Is Michael Shermer a Disciple of Satan?

  • Thread starter Moridin
  • Start date
  • #1
664
3

Main Question or Discussion Point

Young earth creationist Kent Hovind sure thinks so.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1410330225420430733 [Broken]

This is a "debate" between Michael Shermer, director of the skeptic society, and Kent Hovind, creationist extraordinaire. This was quite entertaining, not only because Hovind asserted that Shermer worked for Satan. Although debating creationists is just as much of a "debate" as hunting dairy cows with a high-powered rifle and scope is hunting, this is just sad.

Some more glaring and quite amusing errors made by Hovind includes

- Asserting that evolutionary biology implies moral nihilism.
- Asserting that a world-wide flood can produce the geological column and fossils.
- Asserting that flood geology is compatible with oil and coal deposits.
- Asserting that the flood produced grand canyon and at the same time asserting that the strata layers seen is also produced by the flood, which is contradictory.
- Asserting that a world-wide flood can produce petrified trees.
- Asserting that evolution is a religion.
- Asserting that abiogenesis is spontaneous generation in the Pasteur sense of the word.
- Asserting that nuclear fusion has never been observed.
- Asserting that evolution is the dumbest and most dangerous idea in the history of the world.
- Asserting that the big bang and planetary formation leads to Hitler and Marxism, the rejection of logic and abortion (and hell if you do not trust Christ).
- Asserting that evolution claims that a dog came from a rock.
- Asserting that evolution is a dying religion surviving on your tax dollars.
- Asserting that evolution is anti-science.

I especially liked this line from Hovind.

"Michael Shermer is the editor of skeptic magazine. He is absolutely correct to be skeptical of some of the dumb things people believe out there. There are some weirdos in this world folks".
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
266
0
Though I think most of christianity is worthless, I would still fight for anyone's right to believe/practice it.... these "young earth" creationist however, should not even be given opportunities to speak in a scientific setting... maybe a century ago, maybe, but now NONE of their arguments have ANY scientific validity.

As an aside, it really saddens me to see the shows now playing on History Channel/Discovery Channel: several UFO conspiracy shows, Monster Quest, Search for the Lost Arc, ect...

Funny thing though, they play these right along side The Universe and Wild Discovery and Modern Marvels....
 
  • #3
231
0
As an aside, it really saddens me to see the shows now playing on History Channel/Discovery Channel: several UFO conspiracy shows, Monster Quest, Search for the Lost Arc, ect...
Discovery went to Hell many years ago.

They've replaced science with crap like "Monster garage", "American Chopper", "Man vs Wild" etc..

Don't get me wrong, those shows are enetertaining, and I find myself watching from time to time, bit I think it was too much of a departure for Discovery, and not for the better.
 
  • #4
Man, I'll give Hovind the fact that the guy is one of the quickest, most clever and charismatic debaters I've seen ... Shermer (who is a good and charismatic public speaker) comes off a tad slow and unsure in the debate; and too many times either fails to rebut Hovin's claims, or completely misses the point and goes off on some straw-man.

Shermer (and other skeptics I've seen debate) should understand what Hovind clearly does about debate: he is not there to preach to the choir; he is there to gracefully defeat an opponent. For every one of his opponent's attacks, he must reciprocate with an offensive defense.— there's no point in bringing in more men into the battlefield if you're not using them to kill off your enemy's; all you get is more dead soldiers.

(GONG) :rofl:


As an aside, it really saddens me to see the shows now playing on History Channel/Discovery Channel: several UFO conspiracy shows, Monster Quest, Search for the Lost Arc, ect...
Ugh. I know what you mean. It is possible to be entertaining and educate at the same time (I.e myth busters)... but where does making a bike for Will Smith come into the picture.

And all those conspiracy/ghost/paranormal shows are just disgusting.
 
  • #5
266
0
Yeah I grew up on the old discovery and have slowly watched them go down hill... I guess ratings are more important then science over there.... History Channel is playing The Universe tonight though! That is an excellent show!

