Added: 4 years ago
From: RevKentHovind
Views: 14,731
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (676)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • i wonder if martin listened to this recording and realized how stupid he sounds

  • Hovind knows as much about evolution as he does US tax laws. Rot in prison, Kent.

  • Cars and filing cabinets? Are you fucking high, Kent?

  • This video should be called. Another kid gets owned by hovind.

  • i see exactly why they busted him for bogus tax evasion... he was winning too many debates!

    FREE KEN HOVIND!

  • conratulatios grad student, a platypus IS a mammal, now what did it evolve from, we know it evolved from a mammal, WHICH MAMMAL???

  • Did you think your vapid commentary would help Martins baseless case for the evolution religon? Lol Hovind embarrassed that dude.

  • lol if you seriously believe what you said in this comment then you're not very bright. Read some scientific literature, do some real research.

  • What an original comment. Right out of the indoctrinated evolution handbook.

  • I'm serious, you have no idea what you're talking about if you think evolution is even close to being a religion. Oh yeah that's right, you know more than the entire scientific community; you are waaaaay out of your element.

    Would you mind providing a list of what you think is wrong with evolutionary theory?

  • It's a religion indeed. A system of belief believed by faith alone. Its disguised as being scientific of course, yes. But there is no evidence random mutations can bring complex biological structures into existence from a lesser complex system let alone from non-living matter. Louis CK rules!

  • The last sentence is the only thing you said that I agree with, lol. I'm glad though, he's a rather obscure comic. Anyway, evolution is testable, has practical applications, can make predictions, and is supported by MOUNTAINS of evidence from various fields. I asked for problems of evolutionary theory, not gaps in the understanding. Besides, if you'd do some real in-depth research you'd find legitimate explanations for how such structures can and did come about by way of evolution.

  • @9pt9 You are religious, enough said. If you believe the bible is accurate then, you promote rape, murder, stoning to death of women, believe the world is flat (multiple references) that light was created before the sun, the sun revolves around the earth, and that the world is about 10,000 years old (not even the biggest flaws). If you think it isn't 100% accurate then it isn't the word of your god, as god is infallible. So you shouldn't believe something that came from "imperfect" beings.

  • @DaJuggalo Dawkins would be so proud of you! Sorry the bible is FLAWLESS in every way. Read it and get saved!

  • @9pt9 If you think its flawless, then that makes you a facist.

    "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet." (1 Timothy 2:12)

    "You shall not let a sorceress live." (Exodus 22:18)

    "Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse." (1 Peter 2:18)

    "Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord." (Ephesians 5:22)

  • @DaJuggalo Like I said, flawless. You wrenched those scriptures way out of context. Typical.

  • What's hidden behind the sound at 2:22?

  • I believe that is Kent's show going to a commercial break based on what I hear after it couldn't say for certain.

  • Really? Look how pathetic your grammar is. You have to be joking. Read books.

  • My reasoning for the amoeba having more genetic material than any other species lies in the rate at which they multiply. Amoebas reproduce at a much faster rate than larger, multicellular species. Changes and additions to DNA come about through genetic mutations that occur when chromosomes divide and replicate during reproduction. The more rapidly a species reproduces, the more mutations it accumulates over time. And the more mutations that occur, the more genetic material you will acquire.

  • it is common design for the following reasons: organisms live in the similar enivronments: either in water (they must swim or move about in similar ways) or on land, utilize the same chemical compounds to survive: enzymes, vitamins, minerals, lipids, etc. so they have to be similar in many ways. both these guys give horrible examples and neither understand or could give a reasonable description why organisms have similarities. so basically they destroy each other.. i don't think the student won

  • Your username, despite the nationality, is proof of your ignorance. There's still hope, though....read books.

  • Why are fundies so afraid of evolution? Is it because they themselves refuse to evolve along with the rest of the world?!

