I’m getting whacked!


Kent Hovind has informed me that I’m being featured on his YouTube channel tonight.

Heads up PZ, every Wednesday night i do a “Whack an atheist” show on my YouTube channel kenthovindofficial and tonight, 5-27-20, you were honored as the self proclaimed atheist to get whacked. 😊
I would gladly pay my own way to come to Morris and debate you and your followers on the best three evidences for the religion of evolutionism or you can come to Dinosaur adventure land in Lenox Alabama and I’ll give you a tour of our science center and then debate you on my channel. Call 855-big-dino ext 3 to talk to me or ext 2 to schedule a debate or ext 1 to order my creation seminar series to learn real science and learn how to have your sins forgiven and become a child of God.

Ho hum. Should I care?

No, I’m not interested in his “evidences”.

Comments

  1. Pierce R. Butler says

    I would gladly pay my own way to come to Morris …

    Yabbut how much would you have to pay him to leave Morris?

  2. William George says

    I think it’s a pity there are still a large number of atheists and science-minded folk who still allow themselves to get paraded in front of these ringmasters and their collection of clowns because they believe that they’ll convince some of them that Adam and Eve didn’t own a t-rex.

  3. Frederic Bourgault-Christie says

    My favorite part, second only to the piss-poor English and the laughable effort at remaining relevant, is the utter disrespect to your worldview and beliefs with his signoff.

    Frankly, I actually think in the case of Kent at least there could be good work in just launching into character assassination in any “debate” with him. Apologists already change the subject from the actual topic at hand, and it was great seeing Aron Ra do it.

  4. William George says

    John, sorry. I’m sure your question is honestly asked but you know how it is with the internet. You’ll have to rephrase your question so it does’t seem like you’re asking me to do the work of setting the stage for your disagreement.

  5. says

    Hovinds’s English hasn’t evolved since fourth grade, so it’s obvious that evolution must be a crock.

    Yes, that’s my tongue sticking so far out of my cheek that it’s embedded in a wall three rooms over.

  6. John Morales says

    William @9, I thought it was an unambiguous question.
    Perhaps I should have prefaced it with “I can’t think of any such, so …”.

    After all, you know how it is with the internet. ;)

  7. nomdeplume says

    “evidences” plural? Have yet to see a single evidence that was, you know, actual evidence.

    And PZ “to learn real science and learn how to have your sins forgiven and become a child of God“? Surely those are offers to good to refuse?

    Kent Hovind is to religion as Donald Trump is to politics. Hard to know which intelligence would be lower, and who has the worst education.

  8. Alt-X says

    Well, there’s been no announcement from the scientific community that they’ve found Jesus hiding on an exoplanet so obviously his “evidence” is just BS he made up while having a shower. He’s just trying to get clicks on his YouTube videos.

    Why would anyone want to debate a self-righteous christian that has been arrested for assault, battery, and burglary (among other things)? The guy’s shit. Don’t feed the Jesus Trolls, let them starve to death and become extinct.

  9. blf says

    Apropos of nothing much, some of my French colleagues, some of whom are very fluent in English, use “evidences” and other unusual constructions, such as “fooding” (there’s even a resturant guide by that name, Le Fooding). “Evidences” itself is a rare and possibly very specialised plural for when the evidence is a countable noun; e.g., the commonly-cited example (from Oxford Learners Dictionary) is “The cave contained evidences of prehistoric settlement.”

    A rather lengthy but informative discussion is Is “evidence” countable? As an aside, that happens to contain this gem: “most google hits for evidences seem to be from the christian fundamentalist and/or creationist literature” (and, as one example, contains a link to what is presumably some of the “evidences” teh piglet rapist sometimes blathers on about).

  10. John Morales says

    blf, yeah, but context matters. Analogously, I very very often see ‘folks’ when very clearly the appropriate word is ‘folk’ — that is, a simple plural, not a plurality of plurals.

