Correcting Hovindophiles

My recent confrontation with Kent Hovind, seems to have disturbed an ant hill of his sycophants; most are too immature and cognitively incapable to even attempt to reason with. The following (in italics) is by far the most intelligent comment I’ve yet seen from Hovind’s lot, if that tells you anything. Someone went through the trouble to type out a Docx file that I found in my inbox this morning. Everything in bold here was also underlined. Rather than email back, I think exchanges like this should be a matter of public record. So I will reply here instead and share the link with the sender.

Dear Mr. Aron Nelson (aka false god: “aron ra”),

All gods are false.

My name was L. Aron Nelson once upon a time, but I haven’t used that name in years. All my presentations, publications, correspondence, and everything I’m known for is in my professional name, Aron Ra, which has been my legal name for more than a year now. Since I suspect you already know that but insist on calling me that old name just to show your disrespect, (just like Hovind does) I will from here on refer to MISTER (not Doctor) Hovind by his old prison number. That, I think will be an appropriate response until y’all figure out who you’re talking to.

You’ve said you “do not like being lied to.” Well, we (the public) do not like being lied to either.

Au contrare, you love being lied to. Why else would you go to church? It is dishonest to assert baseless speculation as though it were a matter of fact, but that’s what all religions do. Facts are objectively verifiable data. Citing facts that aren’t facts and pretending to know things you don’t know are both lies, and they’re the lies you love. That’s why you’re defending a liar now, who tells far more lies than that. That’s also why you’re ignoring your own 9th commandment to falsely accuse me of lying in a fallacious projection. You’re not at all upset at creationists for deliberately misleading and deceiving you all your life. Instead you’re feigning outrage at anyone who calls out those lies with the truth.

By the way, the truth is what the facts are, what we can show to be true, and there is no truth to any religion. So yeah, you love lies and you apparently you have no interest in or value for the truth. That’s really the core difference between those who want to understand scientific realities vs those who make-believe in the fables and fairy tales of a magical creation.

There are many issues that need to be addressed. However, since the issues are too numerous to mention (in this youtube comment post), I will limit myself to highlighting just a few of the issues, okay? I’ve noticed some contradictions (hypocrisy) on your part.

Contradictions and hypocrisy are not synonyms.

/käntrəˈdikSH(ə)n/ noun
a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another.

/həˈpäkrəsē/ noun
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform; pretense.

You have not “noticed” either of these from me.

Perhaps you could explain these contradictions. Perhaps you could also explain WHY you conducted yourself in such a despicable and disgraceful manner during what was supposed to be a fair and balanced debate (or “discussion”) on the Creation-Evolution Controversy (also referred to as the Creation-Evolution Debate or The Origins Debate).

One of the reasons this was not a debate is because this wasn’t two people presenting opposing arguments. This was me correcting him. There was no formality and no obligation for “equal time”. This was so that inmate #06452-017 couldn’t Gish-gallop and avoid the issues being presented.

I didn’t behave disgracefully either. In fact I was praised by a few experts for being patient and staying on-topic and not taking the bait when inmate #06452-017 called me a dumb, drunken moron and pretended like he could correct things in my field that he didn’t know the first thing about himself. I dealt with that willfully ignorant deliberately dishonest criminal fraud appropriately, and I will not apologize for that.

– On the debate promo video (Feb. 24, 2018), you said:“I have NO interest in being associated with Mr. Hovind.” Yet, in the first scheduled debate (Mar. 1, 2018), you said: “I want to tell you straight-up: I’ve WANTED this CONFRONTATION for 20 YEARS, and I came ARMED!” So, to be “associated with Mr. Hovind” has in fact been a DREAM of yours “for 20 years.” So, you LIED on the debate promo video??? Could you explain this contradiction (hypocrisy)???

Adults typically use only one question mark.

It was never my intention to be associated with inmate #06452-017, but I have wanted to correct him directly ever since I discovered his bogus $250,000 challenge to “anyone who could present evidence of evolution”. Of course it was dishonestly rigged. For twenty years after that, I saw him callously swindling the innocent with his flim-flam, which I find outrageous. So I wanted a real-time reply from him on public record.

Sadly, after promising multiple times at the end that he would do a second round, he has since realized how poorly he did and will not face me again. Not surprisingly he’s now trying any excuse he can to get out of that. So he evaded the more devastating blows that were coming his way in round two.

(And just a sidenote: Yeah, you “came ARMED”…with alcohol!!! Instead of brains, you brought beer!!!)

I only drink the good stuff. I’m a beer snob, fond of kraft brews, especially a good imperial stout: even more so when I’m trying to reason with the deluded. But I don’t drink enough to get drunk. I don’t like being drunk, and I don’t do drugs either.

I started from a position of knowing this subject better than your man does, and I came armed with decades of focused study on top of that. I showed that I know what I’m talking about, where inmate #06452-017 was still telling the same lies for the last thirty years and obviously hasn’t bothered to learn anything in all that time. He didn’t prepare himself at all, and it showed.