  • I'm not afraid of evolution. :)

  • Every time I hear "creation science" I chuckle >.>

  • Hovind is no more a scientist than Rush Limbaugh is a ballerina. The man is an ignorant fool. He got his "Ph.D" from some crackpot uncredited university that has a real creation bent.

  • You should write a book on advocacy for the devil. As much as I hate Kent Hovind, that is quite funny.

  • The people I meet incline me to write a book about assassinations instead. Cheers!

  • My teacher used to play Kent Hovind videos every friday if we were good.

    Ugh.

  • I know more about science then Kent Hovind will ever know. Why, because I look at all the evidence, not just evidence which supports my theology (lack thereof). If there is, by some bizarre chance, a God, Kent Hovind will live forever in eternal stupidity. Raking the cash from the bible bonkers. I`m going to start a ministry and get rich. Like L.Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology said, ``Religion, That`s where the money`s at.``

  • A chimp knows more about science than Kent Hovind. And doesn't get pegged for tax evasion.

  • Yeah, I set the bar pretty low on that one. I have have to actually forget most of what I know to get back down to his level.

  • 9:15 Pure brilliance.

  • LOVING THEM BACK EVEN MORE!?! Have you read the bible in which you live your life by. Your religion is based on Murder, Tyranny, Oppression, Murder, Rape, Torture, and Child fucking.

    Its not even a scientific debate. Scientific facts and evidence clearly out-weigh belief and speculation, its a social debate, there is no need for religion. We used it, learned form it, and must move on!

  • Well said.

  • i'm glad somebody put this up. it's nice to see that intellectual midget "Dr." Dino get his ass handed to him by somebody who knows their shit.

  • ...i've noticed everytime a christian tries to debate a person who believes in evolution, or is an athiest...the one who does not believe in God never lets the christian finish what they're saying. LOL!!! they always just keep talking. i've even talked with someone that did that. I was trying to explain something out of the bible and they took my bible and starting waving it around saying it had many contradictions in it. i asked him to point it out. he changed the sub.

  • It's a good thing that you don't generalize (ie. base a sweeping judgement on an isolated personal incident).

    Americans are bombarded by Christian philosophy, images and references on a daily basis. Christians are notorious for prothelytizing, which is not the same as discussing.

    Evolution is not philosophy or religion and it is pointless to try to debate evolution in such a way-which explains why listening to a 30 minute speech on the Bible is irrelevent to any discussion about science.

  • "the fool said in his heart there is no God"

    You just prefaced your simplified version of the discussion with the suggestion that those who do not follow the Bible are "fools". It is that kind of ignorance alone which justifies all efforts to keep creationism and ID out of schools and government.

    "...oh it just chemically creates air and water for us to live here."

    -so you suggest that someone who studies evolution cannot appreciate something which is "amazing?" without saying "God"?

  • Yeah, a chihuahua and a great dane-very different in appearance- same as an ape and a man- but, not so different in their intelligence- whereas an ape and a man are very different in this way. No other creature has the ability to do what man can do or the mind to do it. Look at mankind -we're even so smart that we can fabricate different theories on how we got here- just to deny that something greater than ourselves made us in Their image.

  • A chihuahua&great dane are the same species! The only reason they look different is humans genetically engineered them to look different. Man and ape are different species-no one claims that they are the same!

    Man has intellegence/falcon has speed/bear has a sense of smell/dinosaur had size-mechanisms which promote survival-the crux of evolution.

    "Their image".? If God looks like us, why not show himself? Oh wait-he's too mysterious, right? It's so convenient to keep the"creator"mystical.

  • Do you really think these qualities are anything in comparison to man's? That's why man runs this planet. If we are made in the image a of a Creator, then we have the ability to create on a smaller scale. We would have dominion also, being in His image. We have imagination, emotions, and mind(oh yeah, and some of us a consciousness of God) No animal can match us,whether they are fast or big-what is that?-and God did show Himself, 2000 years ago-doesn't mean that we still don't have scoffers...

