End of Year

Eric Hovind debates Michael Shermer

Dr. Hovind’s Debate

I will never forget watching as my Dad debated Michael Shermer in Debate #20 of our debate series.  I was blown away at my Dad’s ability to shut down his arguments and mount an onslaught of offense that Mr. Shermer was never able to overcome.  If you have watched this debate, you will know what I am talking about.

Eric’s Debate

In 2009 I had the opportunity to debate Michael Shermer on the Dave Glover radio show. I had not listened to the debate since doing it live on the radio until I came across it the other night while cybersurfing. As I listened to the debate, I could not help but feel frustrated because I was not as good as my Dad. All in all, it was certainly not my best debate, but I am working on it. Feel free to let me know your thoughts.

Eric Hovind debates Michael Shermer

,

Leave18 Responses to testEric Hovind debates Michael Shermer

  1. Ryan Vinter May 31, 2011 at 6:23 am #

    I think you did a great job Eric :) , unfortunately i was only able to listen to the first few minutes but i could already see how it was going to play out about the evidence as soon as the C14 dating was bought up i lol.

    A mind is like a parachute, it works better when it is open.

  2. Kenneth Tyner May 31, 2011 at 7:08 am #

    Eric, you handled that interview very well. Shermer is an advisor for the (WPM) World Pantheist Movement.
    His arguments were based on assumptions, and opinions derived from those assumptions, but not any facts.
    Then he follows with red herrings and straw man arguments. He would not go toe to toe with you on any specific point.
    Also, after 4000 years, there would not be any flood debris remaining. You would only find that with recent floods.
    You did an excellent job on that interview. The mockery that followed your interview showed clearly that nothing you could have said would have changed any of their minds, or even provided them with any insight.
    Also you clearly told them those videos were available to view for free on DrDino, and they mocked as if you were trying to sell them something.
    You are your Father’s son. :)

  3. John Bebbington May 31, 2011 at 10:35 am #

    I was blown away at my Dad’s ability to shut down his arguments and mount an onslaught of offense that Mr. Shermer was never able to overcome. If you have watched this debate, you will know what I am talking about.

    Such as, Eric?

    To my ears all your father managed to achieve was the same old same old.

    As you well know your father’s method is to throw out as many “facts” in as short a time as possible which makes it impossible for the other debater to find the time to refute them all. Most of the “facts” are either wrong or irrelevant but the gullible flock does not have the nous to recognise the bale of wool which has been pulled over its eyes.

    There are many examples of this disreputable method in the debate. What makes it worse is that your father has been shown directly that many of his “facts” are wrong. To continue to claim the truth of such errors is to lie.

    One example in the Kent – Sherman debate was the use of the Baby Dima slide when discussing carbon dating the data for which was produced by quote-mining fellow creationist Walt Brown but claiming at the bottom of the slide that the extracted quote came from an original source. Unfortunately for Kent, Brown got the reference wrong and therefore so did Kent as he hadn’t bothered to check it first by going to the original source. Indeed, if he had so tried he wouldn’t have found it because it does not exist.

    Kent knows this but still continues to use the slide (well, he did until temporarily removed from society). It is a dishonest practice of which there are many examples in your father’s presentations and it is not something in which you should find pride.

    As for your own debating technique, Eric, you do not have the background knowledge to argue against credentialed scientists. You will never be able to debate a geologist on geology, a geneticist on genetics or a biologist on biology. A post-high school education comprising two semesters at a preaching college is not a good preparation for the job in hand.
    Your response in your own short debate with Sherman when he mentioned Prothero’s book was risible. How can you possiby discuss the findings of modern paleontology with any authority when you haven’t even read the book? To dismiss the argument as you did only demonstrates the shallowness of your knowledge.

    As Kenneth so rightly if ungrammatically observed, “You are your father’s son”

  4. Rod Naugler May 31, 2011 at 6:48 pm #

    Also remember that in the former debate, it was your experienced father debating a less experienced Michael. This time, Michael has that much more experience and he’s experienced your father’s techniques and arguments before. As well, he’s probably reviewed your material here. You have less experience than your father and still held your own which demonstrates the correctness of your facts and logic and reveals the lies of evolution for what they are.

  5. Todd Patrick May 31, 2011 at 7:59 pm #

    Eric, you did fine. Their ideas are full of holes and anyone who is sincerely interested in the truth can see it for themselvs. Of course no amount of evidence will change a mind that doesn’t want to be changed, but what you do offers help and guidance to one who is looking for the truth. What you do is evangelism and offers hope to those who know in their heart that something is wrong and they are looking for answers. The Michael Shermers of the world have probably seared their minds well and are unlikely to change, but many have not gotten to that point and those are the ones who can still hear the truth. Sorry to ramble on but you keep doing what you do and let them continue to laugh and mock (Matt. 5:11-12). The Lord will set things right soon enough.