– In the first scheduled debate (Mar. 1, 2018), you said: “I’m really HERE to ADDRESS the MAN HIMSELF.” So, you weren’t there to “address” the man’s arguments??? In a debate, you “address” the person’s arguments, NOT the person “himself.” WHY did you agree to have a debate (or “discussion”) if you had no intent to “address” the man’s arguments??? Could you explain this contradiction (hypocrisy)???

In a debate, we would both have equal time to present our cases. I don’t need to do that. I have over 500 mostly-educational videos on my channel and a book that is still listed on Amazon’s top 20 regarding this topic even 18 months after publication. My goal that evening was more specific. It was to indict that charlatan for his life-long career of lying about evolution being a religion, about us believing or teaching that we came from rocks, and a host of other misrepresentations or distortions of science, as well as dishonestly misrepresenting his own authority; by claiming to be a doctor and a high school science teacher and an “expert on dinosaurs and the Bible”, neither of which he knows squat about. He doesn’t even know the difference between dinosaurs and lizards! Seriously! So this wasn’t ever meant to be a debate. This was a chance for me to show everyone what an incompetent phony he’s always been.

– In the first scheduled debate (Mar. 1, 2018), you said: “I’ve WANTED this CONFRONTATION for 20 YEARS.” So, you wanted a “confrontation” with “the man himself” and not a “confrontation” with the man’s arguments??? In a debate, you confront (attack) the person’s arguments, NOT the person “himself.” WHY did you agree to have a debate (or “discussion”) if you had no intent to have a “confrontation” with the man’s arguments??? Could you explain this contradiction (hypocrisy)???

In a debate, two people argue past each other, not to each other. Each presents their case to a 3rd party, trying to convince the audience rather than the opponent. This wasn’t about that. I didn’t want to address the audience, I wanted to engage the man himself. As you saw, that meant that I must refute his arguments, which I did; where he (and you) chose instead to insult me personally. Think about that while you re-read the definition of hypocrisy.

In the rescheduled debate (Mar. 2, 2018), you said: “I’m NOT AFRAID of ANYTHING!” Well, IF you’re “not afraid of anything,” then you shouldn’t be “afraid” of having a structured debate, should you??? IF you’re NOT “afraid,” then WHY was it set-up as a so-called “discussion” instead of a structured debate??? IF you had a structured debate with Dr. Kent Hovind, you’d have to bring your brains to the debate, NOT your beer or your belligerence or your bully-behaviour. And most importantly, you’d have to bring (specifically cite) your “evidence” for evolution. You’d have to present your “evidence” instead of presenting ad hominem attacks to your opponent. In order for you to enter the debate arena, you’d have to put on your BIG-BOY pants, that is, IF you have any. Simply put: you ain’t got the KAHUNAS to step into a structured debate with Mr. Hovind!!! Maybe it’s time for YOU to ADMIT that you just don’t have the KAHUNAS (or the BACKBONE) for a structured debate.

Your childish taunting is meaningless here, especially since I’m pretty sure everyone reading this knows better than what you’re trying to insinuate. I’m eager to debate anyone face-to-face in front of a live audience, and it doesn’t matter how hostile they are, as long as they’ll pay to see it happen. In an earlier video, I explained why I would not “lend legitimacy to that fraud” by having a debate with your man, as if he were an equal. In my speech at Cambridge University, I explained why creationists do not deserve a formal debate against scientists.

The summary of that is that scientific debates are done in writing, where every claim can be evaluated by any and all experts in that field. Because unlike religion, in science accuracy and accountability are paramount, because it matters that we distinguish what is most likely true from what is definitely false. Anyone can present their evidence for peer review. but you have to have actual factual evidence to do that, and y’all don’t.

Since the science is never on your side, you rely on legislative ignorance and misdirection of the laity. You only engage in live debates because all you have is a stage act, where you can tell more lies in a minute than your opponent can correct in an hour, and they’re typically alternative facts, and there’s no way to check and correct that on the fly. Thus you create the illusion in the minds of an under-educated audience that anything you’re too dim to understand must not be true, as if that allows your god to be true: another collection of logical fallacies.

Science doesn’t work that way. I have shown volumes of substantial evidence of evolution in several different series of videos, but no one has ever presented any objectively verifiable fact that is positively indicative of, or exclusively concordant with and supportive of Biblical creation over biological evolution or any other avenue of actual science. Not one—period. Neither has there ever been any credible proponent of creation science, because with only a couple crackpot exceptions, everyone who has ever published antievolutionary rhetoric to any medium did so only according to a prior religious agenda rather than any amount of scientific comprehension–and it shows. All any of them have done or can do is rely on frauds, falsehoods and fallacies as a matter of faith, which I reject as the most dishonest position it is possible to have.