Sorry Mordin not trying to hijack your thread! :redface:

It is sad that there are people who actually believe the crap that people like Kevin Hovind are vomiting out...
 
  • #6
D H
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
15,393
682
Man, I'll give Hovind the fact that the guy is one of the quickest, most clever and charismatic debaters I've seen ... Shermer (who is a good and charismatic public speaker) comes off a tad slow and unsure in the debate; and too many times either fails to rebut Hovin's claims, or completely misses the point and goes off on some straw-man.
It is far easier to conduct a debate when one is not hindered by constraints such as avoiding logical fallacies, staying on topic, answering the question that was asked, or just plain making sense.
 
  • #7
Vanadium 50
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
2019 Award
23,729
6,141
When was this debate? Isn't Hovind in prison now?
 
  • #8
230
0
I know it's not exactly related but...Anybody here ever seen a picture of a Church of Satan mass? Its so stupid, its just like Halloween for these people.
 
  • #9
230
0
And yes, according to Wiki he's in the can for tax evasion.
 
  • #10
299
0
It is far easier to conduct a debate when one is not hindered by constraints such as avoiding logical fallacies, staying on topic, answering the question that was asked, or just plain making sense.
I agree. There are lots of people who can simply go on automatic and let the verbal diarrhoea flow without inserting any of the "filters" mentioned by DH between brain and tongue.
 
  • #11
2,985
13
Oh boy, Kent Hovind just started talking and hes describing a computer and how it does not know what made it. Yooooookay..........:rolleyes:

HAHAH, hes making "Predictions" on KNOWN RESULTS. What BOZO.

"Dogs came from a rock"??? Does this guy even have an ounce of listening comprehension? I dont think he came from a rock, that would be insulting to rocks everywhere. Even they are less dense than this guys head.

How can people be this stupid.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
230
0
Why can't all the fanatics find a remote island and all move there? Then they could come up with all the crackpot ideas and have as many "spiritual unions" (damn FLDS....mormons in general are weird...) as they want.
 
  • #13
2,985
13
Why can't all the fanatics find a remote island and all move there? Then they could come up with all the crackpot ideas and have as many "spiritual unions" (damn FLDS....mormons in general are weird...) as they want.
I'd drop a thermo-nuclear bunker busting bomb on their island :devil:

EDIT: No, Id drop them leaflets on how they are stupid. Because they are on an island, theres nothing they can do about it! HAAH!
 
  • #14
230
0
I think anybody would bomb the place.
 
  • #15
2,985
13
I think anybody would bomb the place.
It'd be so much more fun to make them suffer though.
 
  • #16
664
3
When was this debate? Isn't Hovind in prison now?
Yes. He went to jail because he refused to pay taxes because he did not want to contribute money to public education.
 
  • #17
2,985
13
going back to the original post by moridin i have to ask him to go around the world to different continents and try to observe the geologic column..it simply is not in every part of the world and not even in all of america,the places which have a "jumbled up" geology are ignored because the don`t fit the text book order.

also,look up the latest on petrified trees and you will see that even respected geologist admit now that petrified trees HAVE to be fossilised extremely quickly or they will simply rot away..moreover,there are so many excamples of petrified tress going through different rock strata that the chances of all of them being caused by earthquakes tossing them into rock that is "billions of years old" is really tiny..

Alot of hovind`s theological attacks on evolutionist/athiest people are pretty lame but the questions he poses these scientists in his debates are carefully chosen simply because they are so contrary to evolution/old earth theory.

Oh, and a theory that cannot be proven against a baptist preacher in dozens of live debates really deserves to called a belief system because scientists "believe" what they teach.
Just ask yourselves why Hovind never gets destroyed by all these super-smart guys with all their research and knowledge...NONE of them,and i have watched many debates comes up with direct answers to any of his big questions..

oh,one more thing..if you follow evolution back to just after the earth was formed and the surface started to cool and harden and became rock...then it supposidly rained down on the rock which made the "soup" which gave rise to single cell organisms and on to DOGS...so evolutionists do kind of believe dogs and all life came from a rock..

for a science forum you guys really do seem very narrow in your reading of things like this....come on show me the proof of evolution...and remember that at the end of his life Darwin renounced his theory and said he was wrong!!..bet your science teacher never told you that one,right??
Boy, you're some sort of world class scientist eh? Nice try, I suggest you read some more (and I dont mean your bible).

Your post shows you know absolutely nothing about science, and cant even pay attention to what was said by Shermer at the start of his talk.

Did you know darwin has an award? I'd look into it, I think you are a prime candidate to win it!
 
Last edited:
  • #18
107
0
I don't think you have the proper evidence to say that Darwin renounced his own theory on his deathbed. Even if you had, would that really change anything at all?

tourettes said:
so evolutionists do kind of believe dogs and all life came from a rock..
I can't recall evolution claiming that anything evolved from a rock. Evolution explains the diversity of life, not it's origins.

tourettes said:
come on show me the proof of evolution
Do a search on google on "observed instances of speciation".
Also look at this;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
 
  • #19
also,look up the latest on petrified trees and you will see that even respected geologist admit now that petrified trees HAVE to be fossilised extremely quickly or they will simply rot away..moreover,there are so many excamples of petrified tress going through different rock strata that the chances of all of them being caused by earthquakes tossing them into rock that is "billions of years old" is really tiny..
Do you have a link to articles about either of these claims? — If this is true then it is definitely interesting, but I haven't been able to find a source for this.

oh,one more thing..if you follow evolution back to just after the earth was formed and the surface started to cool and harden and became rock...then it supposidly rained down on the rock which made the "soup" which gave rise to single cell organisms and on to DOGS...so evolutionists do kind of believe dogs and all life came from a rock..
The reason no biologist will answer this question, is because this is beyond the realm of a biologist, and beyond the realm of evolution. This is where chemistry comes in, and organic chemistry is a relatively new science (especially when we are talking about studying the chemical processes related to living organisms), so you can't possibly expect us to have all the answers right now (i.e: The God Of The Gaps).

Organic compounds have been shown to form from inorganic compounds under various conditions (is it a coincidence that these conditions are very much like the conditions we expect the earth to have had during its youth?).

It doesn't mean a cell just formed from a rock. It would've been enough for a replicating RNA-like (though much much more rudimentary) molecule to have formed to start the process, which is not at all inconceivable, considering the billions of billions of chemical reactions that were going on at the moment throughout the earth.

I don't know much about the subject, and even those who do are far from really working out the details, but if you do some research or ask others here who might know more about this, I'm sure you'll understand why saying that evolution means a dog came from a rock (or even that a cell came from a rock) is beyond hyperbole.

and remember that at the end of his life Darwin renounced his theory and said he was wrong!!..bet your science teacher never told you that one,right??
Yes. Most of us are aware of that myth, which arose from a fiction story published for a religious magazine (look up "The Lady Hope Story"). Darwin and his family have clearly stated that he was an agnostic to his death.
 
  • #20
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
16
tourettes, your post is so filled with blatant nonfacts, it's hard to decide how far to go with a debunking. I'll pick one rather unimportant but oft repeated piece of untruth. It's unimportant to anyone that has half a clue about how science works, but seems to be a big deal to the YEC crowd.
...and remember that at the end of his life Darwin renounced his theory and said he was wrong!!..bet your science teacher never told you that one,right??
Right, and rightfully so. Because, for one thing, science does not concern itself with deathbed conversions, as you imagine it does. And secondly, this story is nothing more than a rumor spread by christians following Lady Hope's original speech through her hat.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_cul4.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG001.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/darwin_recant.asp

From the last link:
Darwin's biographer, Dr James Moore, lecturer in the history of science and technology at The Open University in the UK, has spent 20 years researching the data over three continents. He produced a 218-page book examining what he calls the 'Darwin legend'.7 He says there was a Lady Hope. Born Elizabeth Reid Cotton in 1842, she married a widower, retired Admiral Sir James Hope, in 1877. She engaged in tent evangelism and in visiting the elderly and sick in Kent in the 1880s, and died of cancer in Sydney, Australia, in 1922, where her tomb may be seen to this day.

Moore concludes that Lady Hope probably did visit Charles between Wednesday, 28 September and Sunday, 2 October 1881, almost certainly when Francis and Henrietta were absent, but his wife, Emma, probably was present. He describes Lady Hope as 'a skilled raconteur, able to summon up poignant scenes and conversations, and embroider them with sentimental spirituality'. He points out that her published story contained some authentic details as to time and place, but also factual inaccuracies—Charles was not bedridden six months before he died, and the summer house was far too small to accommodate 30 people. The most important aspect of the story, however, is that it does not say that Charles either renounced evolution or embraced Christianity. He merely is said to have expressed concern over the fate of his youthful speculations and to have spoken in favour of a few people's attending a religious meeting. The alleged recantation/conversion are embellishments that others have either read into the story or made up for themselves. Moore calls such doings 'holy fabrication'!

It should be noted that for most of her married life Emma was deeply pained by the irreligious nature of Charles's views, and would have been strongly motivated to have corroborated any story of a genuine conversion, if such had occurred. She never did.

It therefore appears that Darwin did not recant, and it is a pity that to this day the Lady Hope story occasionally appears in tracts published and given out by well-meaning people.
 
  • #21
2,985
13
the peppered moth is simply showing signs of micro-evolution(variation)..it already had the genes to change colour..these genes are not new,therefore it cannot really be called evolution..now,if this moth has really changed at a dna level,and the change is permanent then that could be evidence for evolution..
Wow, thanks Dr. Tourettes. PhD in biology and nonsense! aaamazing.

Please, enlighten us some more with your high school diploma of science.

Come one, win that Darwin award, I know you can do it!
 
Last edited:
  • #22
2,985
13
Im watching the Q&A part of the video now, and WOW. Is this guy STUPID. He is babbling on, and on, and on about this animal and that animal and how its not evolution. I'd love for some evolutionary biologists to debate him and show him how he should shut his mouth and stop pretending to know science. Its BEYOND pathetic.
 
  • #23
2,985
13
let`s have some more...
Oh come on, I'm sure you have a lot more nonsense you can share with us. Please dont stop. I really do enjoy watching you make a fool of yourself.
 
  • #24
2,985
13
Do a search on google on "observed instances of speciation".
Also look at this;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
Report Post Reply With Quote

well,i looked at the experiments to creat hydrid nettles and it`s stretching it a bit to say that`s proof of evolution i think
Oh, so you, Dr. Tourettes, world expert in evolution, have just given your expert opinion on other peoples research. I cant wait to read your publications. You opinion really means a lot on a subject you dont even understand.

(The more nonsense you post, the more nasty I will be with you). Its really in bad taste for you to come to a science forum, know NOTHING about science, and then bla bla bla to us about how we dont know anything about science.
 
Last edited:
  • #25
107
0
i did not see one direct quote from the scientists doing that plant hybrid research claim their work to be evidence of evolution.
Your point being? If i publish proof about something, and then say nothing about it being proof, does that make it false?
And you watched a fraction of 1 page out of 536000 results on google, now of course I'm not going to claim they all show evidence or are even positive to evolution, but let's say 1% of them are evidence, thats 5359 pages left for you to watch before claiming it is "all the evidence I can come up with".
And you say we have not given you any evidence but rather have only insulted you?
I'm glad science is largely independent of the public.
 

Related Threads for: Is Michael Shermer a Disciple of Satan?

  • Last Post
2
Replies
45
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
37
Views
4K
Top