Did I really need to spend an hour to hear Kent Hovind debunked?


No, I did not. It’s still a pretty good basic deconstruction of the man, by another person with the first name “Paul” who refuses to ever debate the clown.

If you’ve ever considered debating Hovind — he’s cheap and easy, he’ll do it with anyone — watch this to learn that he is godawfully repetitive and ignorant, and there is absolutely no point to engaging with him. He’s still using the same slides from 30 years ago, and always says exactly the same thing, right down to the cornpone dull jokes that were too old-fashioned for Hee Haw.

Comments

  1. Akira MacKenzie says

    He’s still using the same slides from 30 years ago, and always says exactly the same thing, right down to the cornpone dull jokes that were too old-fashioned for Hee Haw.

    His performance isn’t meant for us. It’s meant for the unlettered largely-rural hicks who think them-thar city slickers is out to get Jesus with their evil-ution, pride parades, and miscegenation. Hee Haw is just about their speed.

  2. Rich Woods says

    @Akira #1:

    His performance isn’t meant for us.

    Hence Hovind’s display of plastic jawbones and occasional wearing of a white lab coat to back up his science credentials.

    Maybe Paulogia et al should take up the wearing of dog collars and brandish a cross or two. The sad thing is that even as a joke it’d probably serve to grab the attention of some of Hovind’s followers.

  3. drew says

    @Akira, actually if you check out Paulogia, he’s an ex-Christian debunking the claims of Christians. He’s an example of the kind of person the Hovinds of the world used to (successfully) target.

    It’s not about some lesser class of humans who are xians. It’s about people needed better information. And sometimes a kick in the ass.

  4. HidariMak says

    It must be tempting to debate such people, with all of the counter-arguments to the Hovind types prerecorded on a phone. All one would need to say is along the lines of “when you said that to _______ _______ back on _______, here is what they said”. Rinse and repeat.

  5. nomdeplume says

    Yes, fine, but Paulogia is just too nice and too easy-going and too sympathetic to the religious.

    In his opening he says that he would have three conditions if he debated Hovind. And one of them is to grant for the sake of argument that life was created and that the creator then “used evolution” to make all the life forms. This is just a nonsense condition. Firstly abiogenesis isn’t nothing to do with evolution as Paulsuggests – there will have been natural selection operating on the early chemicals and combinations of chemicals, leading to the emergence of life. And second, to suggest a creator got it all going is to misunderstand evolution – how would a creator actually do that in an invisible way?

  6. ANB says

    So, other than reminding us of the cringe factor of Hovind (and ilk), I don’t understand why you keep bringing him up? Seriously. Ignore him. Your mentions of him are food for him to remind his mindless followers that he’s “doing battle with the forces of evil.”

    Get him the fuck out of your mind. As you so clearly stated, he’s the same fool he was decades ago.

    IGNORE him.

  7. unclefrogy says

    I like Paulogia and have watch many of his videos but i could not get past the 15min mark hearing Hovind’s smug condescending lying voice trying to be entertainingly ignorant made me want to reach through the interwebs and choke him..

  8. khms says

    #5 @nomdeplume

    In his opening he says that he would have three conditions if he debated Hovind. And one of them is to grant for the sake of argument that life was created and that the creator then “used evolution” to make all the life forms. This is just a nonsense condition. Firstly abiogenesis isn’t nothing to do with evolution as Paulsuggests – there will have been natural selection operating on the early chemicals and combinations of chemicals, leading to the emergence of life. And second, to suggest a creator got it all going is to misunderstand evolution – how would a creator actually do that in an invisible way?

    It seems you completely failed to understand what he did there. He does neither believe that abiogenesis falls under evolution, nor that there is a creator. These stipulations have one goal only: to make certain arguments Hovind loves impossible. If the creator is stipulated, that means Hovind can’t argue about abiogenesis. That’s the whole point.

    Of course, we know Hovind – that only works in theory.

Leave a Reply