Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ex-robot · 02-28-2002, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tgamble:
<strong>

He's a self proclaimed expert on science on the bible, claims to speak 700 times a year. Claims to have had hundreds of debates and won everyone of em. He claims to have taught science for 15 years and have a 160 IQ.

Draw your own conclusions.</strong>

I understand he is a complete whack job and full of himself, but I was curious as to the elevation of his fake graduate and doctorate. I remember him whining somewhere about people calling him on his fake degrees. If he would have dropped it twenty years ago, maybe it wouldn't be an issue now. He could now rest on the fact that he was an awesome, high school science teacher.

xr

Corwin · 02-28-2002, 02:26 PM

I suppose calling Hovind on his background is technically ad hominem... but in a law court you can introduce prior acts if they demonstrate a pattern of behavior. If you have a history of lying about a subject, I suppose it really isn't ad hominem to inform people about it so that they realize you're most likely lying about the same subject again.

He's just damned amusing tho. A right wing, young earth creationist wacko conspiracy nutcase who attacks anyone that doesn't go along with his branch of John Birch Society/Anti UN/Illuminati believing neanderthals. Everybody else is working for Satan. You all know he's right.

Arrowman · 02-28-2002, 03:38 PM

Calling Hovind on his background is not necessarily ad hom; it goes to credibility of the source (Your Honour). Sure, a scientist who is wrong about one thing may well be right about another, but... would you want your children taught statistics and probability by a professor who thought it was possible to devise a system to win at roulette?

One must be careful though - "he's wrong because he's a liar and a dickhead" is ad hom. "before you just accept him as an authoritative source, you might like to consider the fact that he's a liar and a dickhead" is reasonable critique of credibility.

Many people in these debates will snort, snicker and scoff when Hovind is cited. And rightly so. Unfortunately the gullible fool citing Hovind will fall back on "ad hom!" (if they can spell it) at a moment's notice and you've lost 'em (if there was ever any chance of reaching them).

Rebutting Hovind while avoiding even the hint of personal attack is one of the more challenging things in this debate. For that reason I think this thread is very worthwhile.

Detached9 · 03-01-2002, 09:01 AM

Rebutting Hovind while avoiding even the hint of personal attack is one of the more challenging things in this debate. For that reason I think this thread is very worthwhile.

I was afraid of people attacking his character rather than his arguments. I'm aware his credibility should be doubted, but even a liar tells the truth sometimes. We have to show where his arguments are false.

[ March 01, 2002: Message edited by: Detached9 ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-28-2002, 02:26 PM	#22
Corwin Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 4,369	I suppose calling Hovind on his background is technically ad hominem... but in a law court you can introduce prior acts if they demonstrate a pattern of behavior. If you have a history of lying about a subject, I suppose it really isn't ad hominem to inform people about it so that they realize you're most likely lying about the same subject again. He's just damned amusing tho. A right wing, young earth creationist wacko conspiracy nutcase who attacks anyone that doesn't go along with his branch of John Birch Society/Anti UN/Illuminati believing neanderthals. Everybody else is working for Satan. You all know he's right.

02-28-2002, 03:38 PM	#23
Arrowman Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Adelaide, South Australia Posts: 1,358	Calling Hovind on his background is not necessarily ad hom; it goes to credibility of the source (Your Honour). Sure, a scientist who is wrong about one thing may well be right about another, but... would you want your children taught statistics and probability by a professor who thought it was possible to devise a system to win at roulette? One must be careful though - "he's wrong because he's a liar and a dickhead" is ad hom. "before you just accept him as an authoritative source, you might like to consider the fact that he's a liar and a dickhead" is reasonable critique of credibility. Many people in these debates will snort, snicker and scoff when Hovind is cited. And rightly so. Unfortunately the gullible fool citing Hovind will fall back on "ad hom!" (if they can spell it) at a moment's notice and you've lost 'em (if there was ever any chance of reaching them). Rebutting Hovind while avoiding even the hint of personal attack is one of the more challenging things in this debate. For that reason I think this thread is very worthwhile.

03-01-2002, 09:01 AM	#24
Detached9 Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 341	Rebutting Hovind while avoiding even the hint of personal attack is one of the more challenging things in this debate. For that reason I think this thread is very worthwhile. I was afraid of people attacking his character rather than his arguments. I'm aware his credibility should be doubted, but even a liar tells the truth sometimes. We have to show where his arguments are false. [ March 01, 2002: Message edited by: Detached9 ]</p>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.