Inmate #06452-017 could never endure a scientific debate against any actual secular scientist, not even an autodidact like myself–because in a written debate, the one who’s right is the one who wins, and that charlatan is demonstrably wrong about everything relevant to this topic. After thirty years of arguing against evolution, he still doesn’t even understand what it is! Thus the only appropriate response to a huxter like him is to expose his duplicity as I have done.

Your underlying INTENT was to attack the person [Hovind] instead of attacking his arguments. And the STRATEGY you used was: (1) an informal, unstructured “free-for-all” under the guise of a so-called “discussion;” (2) tying the hands and feet of your debate opponent by: constantly interrupting him (not allowing him to state his position, define his terms, make his points, rebut, and answer questions). However, you got what you wanted (an argument on YOUR part and an attack on the person), instead of a “discussion” or a debate, and you’ve clearly demonstrated your lack of debate skills. WHY did you conduct yourself in such a despicable and disgraceful manner??? You “came armed” to play dirty instead of playing fair. WHY??? You don’t know HOW to play fair??? Please explain.

This was not a free for all. This was two people in an argument with two more trying to keep it controlled for the common good. It was fair though. If inmate #06452-017 really was a high school science teacher like he claims, then because high schools have minimum degree requirements, then he should have had some idea what he was talking about. If he really had a doctorate level understanding such as he pretends to have, then he should have been able to refute me–if his position had any credence. It doesn’t and neither does he. So it must have looked most unfair to his followers like you.

Once again, I attacked–and destroyed–his argument. He (and you) resorted to personal insults against me instead. All this talk about big boy pants and kahonas in all-caps are examples of your hypocrisy on this point.

These are the debate stats (numbers) from the 2-hour debate or “discussion” (Mar. 2, 2018). Equal time?…No. Hovind spoke for 36 minutes and Ra spoke for 62 minutes. Ra interrupted Hovind 288 times in 2 hours.

I asked Hovind one question, paraphrased and clarified many ways, and he kept repeating the same error. He got the definition of species confused with that of a clade, which are not the same thing, (though he doesn’t know why) and he could never figure out what a “kind” is despite all explanation. I needed more time because I had to teach him the subject he was there to rebut, and he had to learn enough about it that I could ask the question was there to answer. He’s too slow to learn a concept he’s never heard of before but is trying to refute without knowing what it is. So I interrupted him to save time, trying to correct him and get him back on the question I actually asked, and not the ones he wants to pretend that I asked. We don’t need to hear him repeat the same wrong answer again and again, so I stopped him. He needs to understand why it’s still wrong no matter how many times he repeats it, and that he needs to use a DIFFERENT answer, one that addresses the question. He couldn’t figure that out in the time that we had. That’s why we never even got to the second part.

CONTRADICTION (HYPOCRISY) #4 – The Phylogeny Challenge Survey Question AND Its Results. The question: “Did Kent Hovind answer @aron_ra’s phylogeny challenge?” The results: “5%-Yes/95%-No.” Regardless of WHAT the survey question results ARE, you simply cannot claim “victory” by stating that Mr. Hovind did not “answer” your phylogeny challenge, when in fact, you wouldn’t let him “answer” it because you constantly interrupted him (288 times in 2 hours) to prevent him from answering the “challenge.” You wouldn’t go into a boxing ring and tie your opponent’s hands and feet together with rope (to prevent him from fighting you) and then falsely claim “victory” because your opponent could not meet the “challenge,” would you??? That would be SILLY, wouldn’t it??? First of all, that would be an UNFAIR fight, wouldn’t you agree??? And secondly, it would be just plain SILLY (and ILLOGICAL) to claim “victory” (under those circumstances), wouldn’t you agree??? So, obviously, BOTH the survey question AND the results are rather MOOT, wouldn’t you agree???

Again your parody of this discussion bears no resemblance to what actually happened. Not only did he not answer my question, he still doesn’t even know what the question is. And I told him in advance that he had better prepare himself by looking up the Phylogeny Challenge, which he hadn’t done, and neither have you. So if you’re one of the pathetic minority who want to pretend that inmate #06452-017 answered the one question so often repeated for him and explained to him, then tell me in the comments below, what was his answer?

I would appreciate an answer to my questions, that is, IF you’re up to the “challenge” of being genuinely open and honest with the general public. I await your mature and thoughtful response.

Thank you kindly,

Camille (Canada) (Thursday, March 15, 2018)

Kindly? Well, I trust I’ve answered them in kind.

"Every you said is wrong, by the way. So wrong, in fact, that most of ..."

Million Dollar Proof of Evolution
"Gail Collins wrote a whole book on this, but here's her abbreviated (and entertaining) version:'s ..."

“Truth” in Texas Textbooks
"Yes, the idea of secularism didn't come along until later. The people who came here ..."

“Truth” in Texas Textbooks
""The Founding Fathers wisely erected a secular government that didn’t promote or endorse any religion ..."

“Truth” in Texas Textbooks

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment