11 Yr Old Atheist Beats Famous Creationist In Under A Minute.

A sixth grader debunks the logic of Eric Hovind (son of creationist Kent Hovind, aka “doctor dino”) in under a minute and Hovind actually concedes his point before he realizes he’s done so (1:10), then immediately asks irrelevant questions to distract from this then repeats his erroneous argument with other examples.

How will evangelists deal with this?

Why the way they always do, by simply editing it out:

(The version of the video over at “Grace Youth Ministries” that begins just after Hovind loses).

About agnophilo

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to 11 Yr Old Atheist Beats Famous Creationist In Under A Minute.

  1. If only there was video of famous atheists looking dumb.

  2. QuantumStorm says:

    Ever since I used to butt heads with Hovind-quoting YEC’s, I’ve noticed that it’s folks like the Hovinds who often do a better job of turning people away from the faith than other atheists do. 

  3. LOLOL he couldn’t talk his way outta that one.

  4. Nous_Apeiron says:

    I’d be reluctant to say anyone won in that discussion given that neither of them properly addressed the other person’s argument, but I can’t fault an 11 year old for it (he probably hasn’t taken a course in epistemology like I have), whereas it’s seriously tragic that Hovind didn’t correctly address the kid’s point.  I’ve seen some of Hovind’s presentations before, and I find him to be pretty ill-equipped for the sort of work he’s trying to do, as evidenced by his poor argumentation and explanation.

  5. TheSutraDude says:

    If Hovind doesn’t know everything or doesn’t know anything how can he claim to know something? More importantly he can live with himself but how can he claim to know what others should believe or how others should live if he admits he believes in something but cannot know for himself? Gotta love 11 year olds.

  6. Erika_Steele says:

    Can some one please explain to me what he said? It made no sense. It hurt my head to make it into logic.

  7. @TheTheologiansCafe – Yes, if only. Famous atheists (and even most atheists in general), are usually pretty well-read and knowledgeable. So, I wager there’s very few (if any) legitimate videos of atheists looking as dumb as 99.9% of hardcore fundies/creationists. But, by all means, try and find one.

  8. theKisSilent says:

    Is this what is known as circular reasoning? God exists because we don’t know everything, and only God knows everything, therefore there is a God?@Erika_Steele – Yea, I’m getting that headache, too.

  9. Dear God, I can’t believe Creationism ever existed. Ever. Ever. 

  10. maniacsicko says:

    “the proof of God is without God you can’t know anything…”why should i listen to whatever that is coming next?   sigh….

  11. carlo says:

    I think if God was  watching is, he must have a good laughI wonder if he does internet up there.

  12. Hunt4Truth says:

    Treat those who are good with goodness, and also treat those who are not good with goodness. Thus goodness is attained. Be honest to those who are honest, and be also honest to those who are not honest. Thus honesty is attained. Lao Tzu Hovind gives a poor answer. I think he didn’t know, that I can agree with you.

  13. agnophilo says:

    @TheTheologiansCafe – My assertion is not that this creationist handled himself badly therefore this disproves creationism, just that the hovinds are idiots.  And as In Reason I Trust pointed out, videos of well known atheists making fools out of themselves (without the help of video editing) are pretty rare.  Only two videos come to mind, one is when thunderf00t (from youtube) debated with ray comfort in person and choked (some people aren’t good at debating in real time) and the only other example of an atheist being “embarrassed” that comes to mind was not even an example at all, but was considered one universally on a creationist forum I was debating on.  It was a debate between richard dawkins and some evangelist, the evangelist said “do you have any evidence that your wife loves you?”  Dawkins looked puzzled and replied “yes, lots and lots of evidence” which the dawkins and the audience laughed at and then the moderator changed the subject.  This was seen as a “humiliation” for dawkins, but I think the fundamentalists in the forum I was debating in just wanted to pretend the audience were laughing at him, rather than with him.@QuantumStorm – You’ve got anecdotal evidence of this?@ShimmerBodyCream – Nope : )@Nous_Apeiron – The 11 year old performed a reductio ad absurdum on his premise (correctly) and debunked his argument.  Then hovind just distracted him with other questions to make him lose his 11 year old train of thought.  I’ve debated with many a slippery radio evangelist, they use tactics like this, changing the subject and retreating while acting like they’re advancing are chief among them.  For instance if he were more aggressive and douchey he would’ve said “no, you don’t understand what I mean, what I’m saying is [run away and make a new argument].@TheSutraDude – He didn’t admit he doesn’t know it, he only admitted a dirty heathen doesn’t know it!  Aha!@Erika_Steele – Don’t worry, it made no sense.  Your head is working just fine.@In_Reason_I_Trust – I agree, see my response to theodan.@theKisSilent – Yup.  I’d give you a cookie or something if I could.  Right on the money : )@sacredrendezvous – I can.  It’s existence in the modern era is harder to understand though and can only be made sense of in light of ignorance and (more often) psychology.@maniacsicko – He’s actually butchering a less insane sounding line from popular apologetics.@carlo – A wifi connection of which no greater thing can be thought would logically reach everywhere and would also by definition exist (since not existing would diminish it), so using the logic of Saint Anselm I have proven that yes, god has wifi in heaven.@Hunt4Truth – Again you surprise me quoting the tao.  I usually prefer this version, but in this instance that bit makes more sense in yours – what translation is that?

  14. TheSutraDude says:

    @agnophilo – haha yes but he does say you’ve given up knowledge if you don’t believe in god. He also said if you don’t know everything you can’t know anything to be true, then if you don’t know everything you need a revelation from someone who does…god. Yet if you don’t know everything yourself how can you know god is telling you something. You’d have to be god to know that in the first place. The guy interchanges the word “know” with the word “believe”. Therein lies the danger. The notion that what one believes is knowledge and from out of that notion one has been given a mandate to rule the lives of others with or without their consent. An obvious example can be seen in David Koresh who believed underage girls were there for him to have sex with because it was god’s will. Most, I hope, would disagree but he argued his position based on his belief (and in his mind knowledge) of god, argued to his death. Anyway, I think the 11 year old explained it better than I am. 

  15. Hunt4Truth says:

    re: My assertion is not that this creationist handled himself badly therefore this disproves creationism, just that the hovinds are idiots. I understood that. It was a poor response; idiot if you like. I don’t know the men. In fact, the statement seems not to be one of any evidence of God that I would accept either. I’d prefer that he’d said that he read the Bible. re:The version of the video over at “Grace Youth Ministries”….Is that posted as an “educational” video? re:Again you surprise me quoting the tao. I usually prefer this version, but in this instance that bit makes more sense in yours – what translation is that?Sorry… I used a search for something like tao lao tzu good and used result from brainyquotes… I have a translation by A. S. Kline of 2003 and it is different there:Those who are good I treat as good.Those who are bad I treat as good.That’s the perfection of goodness.Those who are honest I treat as honest.Those who are dishonest I treat as honest.That’s the perfection of honesty.http://www.poetryintranslation.com/klineastao.htmI like the one from Brainy Quotes too… it is listed at many of the quote sites. I like the Kline translation better than McDonald… there we go picking and choosing what we like… I am at work so, this took probably an hour to find online… not in real time, between work… OK, see you later.Peace,Hunt

  16. we had this argument in my house the other day

  17. QuantumStorm says:

    @agnophilo – Nothing really specific, just things I remember from talking with atheist friends who grew up in households where the parents believed in a YEC creationist account. 

  18. Garistotle says:

    @TheTheologiansCafe – We just have to stick with Xanga comments of atheists being dumb. 

  19. Garistotle says:

    NOTE: The preceding message is not an indictment of all Xanga atheists. Just the dumb ones. 

  20. Yeah, Hovind is a moron. 

  21. Jenny_Wren says:

    Oh geez…There are some really well-read, adept debaters for creationism out there. This guy is not one of them. 

  22. Nous_Apeiron says:

    @agnophilo – You’ll get no argument from me that distraction or begging the question are common rhetorical tactics used by people who don’t have a good response to a challenger.  I’ve seen it plenty of times.I don’t think he effectively responded to Hovind’s argument that, “To know anything you would have to know everything,” however.  Whether the argument makes any sense or not would depend on which philosophical definition of knowledge he’s appealing to.  For particularly strong definitions of knowledge, it might be the case that omniscience would be required to know any proposition in practice.  I like to make sure that the basic terms are clarified in any epistemological discussion where it’s likely that folks are operating out of very different epistemic frameworks.Again, I don’t expect a kid to go that route.  He certainly did well for his age just to be using a simple reductio.  And it certainly threw Hovind for a loop, which suggests that he doesn’t prepare for the simplest questions and can’t respond to them on the fly.  Not good.

  23. n_e_i_l says:

    I figured it would be a waste of time (even 3 minutes) to watch this guy, and I wasn’t let down. But now I am curious what argument he was trying to appeal to—there does seem to be one, an epistemological one that he’s mixing up with the perfection-and-existence thing à la Anselm. I think Plantinga wrote a book where he argued that belief in God is like belief in other minds, and that if one is rational, then so is the other. I doubt Hovind is reading much Plantinga (or anything else) though.

  24. The_ATM says:

    Well, his argument makes sense, in some regard. You can not know any one thing for certain unless you know everything. It does make sense; it is sort of the whole twist in the movie “The Matrix”, but it is one of those completely impractical philosophical insights. Yes, maybe everything I have experienced has been stimulation of brain my stem while I am actually laying in a pod serving as a battery for robots in a post-apocalyptic world. Does that mean that it could be possible that it doesn’t matter if I run a red light? Sure, but behaving that way is completely retarded.It is sort of a typical YEC thing to suggest that because you cannot know everything, “God may exist” = “God must exist”I don’t have a good argument for God’s existence, just what I feel I have experienced of the world. I do have a solid argument that the ‘supernatural’ must exist, but it really only leaves more questions.

  25. Just me or was Hovind just trying to do Decartes’ argument against skepticism? (And just does a much worse version of it, especially when Hovind conflates inductive reasoning with deductive reasoning.)

  26. I found this blog to be enlightening to others that believe a similar way, in the sense that, NOT everyone believes the same way. Just because a Christian or like myself, a Wiccan believes there is a Higher Power or God, doesn’t mean that an Atheist has to! And just because one that believes in something Higher and that is their TRUTH… doesn’t mean it is everyone’s truth. Therefore, meaning there is NO PROOF except to the person who believes, so to me it is kind of pointless to try and convince someone that doesn’t believe that there is indeed a God. Even an 11 year old boy! Great blog! 

Speak yer mind.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s