Kent Hovind's debates, can someone help?

... only if you enjoy a good chuckle and it compels you to search out the truth.Even AiG has problems with Kent ... if anyone is up for a chuckle:
AiG's response ... to Kent's critique ... of AiG's List of Arguments creationists should NOT useEnjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

sothe mesmerizing mellifluous massage medium is more important than the mistaken message? Marshall McLuhan would be so proud.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

The imortal lines from "the search for the holy grail" (MPython)RUN AWAY RUN AWAY RUN AWAY !!!

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

False. Let's use sound instead, the principles are the same, but it may be easier to understand (and you can do the experiment easily as well):

• A car is on a track 1.0 km from and approaching the observer (bystander) at 100 km/hr (~60 mph)
• As the car passes laser beam triggered checkpoints a firecracker is exploded simultaneously on both the car and the ground,
• This is done for 10 different locations on approach and 10 locations on departure (passes the bystander).
• The observer has a sound recorder that measures the input from these events in relation to time, accurate to 1/100 seconds.
• Repeat the experiment with the car traveling at 50 km/hr and 150 km/hr.
• If there was a difference in speed it would show up as gaps in the recordings of simultaneous sounds, with larger gaps for greater distance and greater speeds
• The sound from simultaneous explosions will not be separated in time (one no faster than the other) but there will be a difference in pitch (Doppler effect).
• The ones from the car on the approach sequence will be higher in pitch (blue-shifted)
• The ones from car on the departure sequence will be lower in pitch (red-shifted).
• The amount of the pitch shift will be directly proportional to the speed of the car, but the speed of sound will be unaffected.

The speed of sound in dry air is ~330 m/s or 1188 km/hr. From 1 km away the sound would take 3.030 seconds to reach the observer. Adding 100 km/hr to that gives a theoretical airspeed of 1288 km/hr, and from 1 km away the sound would take 2.795 seconds to reach the observer, a measurable (with a little difficulty) difference of 0.235 seconds.You could attempt the same experiment with light, but it travels so much faster than sound that it would be difficult to measure such an effect even if it were there {the speed of light is 300,000,000 m/s = 1,080,000,000 km/hr and adding or subtracting 100 to that is too insignificant a change to be noticeable - even IF it changed (and it doesn't) - which makes Hovinds example ridiculous to begin with)To put it simply, Hovind is lying to you and relying on your unknowing gullibility to take what he says without question.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

beg to differ, but feel free to elucidate.speed of light fixed in medium (air vacuum, etc)speed of sound fixed in medium (air, water, etc)the only difference is that light travels faster the thinner the medium (and not in dense solids) and sound travels faster the thicker the medium (and not in vacuum)both exhibit doppler effect

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

You are correct.If the observer was moving that would affect the relative motions differently for sound than for light. This would also obtained with wind moving the air mass at a significant speed.I stand corrected on the absolute principles of comparison.However with no airspeed and non-moving observer the experiment should properly simulate the effect of speed on light, however (so a couple caveats are added ...). Trying to keep it simple.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

the point was showing that the speed of the car did not add velocity to the speed of {sound instead of light} within the transmiting medium (air)The experiment does show that it is possible to fullfill the condition of Hovind's scenario for speed of {sound instead of light} plus speed of car with resulting speed of {sound instead of light} not being affected by the speed of the car, thus invalidating the claim by Hovind. The point is that you do not have to go to a full relativistic light experiment to show that the Hovind claim is false and invalid.K?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

can we get off taxes and back to bashin ... discussing Hovind's concepts?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

The fact also remains that so many planets around other stars have now been identified that it is no longer news to find a new one.

a better model would be the bombadier beetle that actually ejects material rather than create a light inside.BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Bull's-eye beetle (next up ... IC ... except that it is refuted by Dawkins already)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}