  • Comment removed

  • Germ and viruses run the planet. They have the ability to destroy life in much the same way as God can. They have dominion over us all. They have no need for such trivial things as imagination, emotion, or a mind. No organism can match them, whether they are fast or big -- what is that? Surely God revealed Himself in microorganisms over 100 years ago.

    Subjectivity is fun. Let's play religion again sometime when we're not talking about empirical science.

  • Quick question...when, in modern times (actually observable), has God destroyed life?

  • Never. Neither in modern nor in ancient times. Though some would have us believe that this righteous and loving God-figure could drown the world without so much as a blink. Catastrophic pandemic is equivalent in a lot of ways to this story. So to say that humans have no equal on this earth is foolish.

  • Okay...then we're on the same page...just checking.

  • Gravity is only a theory, germs are only a theory, atoms are only a theory, why don't you attack all those? They have each done their part in closing the god of the gaps.

  • Monkey.

  • @RevKentHovind Gravity and atomism are phenomenons which theories are based on the short timescale of a physical process. Therefore models can be tested again and again by repeated observations to reduce margin of error.

    'Germs' are not a theory; they are microorganisms.

  • @RevKentHovind I failed to mention that only certain parts of atomism are actual phenomenons. Certain theories such as the process/rate of radioactive decay are based on unobservable assumptions that are without evidence.

  • You are unclear as to the definition of a scientific theory. It's okay. If you were to understand it, the definition would blow your whole argument, and you would be forced to question your faith, and that would make you uncomfortable.

    I'm just back to hear Martin RIP Hovind to shreads. It's so beautiful.

  • From seeing this comment I am going to guess that you are an uneducated religious American. You should seek some form of education before logging on to the internet, as it is a highly influential place. @jpainter12

  • Comment removed

  • Comment removed

  • Comment removed

  • @jpainter12 god is simply a hypothesis that is used to justify religious teachings.

  • @jpainter12 Evolution is Proven. Everytime a new flu virus comes out that's EVOLUTION.  The virus finds a host procreates until the host is exausted and finds another. That's it. Darwinism in real time. All organisms adapt. With the possible exception of christian fundamentalists.

  • @smokeassault117 "Evolution is Proven. Everytime a new flu virus comes out that's EVOLUTION. The virus finds a host procreates until the host is exausted and finds another. That's it. Darwinism in real time. All organisms adapt.  With the possible exception of christian fundamentalists."

    This made me laugh no offense. I really hope you aren't a scientist.

    1. Evolution involves organisms.

    2. Virions are not organisms

    3. The origin of how new strains of virions appear are enigmatic.

  • @19910381 Okay person on youtube. Evolution means change you stupid fuck. "Virons" evolve and adapt as well as organisms. DER.

  • @19910381 @19910381 Okay person on youtube. Evolution means change you stupid fuck. "Virions" evolve and adapt as well as organisms. You're mom is enigmatic on my dick everynight. 

  • @19910381 @19910381 @19910381 Okay person on youtube. Evolution means change you stupid fuck. as I said that is a version of darwinism that we can see in real time. "Virions" evolve and adapt as well as organisms. You're mom is enigmatic on my dick everynight when you're on youtube pretending to be smart.

  • Kent Hovind is a complete and utter dickhead.

  • look around how in the hech can we have come from a little ball of just dust spinning faster and faster exploded and made everything!? how can a ball of nothing make everyhthing!?!?!?!? thats just... STUPID

  • I know nothing in evolutionary theory that explains that a ball of dust spins, explodes, and makes everything. In fact, I don't think I even hear anything like that out of the Big Bang theory.

    So I suppose it is stupid.

  • That IS stupid.

    Did you just make it up?

