Kent Hovind . . . Wow!!

[Subduction Zone]

Frankly I did not know where to post this. This is what is turning out to be a yearly report on Kent Hovind by YouTuber Paulogia. There are some very sensitive subjects in this video including child abuse. I can personally see Kent going the way of David Koresh.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Well after that child tragically drowned in an un supervised pond at his 'theme park' and Kent almost immediately went on about how the family, whom just lost their kid, will still come back and enjoy his 'park' pretty much told me what kind of person and make up Kent is.

 

[Nimos]

Always thought of him as a fraud, so it doesn't surprise me that he is mixed up in a lot of questionable things.

 

[leroy]

Frankly I did not know where to post this. This is what is turning out to be a yearly report on Kent Hovind by YouTuber Paulogia. There are some very sensitive subjects in this video including child abuse. I can personally see Kent going the way of David Koresh.

I don’t know about that nasty legal stuff that Hovind is dealing with, but my problems with him are.

1 he openly admits that nothing will change his mind

2 he doesn’t answer questions directly

3 he always changes the topic of the debate by saying things like “evolution is evil”

4 he uses word games and semantics to “refute” his opponent

5 he avoids the burden proof at all cost

6 he makes random claims and assertions and never justifies them

7 he doesn’t admit when he is wrong

Wow, I wonder if he was a former atheist from this forum J

(Just trolling don’t take me seriously)

I personally learned a few scientific facts thanks to Kent Hovind, so even though I disagree with his YEC stuff, I appreciate the stuff that I learned from him

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don’t know about that nasty legal stuff that Hovind is dealing with, but my problems with him are.

1 he openly admits that nothing will change his mind

2 he doesn’t answer questions directly

3 he always changes the topic of the debate by saying things like “evolution is evil”

4 he uses word games and semantics to “refute” his opponent

5 he avoids the burden proof at all cost

6 he makes random claims and assertions and never justifies them

7 he doesn’t admit when he is wrong

Wow, I wonder if he was a former atheist from this forum J

(Just trolling don’t take me seriously)

I personally learned a few scientific facts thanks to Kent Hovind, so even though I disagree with his YEC stuff, I appreciate the stuff that I learned from him

There are a lot of similarities between the two of you. And some very important differences. I don't think that you know all of the legal problems because that video has some whole new ones. l He has been associating with and defending child molesters. That is never a good sign. Even quite a few of his followers can't take that any more. I may think some bad things about you at times, but I never thought that. Many of these claims come from interviewing people that have left Hovind because of that sort of behavior.

 

[leroy]

There are a lot of similarities between the two of you. A some very important differences. I don't think that you know all of the legal problems because that video has some whole new ones. l He has been associating with and defending child molesters. That is never a good sign. Even quite a few of his followers can't take that any more. I may think some bad things about you at times, but I never thought that. Many of these claims come from interviewing people that have left Hovind because of that sort of behavior.

I stopped watching creation vs evolution/natrualism/athism debates long ago, …….. but you have to agree with me on that there are fanatic extremist on both sides that actually have a lot of common (same fallacies, same tactics, etc.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

I stopped watching creation vs evolution/natrualism/athism debates long ago, …….. but you have to agree with me on that there are fanatic extremist on both sides that actually have a lot of common (same fallacies, same tactics, etc.)

The fanaticism does not appear to come from those defending reality. Do you have any in mind? Very rarely do those supporting evolution use logical fallacies. They do not have to since there is endless scientific evidence that supports them. But that is not what this video is about. Kent's creationism plays a very minor role in this video.

But since you brought up evolution why not support your claim. You need to find a defender of evolution that relies on those fallacies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well after that child tragically drowned in an un supervised pond at his 'theme park' and Kent almost immediately went on about how the family, whom just lost their kid, will still come back and enjoy his 'park' pretty much told me what kind of person and make up Kent is.

This, if anything, is worse. If you have the time listen to the video. The next time that he goes to prison it is likely to be for life.