  6. Carl M May 31, 2011 at 11:21 pm #

    Ryan Vinter

    i could already see how it was going to play out about the evidence as soon as the C14 dating was bought up i lol.

    That would have been when Eric used two examples of organisms which get their carbon from non-atmospheric sources (snails from limestone, seals from the ocean) to argue against carbon dating which uses samples which get their carbon from the atmosphere (eg wood).

    That is not funny.

    (I was surprised Shermer hadn’t heard these long debunked claims)

    For the Young Earth position to be valid, 100% of radiometric dates must be wrong. Not 1%. Not 50%. Not 99%. All methods (all isotopes and all lab techniques) must be wrong and all samples must be contaminated. Not a single sample is allowed to be remotely accurate. What is the probability of that?

    You can have a young object in an old universe but you can’t have an old object in a young universe.

  7. Duane Hamish June 1, 2011 at 10:54 pm #

    What facts? Using outdated, erroneous material that you have been corrected on multiple times is actually a sign of dishonesty. Also, being more rehearsed in lies doesn’t make them true.

  8. Truth_Seeker H June 2, 2011 at 8:24 am #

    Hi Eric,

    You did very well. Some people are so blinded by their own will to find answers to disproof God that they can’t even see the truth living in it….

    I mean who laid out the 7 day week time frame?
    Who made time?
    Who made matter?

    People seeking truth in evolution, can only work with the constraints of space, time and star-trek. Creationists know God exists out of those constraints.

    God has no beginning, has no end.

    Corne

  9. John Bebbington June 2, 2011 at 4:24 pm #

    Corne wrote:

    Some people are so blinded by their own will to find answers to disproof (sic) God that they can’t even see the truth living in it.

    I don’t know anybody who has attempted to “disproof” a deity. It is for the proponent of the deity to produce the evidence for its existence. Without such evidence the deity is as good as non-existent, viz. Baal + a few thousand others.

    I mean who laid out the 7 day week time frame?

    The Sumerians, probably – at least 1,000 years before the universe was created in 4004 BC. They based it upon the six known planets + one sun.

    Who made time?

    Who made matter?

    It takes a special sort of intelligence to insist that a mind came before matter. As creationists constantly remind us (erroneously), matter can neither be created nor destroyed, However, minds come and go constantly.

    People seeking truth in evolution, can only work with the constraints of space, time and star-trek. Creationists know God exists out of those constraints.

    How would you define the difference between knowledge and belief?

  10. John Bebbington June 3, 2011 at 9:03 am #

    Carl wrote:

    That would have been when Eric used two examples of organisms which get their carbon from non-atmospheric sources (snails from limestone, seals from the ocean) to argue against carbon dating which uses samples which get their carbon from the atmosphere (eg wood).

    It also takes a very special sort of intelligence to keep putting forward these objections to radiocarbon dating.
    Kent and Eric know very well why the radiometric dates are distorted in the two examples mentioned by Carl.

    So which of the regular YECist commenters to this blog is willing to attempt to explain why father and son continue to promulgate such deliberate misrepresentation?

  11. Philip de Rivaz June 3, 2011 at 3:22 pm #

    Eric,

    The atheistic/”Christian” evolutionists are proposing a worldview with the certainty of Goliath.

    Go forward David.

    In Christ,

    Philip

    onlinechristianityteacher.com

  12. Rob June 4, 2011 at 11:00 am #

    Hey Eric,

    Loved your dad’s debates!!! He shut down ALL comers with EASE! It’s really not that difficult with the faulty logic they use.

    I love this “The Sumerians, probably at least 1,000 years before the universe was created in 4004 BC. They based it upon the six known planets + one sun.”

    The Sumerians, PROBABLY (as in, NOBODY REALLY KNOWS) however the next sentence is an insinuation as if they DO know. “They based it upon the six known planets + one sun.” REALLY??? And the Sumerians could distinguish “Planets” versus “Stars” HOW exactly???

    Oh the stories they tell, with such great imagination and absolutely NO empirical foundation.

    Keep up the great work Eric, your father should be proud!

  13. Truth_Seeker H June 6, 2011 at 4:18 am #

    Hi John,

    Your question:

    How would you define the difference between knowledge and belief?

    I think n 6 grader would be able to answer this question:
    Answered by a Child:

    Knowledge – to lean about your parents love for you through their actions.

    Belief – to believe your parents will never leave you through the knowledge of their love.

    Creationists table:
    Knowlige > Believe > God > Wisdom
    Pro 14:6 A scorner seeketh wisdom, and [findeth it] not: but knowledge [is] easy unto him that understandeth.

    Evolutionists table:
    Knowlidge > death
    Pro 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death.

    Please dont forget: God exists out of the confines of space and time. :)

  14. John Bebbington June 6, 2011 at 11:55 am #

    Carl wrote:

    Knowledge to lean about your parents love for you through their actions.