  • The Universe was a massive collection of electrons, those electrons were in space which was infinitely small and the electrons spread out across the inflating space slowing down there paths which let protons latch on to the electrons forming the first hydrogen atoms, as space expanded more room was created and the hydrogen atoms smashed into other hydrogen atoms creating helium and those two elements make up what is seen in the Universe. That's the God i believe in, scientist. No magic but math.

  • Whhhaaaaaat?

    How is evolution a religion?

  • MOneyTracks, you're a fuckin retard. Evolution is a natural explanation to where we came from. God is a unnatural explanation. That's why it is a belief or a opinion, because there is no proof for it. There is for evolution thats why it is a theory. I think, you think evolution is trying to disprove God. It's not. It has nothing to do with god. There are people out there like Ken Miller who accept both. Even my bro who is a minister accepts the theory of evolution.

  • The similarities are much more profound and complex than that. It's not something as simple as bones, it's the fact the the genetic code and the process of life, when mapped, branch out exactly how it would if everything came from a common ancestor. Now you can say that the fact are genes are encoded exactly as it would if we came from a common ancestor makes it seem like we came from a common ancestor, or you could say that God just made it that way when he could have made it any way.

  • Sadly, as wonderful as your comment is, it most probably went way over the head (or in one ear and out the other) of the creation fans. Great point, though.

  • The caller is an idiot he could have burned him and didn't. The reason an amoeba has more DNA is because in order for life to propagate from an Amoeba ah screw it you guys look it up yourself geesh and I thought this would be good

  • We can't see it, and we can't find it but we can learn about it? What the heck is this kid smoking he just admitted to science making up a fake common ancestor that we can't see or find any record of to make the evolution chain work? I'm trying to find the pawnage here but there is none. Reason being this so called evolutionist is an idiot. Come on people you have to do better than that am I stuck in with a group of imbeciles?

  • The Amoeba having that much DNA, i think, actually weakens Kent's own argument.

    If Kent thinks it does not make any sense, then it makes it harder to believe it was 'intelligently designed' does it not?

    Perhaps Kent explains in the next part (fat chance ;)

  • are you even listening to their argument?

  • you have no proof jesus existed. nothing. nada. zip. it's possible that someone called jesus existed at the time, and he said some good things to people, but the story of the christ is about as likely to be true as king arthur and merlin or the lord of the fucking rings.

  • Try googling "Mithras", look at some sites and actually read for a while. There were a number of religions at the time based on a similar idea.

    Oh btw lots of people die painfully for causes.

  • And the proof you have for this is a book that was written by man? So why don;'t you believe in Allah? He has a book written about him as well. Or how about the Hindu gods? They have books written about themselves as well. You might as well say "I believe" Jesus was resurrected for sins not only of man who was alive then, but of all men to be born in the future. The old testament says the sun rotated around the earth. Do you believe that as well?

  • i agree the only reason evolution is called a theroy is out of respect for religon

  • evolution is known as a theory because the term "theory" in science means "a set of statements designed to explain certain phenomena, backed up by fact and repeated tests"

  • very true

    people call it a theory but they dont know what it means

  • Challenge for Creationists:

    Describe the process in which God created everything. Not a timeline, a process. Show me where in the Bible that it says HOW he created everything. Was it kind of like a "poof" sort of thing, or did they, oh, I don't know, morph like some kind of blob monster? Please, share with me the process. And again, I'm not looking for a timeline.

  • because evolutionists are based on their own evolutional knowledge why cant we say where did that come from, surly evolutionists will answer that with ease, and he is seeing elctrons just not the single form of one.

  • now there's an example of monkeys and typewriters, LOL. Not quite the works of Shakespeare but almost english.

  • Martin is excellent in this - Hovind has no knowledge of anything towards evolution - if he did he could put the caller on the backburner - but doesnt.

    Didnt I.D. get hammered recently in the American Courts because nobody could testify for it and base any truth on its being?

    Hovind is in prison anyway - ha, ha

  • Do you mean the Dover trial? Watch Ken Miller on Intelligent design

  • Sweet. I will. Cheers for the input

  • Damn, just found out he's Canadian.

  • Smart kid. Wish there were more kids like him in America.

  • There both Smart and one person is Right i Choose Kent Hovind..No matter how smart that Grad Student is....I will never believe that I am an animal..Or that my ancestor might have been some sorth of ape like creature..It is stupid an it downgrades our value...to nothing but a meaningless life...Evolution says they can test these things...sure with the help of their imagination and their theories...I believe God created everything and people are 2 technical which makes us stupid.

  • "Evolution says they can test these things...sure with the help of their imagination and their theories."

    lol its the other way round! the imagination, theories, predictions are being tested through observation and outcomes of experiments.

    you have been conceived, born and will die like an animal. just like all of us! denying the obvious equals delusion. :)

  • The funny thing about both sides..evolution and the christian relgion is that evolution has way more errors..well in fact the bible has no errors...Evolution theories make sense if you want to look at one of them diagrams and began to think that they are true..but if you really sit there and study it...you will realize the flaws..pathetic actually..example that disproves evolution is the footprints that they found in texas..they found the same footprints in the same layer...human and dino..

  • errors? sure it does, but they are falsifiable. christianity lately has been moving more and more into the realm of fantasy. where have the bold claims disappeared? ;-)

    footprints? debunked long time ago.

    evolution theories make precise predictions and theres a whole bunch of well working applications! like bioinformatics, sex allocation, artificial selection with quantitative trait locus mapping, resistance management in both medicine and agriculture. you must deny this when pushing your case!

  • Hey man errors is what we humans make..so you have to agree with me that this evolution theory can be all an error..the same way that my beliefs in God could be an error...but that is where faith comes in..we both have faith because we were not there to prove that it is 100% true..you see saying the world evolved is a mere fantasy.we have never observed what evolution claims to prove with all the methods you mentioned..so therefor you have faith..and makes your belief a religion.God Bless

  • "Hey man errors is what we humans make..so you have to agree with me that this evolution theory can be all an error"

    er, no. because, because, because, evolution is something that we can observe even right now. as we do in nature, there are even more precise observations under laboratory conditions. evolution is a fact. i grant you that one for now, it still could be some "force" or it could be a "design".

  • faith? no. ask a judge if he judges on faith. of course not. the forensic methods being used are quite successful and even getting better and wonder what, the results get better as well! the only problem is, that physicalism hasnt failed yet. but this problem is yours, not mine.

    if you were interested, i could give you dozens of addresses to scientific peer reviewed journals where you could all look it up. unfortunately most of their services are paid.

    evolution = observation = tested = fact

  • Thats totally wrong, belief in evolution is based on observation and testable results from the world around us Its not based on dogma or "faith". If a human skeleton was found in the rock layers of the jurassic period i would change my views on evolution, and since the theory of evolution is not a religion i would be able to without fear for my life!! Evolution is not dogmatic, its not based on faith or desire, its just a seeking out of the truth, whatever that truth may be.

  • Your whole last statement is utter utter nonsense, its just this type of idiocy and basic lack of research that give me no respect for creationists whatsoever. There is no evidence for humans and dinosaurs living together at all, in fact all the evidence points to a gap of millions of years, to deny this is like trying to deny plants produce oxygen.

  • How is this a slap at kent hovind? this is a typical conversation of two people exposing their believes and they each other want to correct the other and be right.The stoner gets to do analogies kent gets shut when using them. If I can prove evolution Ill just show Mr Hovind to prove him wrong with facts and end the discussion. But since the stoner is talking out of his ass then he has no truth. Just another idiot that thinks he smart.

  • No, hovind doesn't even understand why machine-organism analogy is wrong. The studen never makes this analogy, he uses an analogy on the subject of faith, not evolution.

  • Its thats so? then why not say God was the creator? the stoner

    uses the analogy because we know whats in a machine so his analogy on faith is BS. There is no way to proof faith unless you include a supreme being in there. So I take the analogy and do this with it.Just like that machine has stuff that I cant see but I know they are there beacuse thats how a car functions so the earth and universe functions. God is there.

  • That made no sense whatsoever. Try again in english and use some interpunction.

  • "Just like that machine has stuff that I cant see but I know they are there beacuse thats how a car functions so the earth and universe functions. God is there.". LOL. Sure, you're the man.

  • Mockery is for fools sir, so dont waste your time mocking me. Go fart or something

  • "Mockery is for fools sir,". Sure it is. I could never be a cleverer as what you is.

    "Go fart or something ". You know that was so funny, I'm going to have to take a break while I catch my breath.

  • Yeah im sure you gona 'catch your breath" while you at it careful not to breathe the fart.

  • wow, you just get better and better. Seriously, have you ever considered a career in stupidity?

  • why for? Too many stupidity already. Besides you do a better job at it.

  • How can I compete with that eh? I mean you're just genius! You just turn them quips right around and flame me like you're on fire. Fantastic! I so wish I was intilektual like you.

  • Be yourself man! what Are you trying to define your personality at you age?

  • "what Are you trying to define your personality at you age? ". Yeah that's it, that's what I'm doing. You're so smart.

  • oh sorry man I was just joking...

  • "Just like that machine has stuff that I cant see but I know they are there beacuse thats how a car functions so the earth and universe functions. God is there.". All you are doing here is the equivalent to being confronted by a locked box you have never encountered before and declaring you know what is inside. There is no reason assume you know what is inside and there is no reason to assume there is a god.

  • Then is fair to say evolution is based on assumptions also.

    It is ok to assume how something works in case of a motorized engine. It is an obvious observation that the components of the engine make it work. Then from that observation you begin to dissect the engine to understand how they work with each other.

  • "Then is fair to say evolution is based on assumptions also". Not really. Evolution is a theory, explaining a process which in turn explains biological complexity, with no exception to date.

    God is simply a name for everything that we have yet to understand. That doesn't make what is outside our understanding intelligent or all powerful, it just remains unknown to us.

  • There is proof of God not only in creation but archeology, jews tradition, The findings of the arch of the covenant. The pyramid in egypt which by the way tells the story of the world from beginning to end. Aliens, Nephilim races, legends of fallen angels...well sir so much goodies im getting hungry for true knowledge

  • Is the same thing with creation in general. How are these things holding together? Who made them, with what purpose? If something created has a functionality then it is because something intelligent made it that way. Nothing just happen, I dont see how anything can be created by it self.

  • "How are these things holding together?". Become a scientist and make your own discoveries instead of assuming all that you don't understand is controlled by a celestial puppet master.

    "If something created has a functionality then it is because something intelligent made it that way". That is just an assumption, with no evidence or hypothesis, therefore it is not a reasonable thing to believe.

  • You dont need to be a scientist to figure out that nature works by intelligence. Even our bodies have intelligence, thats how they function. It is obvious that there is a creator, no ma, not even satan can create living beings. souls. resurrection, eternal life.

    You dive and wise up in science but dude eternal life is in front of your eyes the door to God is Christ. Wisdom, life, knowledge, all that good stuff. No man can give you that, only empty theories.

  • "not even satan can create living beings". Satan? of for pity's sake. You think there is a devil too? Goodbye

  • See silly? Now you talking out of your ass sir...You are too focus on what you see. But I tell you this little I know about the occult and the little I know is to shit on your pants..

  • The theories are not empty in that they explain ALL of the data. There are still things which we do not know, but unless god is a hide and seek fanatic we have not seen any evidence of him yet. The beauty of evolution is it's simplicity. It says that if there is heredity, variation and selection, that this is all that is needed to explain all species, all functions of animals. It is simple to disprove it. find some evidence! so far nobody has been able to do so. Other science supports it too.

  • Like I said, One thing is too explain functions in nature other is to explain God is not real. Which is the point of EVO.Science observes and reports and create theories based on that. Nothing wrong with it. " All hidden things and misteries will come to light in the end times"

    -God

  • While it is true to say that certain concepts of God are unfalsifiable, others, such as the biblical God are. For instance, archaeology has come to the opinion that there were no Hebrews, No flood, No Solomon in Israel. That the bible was written in the time of Canaanite king Josiah in Judah to justify an invasion of Israel, a Canaanite neighbour. There was no monotheism in Judah until this time. approx 500BC. The bible is verifiably false. It's God is a fiction.

  • Do you honestly think you are going to have a fruitful conversation with someone who said "There is proof of God not only in creation but archeology, jews tradition, The findings of the arch of the covenant. The pyramid in egypt which by the way tells the story of the world from beginning to end. Aliens, Nephilim races, legends of fallen angels". The guy loves his junk theories. I imagine he would get on well with Graham Hancock.

  • Hehe, you may very well be right. After checking Spectrum969's channel I see that they are a bit of an expert believer. Strangely not in anything sane though. I think that, for some putting together all of these bits of mythology is fun, perhaps like a Lovecraft novel. For some it is a clear sign of separation from reality. Ho hum, it takes all sorts I suppose. And thanks for the heads up.

  • No need for Douglas Adamm's belief robot, capable of believing things they couldn't believe in Salt Lake City. You could hire this guy for a fraction of the price LOL

  • how come you said "archaeology has come to the OPINION?"

  • You are right, it should have been 'conclusion', this has been the case for a number of decades now. If your best shot is word mining in regular speech patterns then it is too pathetic, Figures out yesterday show atheism has doubled in 10 years, that is all down to people like you and the utter joke you sell as an explanation for reality. grow up, it is insanity for a grown person to go around believing such gibberish.

  • "I dont see how anything can be created by it self.". That is called the argument from personal ignorance: "I can't understand how this could work therefore it must be a god".

    Perhaps you should invest in a couple of books on evolution and abiogenesis. These theories explain how complex life can arise from naturally occurring chemicals. I am only suggesting you understand what is understood before jumping to conclusions.

  • Sir one think is to try to understand functions of nature, other is to explain how out of nothing all this came to be. I had this arguments about EVO before and i really dont want to waste my time on it. Do your self a favor, go prove God is not real. THere you have an impossible challenge.

  • "Do your self a favor, go prove God is not real". I don't have to, for the same reason that I don't have to go prove there aren't invisible pink unicorns. There simply is no reason to think it's true.

  • You dont have to? or you cant?

  • I freaking love this text commentary along with the audio. Very nice.

  • "A platypus and a dragonfly have a common ancestor... show me a half platypus half dragonfly!"

    apparently kent hovind has seen trees who have twigs growing from one branch to another. I hope he goes back to junior-high after prison!

  • "pre-prepared" is a tautology.

    5 stars, but I had to call you on it. =D

  • man i would love to be smart like this martin and can you imagine if kent came upto dawkins phew wee cue jeremy (from pure pwnage's) pwnage fucking

  • LOL at 4:53: "total pwnage coming in 4..."

  • that kent guy knows nothing about bio or evolution

  • Kent's analogies are sound . . . Martin drills him because they do not conform to a biological basis but then Kent would not be giving analogies, he would be presenting exampes. Martin is merely shifting the burdon of proof if requiring a biological example, the reason Kent cannot, is because none are observed and in science observation is fact. This is more a battle of semantics than an evolution debate.

  • Actually, this entire radio segment appears to be Martin explaining evolution to Kent.

    And, in fact, Kent's analogies aren't sound. Just because items A and B share characteristic X doesn't mean that they also share characteristic Y. They're very dubious. In fact, it's best to steer clear from any analogies when you're creating an argument.

  • That's a nice opinion.

  • It's a fundamental bit of logic. It would amaze you, the amount of illogic people like Kent use.

    I'll further demonstrate the dubious analogy:

    Object A and object B both have characteristic X. Thus, since A has characteristic Y, B has it, as well.

    Bobby and Susie are both teenagers. Since Bobby is dating someone, Susie must also be dating someone.

    Now, despite whether or not Susie is actually dating someone, we see the method used in determining if she does is fallacious. See?

  • The analogies serve to demonstrate a point, his analogies are neither the most comprehensive nor apposite but his attempt to extrapolate the point is attained. Of course, it caters to Kent's train of thought because he does not believe in evolution.

  • The analogy serves no purpose whatsoever, then. If he believes that he's "proving something" by comparing homologous structures to car parts, he's dead wrong. If we asked him, "Hovind, what naturalistic explanation can explain the existence of homologous structures?" we wouldn't at all have to delve into car parts. Many of his arguments depend on such fallacious standards, no matter if all he's trying to do is "demonstrate a point." The point is meaningless.

  • The analogy serves a purpose, you just don't see any relevance in its use.

    Now, you go on to postulate a series of hypothetical responses he might give relative to the logic of this radio dialogue . . . Remember Hovind isn't expecting a Doctor of evolution with a prepared argument. Doesn't excuse his poor responses but it provides an understanding as to why Kent might seem a little out of depth.

    I would like to see these two battle it out face to face, should give Kent something to chew on.

  • Informally, it's perfectly understandable. When applied as an argument, however, it's illogical and unscientific. Contextually useless.

    Frankly, there are enough people on YT that have exposed his arguments as what they are. They boil down to nothing. He can be very deceiving. I just don't know if he realizes it or if he's ignoring the facts.

    Thanks for responding.

  • I don't think Kent is ignorant, as a biology teacher he must have been aware of evolution and the body of evidence that surrounds it. If he can find the science wanting and construct an argument against it then more power to him. Scientifically, his refutals don't have much to stand on but theologically and ideologically he makes some interesting points.

    This is what YouTube lacks though, two people of different opinion not attacking each other on a personal level. courtesy most appreciate.

  • Kent is a liar. He has no understanding of the subject that he's discussing. His doctorate is from an uncredited christian college. The thought that he actually taught science to school children frightens me beyond words.

  • Kent is not lying, he is canvassing his beliefs.

    Saying he has no understanding of the subject is redundant. Of course he understands it, most definately more than you do so let's not make bold assertions like that. Now, he postulates things you do not agree with and doesn't accept things that most evolutionists believe to be fundamental . . . that's a fair point but is not ignorant as he is aware and can provide a counter argument, not scientific but substantial. - Not refering to this.

  • "I don't think Kent is ignorant, as a biology teacher he must have been aware of evolution and the body of evidence that surrounds it."

    Actually no, because it's known he taught at an institution that didn't require any academic qualifications from it's teachers.

  • No one has to try to make Kent Hovind look stupid he does a fine job of doing that on his own... This is a man who makes the claim that people lived side by side with dinosaurs and that the Grand Canyon was carved by a world wide flood in 5 minute... That is utterly rediculous and an insult to all people who have any basic idea of science at all... Kent Hovind belongs in jail and i hope he dies in prison...

  • yeah he does, he was trying to make hovind look stupid

  • he was smart enough to be a teacher for quite a while

  • You don't need to be smart to be a teacher, just a fake degree from a degree mill that says your a "doctor" in "biblical science".

  • A chemistry teacher in a small xian school. His PhD is bogus. I'll gladly point you to more info on that if you like.

  • well, if you don't create the elctromagnetic spectrum, first it would be imposible to make the sun. Plus it would be pointless

  • The electro magnetic spectrum is a system of measurement, so thats like saying distance cant exist without inches.

  • 5:23 lol

  • ohh btw, once again Kent Hovind is shown for what he really knows...nothing