I think Tfoot is up to the task. As long as he actually gets the chance to talk and isn't drowned out, I think he'll hold his own. Obviously everything he says is going to be accurate and everything the other twat says is going to be nonsense, that's not the issue. But I think he could do it.

Whether it's worth doing is another question.

I have an idea for this kind of thing: when the other guy is rabbiting on with nonsense and you aren't getting to respond, have a series of cards prepared in advance with the names of logical fallacies on them. Hold them up as the fallacies appear, so they can easily be identified on playback. The sheer relentless number of fallacies may get people (the speaker included) to realize how poor the arguments are. Maybe they'll even stop and discuss one.

Since there are only about a dozen stupid arguments used in rotation, you could even hold up a card with a link to a website which debunks that particular argument in detail.

For example, I watched a bit of a debate of Hitchens versus younger brother Hitchens. Young one did his preamble before he even got to his main talk, and I counted at least 8 logical fallacies in a couple of minutes.

I think it's a mistake for anyone to give Hovind a platform. He's desperate for any kind of attention he can get to re-launch his bullshit ministry. If he wants to spread his ignorance and lies, let him figure out how to crawl out of his well deserved obscurity on his own. There's no need to help him find a spotlight.

However, I would be willing to alter my opinion on the merits of debating Hovind (or Ham, for that matter) if it involved a Christian defending the scientific perspective. Since most denominations have, for the most part, made their peace with evolutionary science, I'd like to see a Christian who understands biology step up to the plate and silence these idiots publicly. That would throw a much needed wrench into the creationist camp, since most of those bozos think of creation/evolution as a kind of Christian/atheist debate. Let them debate one of their own and see how well their "arguments" stand up in front of the Christian crowds they usually bus into these events. Something like that could well give the audience pause.

(September 17, 2015 at 3:42 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: However, I would be willing to alter my opinion on the merits of debating Hovind (or Ham, for that matter) if it involved a Christian defending the scientific perspective. Since most denominations have, for the most part, made their peace with evolutionary science, I'd like to see a Christian who understands biology step up to the plate and silence these idiots publicly. That would throw a much needed wrench into the creationist camp, since most of those bozos think of creation/evolution as a kind of Christian/atheist debate. Let them debate one of their own and see how well their "arguments" stand up in front of the Christian crowds they usually bus into these events. Something like that could well give the audience pause.

That could backfire, though. They'd inevitabely get into a scriptual debate over the topic, which would support the creationist side, and the people in the audience would find that more relevant than the actual scientific debate. ,

It may just be the best thing to say, "This isn't even a debate worth having," and leave it at that.

Astronomers don't debate astrologers.

MDs don't debate witch doctors.

At least, I hope not.

(September 17, 2015 at 4:42 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

(September 17, 2015 at 3:42 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: However, I would be willing to alter my opinion on the merits of debating Hovind (or Ham, for that matter) if it involved a Christian defending the scientific perspective. Since most denominations have, for the most part, made their peace with evolutionary science, I'd like to see a Christian who understands biology step up to the plate and silence these idiots publicly. That would throw a much needed wrench into the creationist camp, since most of those bozos think of creation/evolution as a kind of Christian/atheist debate. Let them debate one of their own and see how well their "arguments" stand up in front of the Christian crowds they usually bus into these events. Something like that could well give the audience pause.

That could backfire, though.  They'd inevitabely get into a scriptual debate over the topic, which would support the creationist side, and the people in the audience would find that more relevant than the actual scientific debate.  ,

It may just be the best thing to say, "This isn't even a debate worth having," and leave it at that.

Perhaps you're right. A lot would depend on the format of the debate and the extent to which a moderator actively kept the conversation focused on science rather than scriptural interpretation.

Kent Hovind vs. Mad Max?

(September 17, 2015 at 4:42 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

(September 17, 2015 at 3:42 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: However, I would be willing to alter my opinion on the merits of debating Hovind (or Ham, for that matter) if it involved a Christian defending the scientific perspective. Since most denominations have, for the most part, made their peace with evolutionary science, I'd like to see a Christian who understands biology step up to the plate and silence these idiots publicly. That would throw a much needed wrench into the creationist camp, since most of those bozos think of creation/evolution as a kind of Christian/atheist debate. Let them debate one of their own and see how well their "arguments" stand up in front of the Christian crowds they usually bus into these events. Something like that could well give the audience pause.

That could backfire, though. They'd inevitabely get into a scriptual debate over the topic, which would support the creationist side, and the people in the audience would find that more relevant than the actual scientific debate. ,

It may just be the best thing to say, "This isn't even a debate worth having," and leave it at that.

The issue is that the creationists are already being taken seriously by a non critical audience. If no one challenges them they just spread their bullshit unopposed.

(September 17, 2015 at 6:18 am)robvalue Wrote: I think Tfoot is up to the task. As long as he actually gets the chance to talk and isn't drowned out, I think he'll hold his own. Obviously everything he says is going to be accurate and everything the other twat says is going to be nonsense, that's not the issue. But I think he could do it.

Whether it's worth doing is another question.

I have an idea for this kind of thing: when the other guy is rabbiting on with nonsense and you aren't getting to respond, have a series of cards prepared in advance with the names of logical fallacies on them. Hold them up as the fallacies appear, so they can easily be identified on playback. The sheer relentless number of fallacies may get people (the speaker included) to realize how poor the arguments are. Maybe they'll even stop and discuss one.

Since there are only about a dozen stupid arguments used in rotation, you could even hold up a card with a link to a website which debunks that particular argument in detail.

For example, I watched a bit of a debate of Hitchens versus younger brother Hitchens. Young one did his preamble before he even got to his main talk, and I counted at least 8 logical fallacies in a couple of minutes.

I think I remember a debate Matt Dillahunty did, where he didn't really know the exact questions that would be asked, but he predicted with almost complete accuracy the kinds of things the other person was going to say.

(September 17, 2015 at 9:34 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote:

(September 17, 2015 at 4:42 pm)Faith No More Wrote: That could backfire, though.  They'd inevitabely get into a scriptual debate over the topic, which would support the creationist side, and the people in the audience would find that more relevant than the actual scientific debate.  ,

It may just be the best thing to say, "This isn't even a debate worth having," and leave it at that.

The issue is that the creationists are already being taken seriously by a non critical audience. If no one challenges them they just spread their bullshit unopposed.

You're really over estimating the importance and educational value of formal debates. With debates I'm worried about backfire effect which is when evidence and arguments against people's beliefs cause them to become more convinced of their beliefs instead of changing their minds. http://www.skepdic.com/backfireeffect.html
TV shows like Nova, Nature, and educational science shows for kids are likely the best way to go for educating the general public in a non-argumentative way.

(September 18, 2015 at 6:03 am)Pizza Wrote:

(September 17, 2015 at 9:34 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: The issue is that the creationists are already being taken seriously by a non critical audience. If no one challenges them they just spread their bullshit unopposed.

You're really over estimating the importance and educational value of formal debates. With debates I'm worried about backfire effect which is when evidence and arguments against people's beliefs cause them to become more convinced of their beliefs instead of changing their minds. http://www.skepdic.com/backfireeffect.html
TV shows like Nova, Nature, and educational science shows for kids are likely the best way to go for educating the general public in a non-argumentative way.

No what debates do is demonstrate someone standing up and saying "bullshit." That is why needs to happen here. Sure some will believe more strongly but it will also give us more stock to laugh At these people with. The problem with using nova documentaries and such is that these people dismiss them and as such will never watch one.