Kent Hovind is so pathetic he wasn't even listening to what the kid had to say. He answered Kent's questions and Kent continued asking them again and again as if they were never answered. What a horribly pathetic guy.
Why do creationists demand that science produce a croco-duck, or find a dog that breeds kittens? No evolutionary scientist claims this happens. These things would *disprove* evolution!
My dogs don't only produce other dogs but they also produce piles of shit in my backyard. There's also dog shit coming out of Kent Hovinds mouth. So dog shit has two separate ancestors. Thats proof that creationism is false and evolution is correct.
This argument makes just as much sense and creationist arguments and there is just as much evidence to support it...NONE. Meanwhile there is a mountain of evidence in support of evolution which is backed up my real science.
Evolution takes faith just like christianity, they like to get all technical with genetics and stuff but you must "believe" that a butterfly and a cow has a common ancestor, when science proves that to be impossible.
Whenever Kent says his "Dogs only produce dogs" bullshit, why can't someone just explain to him that macroevolution doesn't place overnight, or in a few years, or in few hundred years, or even in thousands of years, but rather MILLIONS and MILLIONS of years. Do you have any fuckin idea how long just one million years is? These processes take tens and hundreds of millions of years.
i can't believe people still don't understand evolution. dogs are born dogs now but in a million years from now they could be born shmops. people need evolution to happen over night to believe it? pathetic...
@MotorevsGod you are using the evolutionist uniformitarian paradigm in an attempt to disprove darwinian-evolution it self. Don't worry you're not alone every uniformitarian evolutionist like your self that I've encountered so far in the web share the same fallacious logic and similar degree of erudition in their own belief system that is uniformitarian darwinan evolution; in which Darwin "freely confessed": "absurd in the highest degree."
@19910381 what are you talking about? where is an uniformitarian logic in my statement? yes, i do believe in some aspects of uniformitarianism but certainly i can't be sure that the past was acting exactly like the present. I just said that dogs could evolve in something else in a million years and that evolution like kent hovind understands is wrong.
@MotorevsGod The uniformitarian logic is based on Charles Lyell's imaginative story that the world is billions/millions of years old.
"i can't be sure that the past was acting exactly like the present." That's good.
"I just said that dogs could evolve in something else in a million years " How do you know? What evidence do you have? Did you know that scientists have discovered trilobites still alive today that were suppose to be "300-526 million" years old?
Martin: 'What the heck is this hehehehe" Psychology tells us that laughter is usually employed to hide emotional distress and to buy time in a serious conversation especially during moments where a person could not counter argue.
Martin shifted claims to prove evolution from similarity, polyploidy the rest are random one line flippant second hypotheses he made up on that spot.
This whole video is bias towards Evolution. Would like to see a completely unbiased video about this all because all I literally got out of it was that because 2 different mammals are similar, they must have been the same mammal billions and trillions and a lot more years ago. Yeah. This debate literally did nothing for me.
@Jsiff Yes and we can follow a system of collected animals and fossils within those millions of years backwards with decreasing diversity, closing off branches as we go backwards until they all stick to one branch that gets routinely more simple and less diverse as the clock is wound back to when abiogenesis occurred.
That is not bias; that is observable fact. Or we can say that some entity, living outside reality got bored and decided to violate the Law of the Conservation of Mass and Energy.
Well I believe in God, and I know I'm going to get flamed for saying this - but, technically, He created the laws, so He can do whatever He wants with them, anyway.
So I have a question... I'm not very knowledgeable about Evolution so bear with me, so how do you guys think the universe was created? Is it the big bang or like a wrinkle in nothingness (which how could there be wrinkle in nothing?), I really have no idea...
@Jsiff I can tell you have no real knowledge about evolution because evolution and the beginning of the Universe are two completely separate areas of scientific study. An area best left to scientists.
@EnderZ13 It is an ambiguous one that involves much study and calculation, and due to the nature of the mathematics as yet far discovered is rather vague on the exact methods..so yes. It is a hard question.
But I was merely before pointing out that those two sentences you put together were in no way related, so there was no need to put them together.
@winpeg65 That's like asking why are there different types of dog. We went one way. They went another. Humans and Chimps have 87 percent of the SAME DNA.
I must know! Is it the typical creationist rhetoric of "believing in evolution because you want to live in sin" or "don't like being unaccountable to a higher power" or "because giving up my diet of concaine-sprinkled california babies with cheese is too much to ask for?"
Ahh damnit, just an extra second! Why'd it have to stop there?! :(
Wait, what? Hovind resents evolution being taught in schools because it's based on faith? Doesn't he want creationism to be taught in schools? What is more faith based than creationism?
@BeekersSqueakers thats his point. teach all the evidence for both, present both theories
on the superliminal level
textbooks and teachers say "it evolved. if u go far back enough, this and this had a common ancestor."
But no textbook or teacher even suggests "there might have been a designer"
on the evidence level
dinosaur footprints on top of human footprints, & human ones on top of dinosaur ones, or living plesiosaurs are not shown, but vestigial organs & homologous structures are.
First of all in school you need to teach facts, not inferences. The eixstance of an intelligent designer is not a fact. If you want it to become a fact find the creator and prove that A. it exists and B. that it did in fact design all living things. Until you do that the idea of a creator will not be a fact. At any rate Creationist "scientists" don't want to go through the work of having their "evidence" peer reviewed. They'd rather take the political route and spount lies and bible verses.
Secondly, I know about the alleged human and dinosaur foot prints. The human ones were in fact dinosaur ones in which the mud had filled in the two outside toes. Almost all creationists have abandoned using this as evidence. Also you need to cite a source for the pleisiosaur as I've never heard a peep of anyone finding one alive. Though, even if they had it wouldn't prove a creator or disprove evolution.
Yes, simply duplicating a gene would do virtually nothing to actually change the individual by itself. The interesting thing is that the duplicated gene is often free of selective pressure, meaning it is allowed to mutate more rapidly than a single copy gene. And this is where the new genetic information comes from. As for 'where does it go', it doesn't really go any where. Genes can be deleted, though this mutation is usually very detrimental to the individual, and they can also be turned 'off.
(cont'd) But I'm not if this is ultimately what you are getting at. I'm assuming you are referring to amoebas etc. having more genetic material than humans or mammals. Asking 'where did the genes go' implies that the genes were always there. The answer is that they weren't. Amoebas TODAY have more genetic material than mammals. This does not mean that all that genetic material was present when our lineage split from the early amoebas.
(cont'd 2) The fact is that the amoebas have been evolving just as long as we have and in fact they have been evolving more than us. The reason is that the amoebas' reproduction rate is much more rapid than ours. Amoebas can go through thousands if not millions of generations in the time it takes a human to go through one. Faster reproduction results in a larger amounts of accumulated mutations, additions/changes in DNA, in the same amount of time.
(cont'd 3) And then on top of that you have the duplicated genes accelerating the process further. And this would explain why amoebas, as well as other creatures, have more DNA than humans who don't reproduce until about age 20 and only have a small hand full of offspring.
Just because Hovind didn't admit it does not mean exactly that. Throughout the video, he refutes every point Hovind makes. Hovind just is reluctant to stay at the same point for more than 20 seconds.
@winpeg65 evolution is not a religion... you can see it happening. go culture some E.coli, gene-sequence it on day 1 and then on day 365 gene-sequence it again. mutations occured. it's that simple. in fact in one year, an E.coli colony, given enough resources and space can run through approximately 7000 generations (7000 human generations = 35000 years, if you take life expectancy at average 50 years)
i guess hovind believes most murderers in the prison system should be released . obviously since nobody actually saw them commit the crime, it never really happened. no forget dna, fingerprints, ballistics, criminal records and all means of evidence that can point to that person irrefutably, since you didn't actually see it happen, it didn't happen. what a tool.
hovind just fires every question about elovution on martin that gets to his mind irrelevant if its just a thing he just doesnt know or a thing creationists always critisize and he fails with every singe try. very funny
Kent is basically unfamiliar with God's presentation of Common descent. If intelligent design is the creator's work, then he screwed up big time with Kent's genome. Natural selection will eventually weed his progeny out of the system. Thank God.
Hovind is blindingly stupid. It's amazing. How can he be that stupid and still walk and talk. He probably has 46 chromosomes like other humans, but his brain--it's either gone or doesn't work. He can't even understand a simple conversation.
At the end of this video he claims that he's not government funded. All churches are government funded because they don't pay taxes. That is government funding.
he's not uneducated. that's what makes it even worse; he knows exactly what he's doing. he's like a used-car salesman. he knows the product doesn't work well, but wants to sell it to ignorant people to make a profit. textbook con-artist.
"don't pay taxes"
neither does kent hovind, which is why he's currently serving a 10-year prison sentence.
Jesus Christ is so awesome, Jesus and i have the sickest most narliest relationship ever, He so rad, Jesus will answer you if you ccall on His name. He delivered me from drugs and alcohol in one instant, I did nothing. My moms prayers answered, he is so real and wants to Chill with you guys!!! Seek Him out and u will find Him
what does that have to do with evolution and creationism debates... not all scientists are atheists. its possible to believe in evolution and be a christian... many scientists are. don't act so righteous and presume you are better than people based on assumptions.
Fellow Christian! Video Lesson number # 6 No matter how much they hate you, keep loving them back even more!! Learn From Kent on this video how to be patient with a grad like Martin. Never use anger to fuel your reply! Minimize the video and get a true vision of the conversation. And just listen to how Kent respects and loves Martin even though Martin's mocking.. Patience dude is part of the key. Also Prayer ! Kent you Rock!! Ok ...on to the next video!! Jesus Rocks!!
I can't understand the sheer stupidity of creationinsts. The blatantly ignore fact and when they can't understand something....they said God did it. That's great.
It's going to be funny a few years from now, when they'll be so owned by scientists that they'll start claiming that god 'created' evolution.
No, if you could not notice the blatant pwnage of hovind, you obviously do not even comprehend what the student had to say. It is quite evident that hovind and you do not even have more than an elementary understanding of the theory of evolution. Religion is a waste of time. You creationists are in a delusional retardation.
religion IS a waste of time! no doubt about it. That includes the religion of evolution. Why not turn from the dead religions and vain babblings and serve the living God who is both Creator and Judge.
Evolutionists, I know it is painful when something that you put your faith in is being exposed for the lie that it is. It is probably confusing and frustrating at the same time but there is hope. Find out who God is, find out who you are, be aware that the day of judgement is drawing near, repent of your sins and trust your Creator to save you from eternal hell fire. PICK UP A BIBLE AND READ IT! PLEASE! In the name of Jesus Christ.
I do read the bible. My parents force me to teach it at CCD. I cannot profess my atheism or else. Nothing is being exposed here. As time goes on, we progress- and find only more evidence to support our theory. At this point, after 150 years of debate between the smartest people in the world, 150 years of evidence and research, it would be almost impossible to find such refutable evidence that would disprove evolution....
Indeed there are few things we do not understand at this point, but just because we don't understand exactly everything about a subject, does not mean that it is false. It would be as accurate as saying gravity is false because birds fly. You obviously have no comprehension of evolution. Why don't you put down the bible and start reading some truth.
I DID read the bible ( KJV ) from cover to cover years ago when I used to be a believer. And yes, I understood it. Do you realize that while the word "hell" doesn't appear in the old testament the word "piss" does? :P
Hovind is a charlatan and rhetoritician, not a scientist.
It gets increasingly annoying listening to Hovind continually comparing inanimate contructs with biological organism to bolster his sorry arguments against this lucid young grad student's premises.
My apologies; I just checked my searchable, e-bible ( 1611 authorized King James Version ) and "hell" IS indeed mentioned in the OT quite a few times. However I was right about "piss" being in there also, I think it appears at least eight times!
It's been years since I researched the bible so I hope you all will forgive my mistake :)
"hell" in the OT is she'ol, correctly translated as "grave". ecclesiastes says that the body (dust) returns to the ground/earth and the spirit (breath) returns to god who gave it. clashing with "god's people" in OT led to your women & children being killed or enslaved, your flocks scattered, & finally u die, going to she'ol (grave); end of story. Not until gentle Jesus, meek & mild, are we told that if we don't make the right propitiations, after we die we can depart into everlasting hellfire.
It is clear to everyone who has even read the most basic, cut-down, small words, big print version of the most basic elements of evolutionary theory, that Kent Hovind has absolutely no clue about any of it.
Every time he opens his mouth he says something so stupid that I actually feel myself wincing. The man is an abject moron of the highest order.
If you can't see that, then I guess you are of the intellectual level of someone who would believe in magic.
Kent STILL doesn't not REMOTELY understand what he means by common ancestor. I admit, I don't like biology so I haven't studied it much, so there were one or two things Martin was saying I'm not clear on, but the common ancestor is one of the easiest things to possibly understand. At the end he still thought the common ancestor of the platypus and the dragon fly was some hybrid between the two. Not at all Kent, not at all.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
kents point was that have you seen two apes reproduce a human baby? have you seen two ravens reproduce a hawk? even if they are very very similar a raven will always reproduce a raven unless this unseen "evolution" presents itself and says otherwise... according to evolution we all came from a rock and then a bunch of chemicals came together in a big cluster fuck and all of a sudden we were bacteria... but bacteria can only reproduce bacteria... have you ever seen bacteria spawn a human? lol
I don't know where u get your information from, no biologist has ever said we came from a rock. evolution explains the diversity of life not the origin of life. Us coming from a rock is closer to the creation literalist story of a magic man from nowhere making man out of dirt and women from a dirty rib. u also have poor understanding of evolution, changes created from generation to generation r usually to small to notice. If a raven gave birth to hawk that would liklier yield proof to a creator
@RevKentHovind "Have you ever seen humans or animals pop into existence by magic?" Actually the 'cambrian explosion' fits very well with the creationism paradigm.
"...according to evolution we all came from a rock and then a bunch of chemicals came together in a big cluster fuck..."
YOU made that up! Evolution never makes any of these claims.
The Theory of Evolution-or common ancestry works BACKWARDS, not forward-if two apes produced a human, it would destroy evolution!
You may want to re-read whatever you read and think you understand, and I wouldn't recommend Hovind's website or any other religous sites-they don't tend to have scientific info.
Well said LeeSteels. I was waiting for that kid to respond, but it seemed like he just didn't understand, even when Hovind dropped it down a few levels. I thought this video was about Hovind getting 'owned', but Hovind just seemed to make him look like an idiot.
@LeeSteels You obviously don't understand even the tiniest bit of what evolution is about. Please research the subject before making ignorant comments.
@LeeSteels Well it takes time, I'm not very keen on the subject but I'm pretty sure it takes alittle more than 4000 thousand years for a creature to evolve into something else. But scientists have recorded animals bone structure changin in the last 4k years. but if god did make us. I wonder wtf he thought when he created a mosquito or several millions of species in the oceans.
The grad student should have said that only dogs come from dogs, just like only mammals come from mammals and only animals come from animals.
Also, I love the creationist conspiracy theory that scientists know that evolution is wrong and creation is true but cling on to evolutionary theory to avoid accountability. As if ignoring the fact that you have accountability will not make you accountable. I think this is the wackiest conspiracy theory, ever!
Onions have 8 times the DNA of humans, it seems that some organisms simply have different rates of accumulating and dumping junk DNA. This appears to have little advantage, although I do remember reading once that Junk DNA could perhaps protect functional DNA from damage and mutation. in which case it might function a bit like a shield protecting the organism from changing too quickly, perhaps protecting unstable genes. evolution is not violated, in fact it explains this.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
this grad student is a damn liar from the word go. it's beyond obvious that absolutely anything living (among other things) is not simply a product of blind chance. no one lives their life believing such unimaginable odds in their daily activities. evolution is the epitome of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty. it's astounding the lengths people will go to in order to be their own god. ultimately it's about accountability and the fool's refusal to acknowledge that which is obvious.
No..you are a lot dumb. You and others like you are the drag that keeps the Human Race from fulfilling it's potential by keeping the ignorant stumped with dark age unlogic.
When a bear is attacking a Creationist, does he ask have a philosophical argument with God as to why the bear was created, or does he run in an effort to SURVIVE?
