Let's Change the Topic

 

On Sept. 11, 1993, Kent Hovind and Farrell Till, an atheist English teacher, recorded a public debate. What is interesting is we catch Hovind in two lies.

 

First we must define the topic of the debate.  In his post debate introduction Hovind described the topic as:

 

Is the Biblical flood and all the accounts of the Bible Flood and Noah’s Ark, is it scientifically accurate? [Emphasis added] [1]

 

During the debate itself, Hovind alluded to the subject in his opening statement.

 

Mr Till and I have been corresponding and calling each other about what this debate should focus on.  We decided to center it on just the accuracy of the Biblical account about the World Wide Flood in Noah’s day. There are a million other subjects which could come up in this but we will just try to keep it to that. [2]

 

We have confirmation that Hovind was aware of the subject of the debate.  He was present when Farrell Till read the proposition of the debate into the record:

 

That proposition reads like this – “The Genesis story of the World Wide Flood is scientifically accurate in all of its details.” [Emphasis added] [3]

 

Both participants are clearly aware of the topic of the debate.  Yet after being chastised by Till for constantly resorting to the supernatural during his arguments, Hovind made the following startling admission;

 

If the burden of proof is on me is to prove it [the Biblical account] scientific I’d have to say, “Wait a minute, how can I prove that?  I wasn’t there.”  Nobody’s going to prove that scientifically. [4]

 

Hovind had fallen on his own sword.  How would he save himself from this?

 

If … [inaudible interjection]  Pardon?  That’s my job?  Well I guess I didn’t catch that, if this is a trick question in, ah, the way he [Till] designed the question for me to have to prove something, you know, prove, ah, that animals change from amoebas to people, you know, prove evolution.  We’ll debate that sometime, you know it can’t be done.  [4]

 

LIE #1 Not only does Hovind accuse his opponent of trying to deceive but he also denies the proposition of the debate. However, we know that Hovind was aware of the proposition before the debate, during the debate and after the debate – and it had nothing to do with “evolution”.

 

Ten years later Hovind still sells the video of this debate with the following description:

 

Dr. Hovind successfully defends the Biblical account of the Flood as being scientifically and historically accurate. [Emphasis added] [5]

 

LIE #2 How can an admittance of failure be a successful defense?

 

Liar, liar, pants on fire!

 

 

Additional opinion can be found at:

http://www.skeptictank.org/hovind2.htm

 

 

[1]   Hovind/Till Debate Part 1 @ 0:45 September 1993  http://www.sermonaudio.com/ [March 2003]

 

[2]  Hovind/Till Debate Part 1 @ 5:00

 

[3]  Hovind/Till Debate Part 1 @ 36:10

 

[4]  Hovind/Till Debate Part 1 @ 84:20

 

[5]  http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=products&specific=jodmpqn8 [March 2003]