    Your parents are tangible beings. Their loving actions are directly observable. Such knowledge is gained by use of the five senses.

    Previously, you wrote:

    People seeking truth in evolution, can only work with the constraints of space, time and star-trek. Creationists know God exists out of those constraints.

    One can have no such knowledge as it cannot arise by use of one’s senses.

    Belief to believe your parents will never leave you through the knowledge of their love.

    Creationists table:
    Knowlige > Believe > God > Wisdom
    Pro 14:6 A scorner seeketh wisdom, and [findeth it] not: but knowledge [is] easy unto him that understandeth.

    If you define a scorner as somebody who does not accept the beliefs of others then we are all scorners. You should listen to Hamza Andreas Tzortzis on You Tube but in your mind substitute “christianity” every time you hear him use the word “islam”. Outside of your differing creedal dogmas your views are indistinguishable and interchangeable. Your respective creedal beliefs are equally strongly held so neither of you can have “knowledge” supporting them as they are opposed

    By the way, in my previous post I accused Kent and Eric of promulgating known falsehoods. The verse previous to the one you quoted covers their position quite nicely “An honest witness does not deceive, but a false witness pours out lies.”

    Please dont forget: God exists out of the confines of space and time. :)

    It would have to as it doesn’t appear to exist within them. :)

  15. John Bebbington June 6, 2011 at 5:47 pm #

    Rob wrote:

    He shut down ALL comers with EASE! It’s really not that difficult with the faulty logic they use.

    Such as the logic which declares that water snails disprove radiocarbon dating when science already knows the reason that such mis-dating occurs?

    I love this “The Sumerians, probably at least 1,000 years before the universe was created in 4004 BC. They based it upon the six known planets + one sun.”

    The Sumerians, PROBABLY (as in, NOBODY REALLY KNOWS) however the next sentence is an insinuation as if they DO know. “They based it upon the six known planets + one sun.”

    I used “probably” because civilisations earlier than the Sumerians may have invented the system. The Sumerians certainly used it because there is archaeological evidence to this effect.

    REALLY??? And the Sumerians could distinguish “Planets” versus “Stars” HOW exactly???

    Are you seriously that untutored, Rob? Your father should be very proud of you.

    It’s because planets move against a backdrop of motionless stars. To the ancients planets were ambulatory stars.

    Oh the stories they tell, with such great imagination and absolutely NO empirical foundation.

    Except archaeology – whereas you believe in the literal rendition of ancient metaphorical religious writings that were not committed to paper until some 3,000 years after the alleged events they describe occurred. Imagine writing today a literal history of events which supposedly occurred in 1,000 BC the basis for which relied only on oral recital over 150 generations. Now that would require some imagination.

  16. Carl M June 6, 2011 at 6:31 pm #

    Rob said

    The Sumerians, PROBABLY (as in, NOBODY REALLY KNOWS) however the next sentence is an insinuation as if they DO know. “They based it upon the six known planets + one sun.” REALLY??? And the Sumerians could distinguish “Planets” versus “Stars” HOW exactly???

    This brought a smile to my face.

    Any one can tell a planet from a star. Planets move through consellations while stars hold their position. The word “planet” comes from the Greek for “wanderer”.

  17. Jay Liverstitch June 6, 2011 at 9:54 pm #

    Rob you said The Sumerians, PROBABLY (as in, NOBODY REALLY KNOWS) however the next sentence is an insinuation as if they DO know. “They based it upon the six known planets + one sun. REALLY??? And the Sumerians could distinguish “Planets” versus “Stars” HOW exactly???

    The Sumerians, along with their contemporaries and successors, distinguished the planets from the stars because the planets appeared to move in relation to said stars. In fact, our word “planet” is derived from the Greek word “planasthai” which means “to wander”.

    To the Sumerians, any light in the sky that moved relative to the backdrop of the “fixed” stars, was a planet; this included the sun and the moon. If you count up the 5 planets that are visible to the naked eye (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn), and add two for the moon and sun, you get 7. As John stated, this is the origin of our 7 day week.

    Ever wonder why many of the days of the week are named after ancient religion’s gods (Tyr = Tuesday or Tyr’s day, Woden = Wednesday, Thor = Thursday, Saturn = Saturday, and Moon = Monday, Sun = Sunday). These gods, in many ancient religions (Greek, Roman, Norse, Babylonian) were assigned to the various “classical 7 planets” and each day of the week was dedicated to one of them. And yes, whether you accept it or not, this was in place long before the Hebrew people adopted it, and eventually assigned it a mythical story in the book of Genesis.

  18. Truth_Seeker H June 7, 2011 at 1:52 am #

    John said: It would have to as it doesn’t appear to exist within them.

    nope!

    John 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not.