposed to evolution, that can't be, because he's been talking about it in detail for 15 years.

That pretty much leaves one option standing.
Click to expand...

Well I was just chucking his own words back at him by posting them here where no doubt he will see them...umm...right.
 
To plagarize and mangle a quote I saw somewhere else:

Debating with "Dr." Dino is akin to playing poker with monkeys who think they win if they eat the cards.
 
[swiki]Kent Hovind[/swiki] --- completely ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ crazy.

Creationism is the least of his mental problems.

The globalist, the Council of the Committee of Three Hundred, has as one of their goals to reduce the world population from six billion to one-half billion people. There are too many people here that cannot be controlled; so get rid of them. That's why AIDS was purposefully developed in a Maryland laboratory to wipe out population ...

And this New World Order will deplete the earth's population to only a half billion people by May 5, 2000!
Click to expand...
As a Biblical literalist, he must know that false prophets should be stoned.

Actually, perhaps he is ...
 
Dr Adequate said:
[swiki]Kent Hovind[/swiki] --- completely ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ crazy.

Creationism is the least of his mental problems.

As a Biblical literalist, he must know that false prophets should be stoned.

Actually, perhaps he is ...
Click to expand...

Oh, no. No, no, no, no.

Don't think for a moment that Hovind is crazy, or has mental problems. Hovind knows exactly what he is doing. He is very lucid, very sane.

He is, however, a clear and present danger to science and rational thinking.

This goes for any of his ilk. They are perfectly aware of what they are doing.
 
CFLarsen said:
Don't think for a moment that Hovind is crazy, or has mental problems. Hovind knows exactly what he is doing. He is very lucid, very sane.
Click to expand...
:dl:

And he lucidly and sanely went on record in public as saying that the New World Order would have wiped out five and a half billion people by May 5 2000?

If he knew that he was ********ting, he would not have been specific with the date, surely?

I admit that he is also a liar, but nonetheless the man has "issues", don't you think? Like screaming, gibbering paranoia?

As for the creationism, I usually suppose that if they knew they were lying, they would in fact have no motivation to be creationists. In Hovind's case, the objection arises that he makes money out of it. And he is apparently completely amoral, so who knows?

However, given that he's so popular with the rank-and-vile creationists, it appears he can fool other people. Is it inconceivable that he is also fooling himself? Well, he's stupid, off his rocker, and overweeningly vain and conceited, so I'd say "no".
 
Last edited:
Dr Adequate said:
:dl:

And he lucidly and sanely went on record in public as saying that the New World Order would have wiped out five and a half billion people by May 5 2000?

If he knew that he was ********ting, he would not have been specific with the date, surely?
Click to expand...

Doomsday sayers don't necessarily act on what they predict. What did Kent Hovind do on May 4th, 2000? Did he hole up in a bunker somewhere? I don't think he did. That, to me, doesn't spell batsh*t to me. That spells deliberation.

Dr Adequate said:
I admit that he is also a liar, but nonetheless the man has "issues", don't you think? Like screaming, gibbering paranoia?
Click to expand...

Sure. But would a crazy man lie?

Dr Adequate said:
As for the creationism, I usually suppose that if they knew they were lying, they would in fact have no motivation to be creationists. In Hovind's case, the objection arises that he makes money out of it. And he is apparently completely amoral, so who knows?

However, given that he's so popular with the rank-and-vile creationists, it appears he can fool other people. Is it inconceivable that he is also fooling himself? Well, he's stupid, off his rocker, and overweeningly vain and conceited, so I'd say "no".
Click to expand...

You gave the answer yourself: People like Kent Hovind know exactly who butter their bread. They have every motivation they need: They have the unfettered admiration of their followers. They rake in enough money to make them stop caring if what they say is true. And, of course, if they believe they are right - due to their one-on-one relationship with their god - they feel they can do anything, no matter if it is in violation of their own religion.
 
Ali G: But has you ever eaten a banana?

Kent Hovind: Yea, yea. I eat all kinds of foods.

Ali G: Well that proves it don’t it?
Click to expand...

And that's about the level of scholarly refutation that Hovind's arguments deserve.
 
Since most of the time when Dr. Wino "debates" it's not really a debate, but some kind of twisted popularity contest judged by audience reaction, why bother debating? Just start asking questions like:

"Why didn't the world end in 2000 like you said it would?"

"Who specifically in our government created the HIV virus and where and what year?"

"How much money are you collecting as a fee for this presentation?"

Two can play that game. And just maybe by bringing up some more of his kooky beliefs some people out there might realize he's not exactly the lucid individual they believe he is. Once it ceases to become a debate, roll with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom