3:05
Kent: The first web site that comes up is the web site called, from oocities.com/kenthovind. So if you would like to go to oocities.com/kenthovind - assuming that by the time you watch this tape he is brave enough to keep this site up there. I suspect it will be gone by then I hope. It has been up for a long time, I would suspect years. We have contacted the host of the site, Carl **** in Australia, and for the last week Jonathan here has been corresponding with him, inviting him to be on the program. He is welcome to call in.
COMMENT: See The Great Debate That Wasn't
6:09
Kent: Okay, here we go. Carl **** writes, he says - he's invited to call in - in his introduction he says, "The purpose of this site is to analyse the logic and science used in the presentations of a Creation Science evangelist, named Kent Hovind [.....] This analysis will mainly focus on objective issues related to Kent Hovind's seminars." Well, Carl, you said in your correspondence to Jonathon you would correct any mistakes in this web site. I would suggest that before the word [sic] 'Kent Hovind' you add the word 'to', t,o. You have a typo there. Proper English would call for the word 'to' " [.....] The known Universe, planets, stars, animals and ultimately humans, it is suggested, were supernaturally created in six literal days around 4,000 BCE."
Eric: Hold it. Let me stop you right there. Where there he says 'BCE', what is he talking about there?
Kent: Before the Common Era. What do you reckon it ought to be?
Eric: When I grew up in school we always called it 'BC', that's what we learned, 'BC'
Kent: Yeah, this is a subtle way they try to leave Christ out.
Eric: Before Christ is what it really should be.
Kent: [.....] Anyway, Mr **** writes, "Approximately 2,300 BCE the world was supposedly destroyed by a global flood except for a selection of animals and eight humans aboard the largest wooden boat ever constructed." Ah, now Carl, I would change that - 'ever constructed up to that time', okay - there have been quite a few wooden boats by the Chinese, apparently, constructed much larger than Noah's Ark, after that time. [.....]
COMMENT: Information added
Kent (cont): "Obviously Young Earth Creationism is in conflict with mainstream science in general ..." Let me stop right there and say that is not quite correct. There may be some scientists who are in conflict with Young Earth Creationism but all of the ones that are right believe in Young Earth Creationism. [.....] And there are thousands, literally thousands of scientists who are Young Earth Creationists - or certainly creationists. Every branch of science was started by creationists not by evolutionists. Evolution is a useless theory.
Eric: It really hasn't done anything to even help out science. It's done more to hinder it than [....]
Kent: Even if it's true its useless
Eric: They are trying so hard to prove this one theory. Scientific method would simply say, "You got a problem, how did we get here?" You form a hypothesis, then you gather evidence. Well, they haven't found any evidence. There's been no evidence what so ever
[.....]
Kent: He says, "I have offered Kent Hovind the opportunity of an unedited, unlimited length, right of reply to be hosted on this site - so far he has ignored the offer." Well, Carl, let me explain why, okay. I have other things to do, okay. I don't think you want an answer anyway, number one, and number two, nobody cares what you think, alright.
Eric: Plus he can't type all that fast [....]
Kent: [....] I'm not about to get into an email debate. I've said that clearly on my web site. I'm not interested in an email debate. [....] So Carl, if you are wondering why I have ignored your offer I have already clearly said I don't get involved in email debates, number one, number two, I don't have time... I don't think most people care what you think. I just today, for the first time looked at your web site - ah, I think I spent about three minutes on it one time a few months ago - and I said, "This guy needs some help" and this is why we are here help you. We are here to help you tonight.
Kent (cont) And then I went to your comments [guest book] - people are writing in comments - there are how many comments Jonathan? Thirteen or fourteen pages of comments. 40,000 hits on his site [....] We've had 'x' number of millions of hits to our site, okay, so, ah
Eric: And many of those sites, aren't they simply copying the information and making their own site? [....]
Kent: There is a big chain of anti-Hovind web sites. You can go to the next and next [....] So I have ignored your offer because I don't have time and I don't care. And I don't think most people care what you think on the topic. I don't want to hurt your feelings but, you know, that's the way it is. I have other things to do, okay
Kent (cont) He says, "I have also offered to correct any errors or misunderstandings; neither Hovind nor his staff have attempted to identify any."
Eric: He says ".... neither Hovind nor his staff have not attempted to identify any." Which would mean we have attempted to identify any.
Kent: That's true. I tried to read the proper English in there instead of what it says.
Eric: Got another one for you to fix! Take out that word 'not' if you want to have that correct.
Kent: [.....] Maybe that is the way they speak in Australia [....] The reason we have not attempted to identify any is I haven't even read it, okay. I have lots of things to do. I get thousands of phone calls and emails and I just, I'd rather go talk to someone who wants to hear the truth. And I'm suspecting - from the little bit I read - you really don't want to hear but I'm going to give it to you anyway because I think you need it - whether to want it or not. [....]
COMMENT: Double negative removed
Kent: He says, "More observant readers may have noticed I have not given my name." Opps, I already told them it's Carl ****. Even that may be a screen name. I've noticed a lot of these atheists are scared to give their name - they're anonymous - they can remain anonymous behind their web site, you know, nobody knows who they are. Like they are afraid I am going to do something to them, you know
Eric: There are some weird people out there, though.
Kent: Look, I'm your friend, honestly, I'm here to help, okay. He says, "I have done this deliberately for numerous reasons. Who I am is quite irrelevant because, unlike Hovind, I have no intention of operating a cult of personality."
Eric: What in the world is he talking about?
Kent: This is one of those backhanded slaps you get all the time by the atheists, you know, they accuse you of things. "A cult of personality"? Are we trying to build a cult?
Eric: I certainly don't think so.
Kent: You've known me for twenty-five years are we trying to build a name for our self, that you know of?
Eric: Definitely not. The whole reason we exist is simply to glorify the kingdom of God. Is to glorify Christ. Is to see more people to come to the realisation and to come to the truth of the fact that God is the Creator. Jesus Christ was his son - is his son. And he truly did come on this Earth and die [.....]
Kent: And we take on all kinds of unpopular subjects in our seminars [....] so you've not given your name Carl. I apologise. I've already given Carl **** name out a couple of times. Let's see, ".... a cult personality [sic]" Carl, you need to remove that because you are implying that I have - no you are saying - that I have an intention of operate a cult of personality. This is baloney. You are either mistaken or you are lying. Take that line out.
COMMENT: Case in point - The Hovind Theory (which isn't even Hovind's idea)
Kent (cont): He goes on, "Judging by some of the "strange" emails I occasionally receive I feel safer not having miscellaneous oddballs knowing too many of my personal details." Well, Carl, my name, address and phone number are on everything we produce as far as I know [.....] Not because I am developing a cult personality, I want people to be able to contact me if they have a question because in America - I don't know about in Australia - becaause in America you have a right to face your accusers.
Eric: That's right, yeah
Kent: So if somebody is accusing me of something, like you have done on your web site here, then you should face your accusers [?] You get a right to defend yourself which I am going to do here [.....] and your 39,000 viewers are a drop in the bucket compared to the millions and millions we get on our site, so. And yours comes right up after mine. You type in 'Kent Hovind' his comes up first. So the other anti-Hovind sites are getting even less attention, so. [.....]
19:50
Kent: Okay, "The following is an analysis of Kent Hovind's $250 000 Challenge" [.....] "Seasoned Hovind watchers ..." [....] " .... may notice he has removed references to some of the more controversial aspects of the Challenge." Well, Carl, what I have done I've tried to refine it so people, some of the people of lower IQ who don't understand the Challenge will be able to understand it. We've just tried to make it easier for some of them to understand because some of the stuff that has come in to accept the quarter million dollar Challenge is so dumb [.....]
Kent (cont): " [....] Hovind is attacking every conclusion of science which contradicts a literal reading of Genesis." Well, Carl, you are totally misunderstanding. I'm not attacking anything that contradicts Genesis. Genesis is unrelated to this. The fact is, the word 'evolution' has six meanings. They want to limit this to biological evolution. I say, "Wait a minute, where did you get the living creature to evolve?" If you don't have a theory that goes back to a beginning you don't have a complete theory. [.....] So, Carl, the reason I spell out on my theory [sic] clearly is I'm offering quarter of a million dollars for proof of the General Theory because the whole theory, all six parts of evolution, are being taught in the text books. [....] And they are teaching the Big Bang Theory. They are teaching life started from non-living material. They are teaching stars evolve. They are teaching the things that I mention. They certainly are teaching macro evolution which says dogs and bananas have a common ancestor. So, yes, if you want me or my son to pay for this to be taught in the textbooks you need to provide an answer. If you can't answer how these things happen then take it out of the textbook. [....]
[.....]
Kent (cont): He says, " Hovind is attacking every conclusion of science which contradicts a literal reading of Genesis." Carl, I would take that sentence out that simply is not true, take that out of there.
COMMENT: Sentence will be removed when Hovind names a Genesis contradicting conclusion of science what he doesn't attack.
Then he has got 'straw man' in red print here. "Empirical evidence does not constitute "scientific proof" because nothing in science in proven, only understood based upon known evidence." What they try to do here, you've probably seen this Eric, in the last twenty years they've tried to redefine science.
Eric: And really we can't know anything. The probability of this lid falling is pretty good but what if on the one millionth time it didn't fall?
Kent: We can't know.
Eric: Oh, we can't know.
Kent: 'Science' means knowledge. Plain and simple. A further definition - you can look it up in the older dictionaries, I wouldn't know about the new ones if I could trust them
Eric: Oh, I got one from 2002 and it had a great definition of science. "[?]... knowledge derived from observation and study" [.....]
Kent: So, evolution is outside of the field of science. It is a religion that people believe in, which is fine, hey you can believe whatever you want, I just don't want to pay for your religion to be taught in the schools. [.....] He says, "Straw man Hovind has ignored further options." [.....] "4. The Universe was created by a team of deities." Talk about straining at a gnat, swallowing a camel.
Eric: Ultimately that means it was created by a deity
Kent: Okay, God. Okay, number five "The Universe was created, by a deity or deities using naturalistic methods (theistic evolution)" I think that would still fit into category one - the Universe being created by God.
Eric: Right
Kent: Now the textbooks, Carl, don't give that option. One of my drives is to correct the textbooks because that is what we are all paying for. What people believe out there in la la land doesn't matter to me. What are we paying for? Okay. I'm paying for the kids in this town to be taught the evolution theory and they do not mention theistic evolution as even an option.
Eric: We'll have to talk about that in a later program - get into what theistic evolution is. How some people believe God used evolution to create everything.
Kent: What kind of god would be that dumb that had to practice and play around? You know? It's not the god of the Bible. It's not a god with any brains. It's not a god you'd want to worship [.....]
Let me go on here. He says, "The Universe is actually a manifestation of a deity" You're still back on number one, Carl. Take all this out, okay. You're making yourself look a little silly here. Which is what many folks in your comments [guest book] section have said, you know. You look kinda silly here so I would recommend you take that out. I'm trying to help ya, I wanna help your image, alright.
COMMENT: A naturalistic deity is not the same as an independent deity.
Number 7 "The Universe is the offshoot of another Universe" That goes back into category number 3, that's still naturalistic.
Eric: And where did that universe come from?
Kent: This postpones the problem. It doesn't solve the problem
COMMENT: However, it is an option.
Kent (cont) Number 8 "The Universe is perpetual" Okay, the reason I don't mention that as an option, I think that is against all know laws of science. There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine. What we observe is First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. Things don't create themselves and they are winding down. [....] So number eight is not a logical option. If someone wants to believe that, fine.
COMMENT: The First Law isn't contradicted, in fact, it supports the argument. The Second Law is only relevant if it applies on the ultra macro scale.
Eric: That would make the Universe their god though, wouldn't it?
Kent: That's true.
Eric: If the Universe was eternal, literally the Universe would be their god.
Kent: Yeah [.....] Number 9 "The Universe is the science project of an alien teenager." Well, if you want to go off onto this kind of stuff, Carl, you can go off all day - option 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 [....]
Eric: He says, "The length of this list is only limited by our imagination"
Kent: Well I would say he would have a really long list if we are going to go by his imagination here, so.
Eric: Let's stick with reality here, okay.
COMMENT: Did Hovind just agree there are more than three possibilities?
Kent: [.....] "Straw man. Hovind makes the erroneous claim that the Universe originated from pure nothing numerous times." Okay, Eric, have you seen in Seminar Part 1 the quotes that we use from Scientific American, Discovery Magazine?
Eric: April 2002 Discovery magazine said "Where did everything come from?", you know. And it literally says, "From nothing"
Kent: The Universe burst into something from absolutely nothing
Eric and Kent: Zero
Kent Nada
[ranting excursion]
34:30
Kent (cont) Well, Carl that 's because that's what the textbooks say and that's what the science journals say and I show that clearly. Watch my Seminar Part 1 [....]
Kent (cont): And **** says, "Stellar and planetary formation which has been photographed at least four times by the Hubble Space Telescope." And he gives the things [links] here. Carl, let me explain something to you which I cover on my Seminar on Part 7. We've never seen a star form. We see spots getting brighter.
Eric: And even taking a picture would not show a star forming.
Kent: True
Eric: A still photograph would never show a star forming.
Kent: Now since there are about 76 septillion [?] known stars [....] the evolutionist has a real problem because he doesn't know how any of them formed. We see them blowing up all the time - a nova or super nova. Okay, about every twenty-five years we lose a star. When you've got that many who cares? But they have to find a solution for how do we get them. They come up with this idea that maybe stars are forming in Crab Nebula or Orion Cloud or whatever. The catch is what they are seeing is a spot getting brighter; they are not seeing a star forming. A freshman law student could tear this one apart for you Carl. It could be that the dust is clearing; there is a star behind it.
[48:50]
Kent (cont): "Stellar and planetary formation which has been photographed ... four times by the Hubble Space Telescope" Carl, you're mistaken, okay. They might have told you that and they might believe that, okay, but that is simply not correct. Nobody has photographed a star forming. There are known laws of science known as Boyle's Gas Laws that would prevent dust [sic] from accumulating into a solid and then getting dense enough to create a star. [.....]
COMMENT: See the Bonner-Ebert criteria for stellar formation
Response to $250,000 Challenge continued on 11 Dec. 2003