  11. Kagehi says

    Seems the take away of the use of “evidences” is – small children that also get confused by sheep not being “sheeps”, might stumble over it, so while archaic and only used in very special cases, like by a lawyer that is maybe defending you against, oh.. I don’t know, a robbery case, or something, creationists think it makes them sound smart to use a version that no one else does, but some of their equally ignorant followers might think is reasonable? Or, some sort of logic like that. lol Because, seriously, when, outside of very narrow cases, the only people that use a version of a word are centuries dead, or, say, creationists…

  12. David Marjanović says

    Plural “evidences” survived in scientific papers well into the 20th century, with the singular used for what is now awkwardly talked around as “a piece of evidence”. Some time after that, the usage of scientists changed, and the rest of the English-speaking world didn’t notice.

    “Data” is originally a plural, but increasingly used as a singular mass noun in analogy to “evidence” and “information”.

    I wonder if “information” has always been uncountable in English. It’s perfectly countable in French and German.

  13. llyris says

    @Kagehi – maybe he thinks it sounds like he has more evidence. You know, “You scienticians say you have evidence of evolution but I have way more many evidences of creationism”.
    Possibly the truth is that he’s a complete wanker.

  14. Owlmirror says

    As was posted at 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution,

    Recently, I’ve had some fun investigating the historical usage of the word “evidences,” and I am surprised to report that it is not at all limited to Christian apologetics. It appears to be somewhat of an archaic usage, but was not and is not confined to theological discourse. In an effort to contribute even more verbiage to this logomachy, I have compiled a listing of authors, writers, politicians, documents, historians, scientists, etc. that have employed this particular etymon. My locution might be peculiar, but I have distinguished company.
     
    The word “evidences,” as a plural of the noun “evidence,” is currently used secularly at least seven times in the latest edition of the Columbia Encyclopedia (Sixth Edition 2001), mostly in a legal context.
     
    The infamous term is also sparingly used in modern scientific literature. For example, a search for “evidences” in the text of all online HighWire journals gets over 1000 hits. The title of an article, of course, is the part most closely inspected by journal editors. A more limited search of only the titles of scientific articles in the PubMed database returns over 250 documents. For example, the term “evidences,” as a conspicuous member of a paper’s title, has made it past the editors of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Science, the Journal of the American Chemical Society, the Journal of Molecular Evolution, Cancer, the Journal of Biological Chemistry, Physical Review Letters, Biochimica and Biophysica Acta, Nucleic Acids Research, Virology, Genetics, and the Federation of European Biochemical Societies Letters, some of the world’s most prestigious scientific journals (note that a small minority of these articles use “evidences” as a transitive verb). For comparison, a title-word search at PubMed for the co-opted word “proofs” returns only 25 articles (many of which are used in a mathematical context, and don’t really count).

  15. cvoinescu says

    Simply acceding to a debate on “the best three evidences for the religion of evolutionism” would be, to an uncomfortable extent, an acknowledgment that that string of words made sense other than in Hovind’s fevered imaginations. (Hey, I can do weirdly archaic plurals too!) It’s dishonest to set a debate topic that assumes a key tenet of your position — or it could show an astonishing lack of awareness of the opposing worldview, which I find unlikely.

  16. dstatton says

    Just getting on the same stage with an actual scientist would be a victory for him. Then again, he can claim that you are “afraid” to debate him.

  17. mnb0 says

    There is no single piece of evidence for the religion of evolution, because there is no such religion.
    So if you want to have some fun, PZ (and also share my peculiar sense of humour) you could answer that you will consider his offer after he has learned not to use loaded language.

  18. blf says

    I wonder if “information” has always been uncountable in English. It’s perfectly countable in French and German.

    That’s perhaps one reason my English-speaking French colleagues also use “informations” or, sometimes, “infos”. (I have not researched whether or not “information” ever was, or perhaps in some specialist area, is, countable: I have no idea.)

Leave a Reply