So how about Evolution occurs out of environmental necessity for SURVIVIAL. SURVIVAL is the overwhelming goal. That's more than enough.
Totally besides the point, it was an example of a gap in every human's knowledge that is filled as they learn more. I'm saying that just because we don't know how something works doesn't mean we should assume a deity beyond our comprehension did it. If anything, that assumption only complicates matters. If we don't know something, we investigate it until we figure it out. Without this approach we would still be trepanning people when they get migraines
Read DNA and the Origin of Information by Stephen Meyer. This was the result of many scientists who met on the coast of California who are believers of Darwin's theory that are saying there is NO naturalistic explanation of cause that produces information. They dont have the answer for how a complex cell can organize DNA within a cell. GOd must be considered.
There is NO naturalistic explanation of cause that produces information. This is scientific fact. Not natural selection or organizational processes. Kent is absolutely right that intelligent design HAS to be considered as a possibility as much as any theory, period. Intelligence CAN produce information, nothing else known at present. We do not have to be present to infer intelligent design took place.
Ummm, what about the example you JUST heard? And if it's a scientific fact, where did you get it? Did you do research, or look at someone else's research... or go to college? Duplication = more information. Copied information mutates (becomes different) and, oh look, becomes entirely new information to that species.
Down syndrome = more chromosomes for one more example. The end.
The faulty idea that.. "given enough time, anything can happen." is the basis for evolution. Face it, it is "faith" no matter what you believe. Faith is only as good as the object one is trusting in. I prefer to put my faith in a CREATOR. The alternative is "billions and billions of years".
Hey Kent! Proove to me that a baby boy becomes a man! A 6 month boy just say becomes an 80year old man! The child cant instantly become an 80 year old man can it? Evolution is like growth it has to change slowly you idiot. A tiger and a lion are very simular and can mate but they have infertile young together. but they had a very close common ancestor, hence why they look alike hence why they can mate but theyve grown to far apart for that offspring to be fertile!!!!!
Kent's not a scientist, and should stop trying to be one. If he were so sure in his religion, he'd know that it's about faith, not proof or evidence. By attempting to prove Christ, he's actually defeating the purpose of religion. By trying to disprove science, he's actually helping science.
Really, he's murdering his own belief system, and helping his "enemy" to gain in popularity and strength.
Haven't read it yet but wanted to still post. Concentrates on the Wolves lineage but it's probably the same.
In my experience people are very cautious to label things "The Ancestor" preferring to always label things "cousins". A very interesting (long) read on common ancestry can be found in Dawkins' "Ancestors Tale", I haven't finished it yet but it's quite brilliant.
and this common ancestor between dogs and wolves was itself a wolf i.e. wolves haven't differentiated enough from their common ancestors with dogs to become a separate species. Cladistically, dogs are actually wolves, just like mammals are actually reptiles... even though for convenience we define reptiles as a paraphyletic group of non mammalian and non avian Amniotes.
I guess you can't put links in posts because it keeps deleting mine on me. I googled wolf evolution and searchingwolf had a superb page laying it all out from distant past to present. That was the link i originally wanted to put in.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Science is true, evolution is false, case closed. I have nothing against science, we need it for studies in organisms, etc. However, only 1 thing is wrong, not putting god in the equation and evolution being a false teaching. Someone, something, or higher creator (GOD) created the planet we live on today.
if you dont beleve in evolution then youre also making an attack on biology, geology, and chemistry. You cant really believe in one without believing in the other, unless ofcourse you are uninformed.
Agree with lunk2k. But we won't achieve anything discussing it here, stomping on each other. If anyone wants to convert me to believe in evolution, all I need is one proof that it happened. But what I usually see is angry replies, even if I just want to help clear things up. If we came here by evolving, how come we're so self destructive all of a sudden? That's counter evolution:(
Human base chromosome number 2 is two ape chromosomes fused together. The evidence is there if your willing to look. Remember that evolution doesn't mean anything about God other than how elegant creating an entire universe becomes when you preform only one action and all the pieces fall into place. If a person could arrange an event where all the pieces could fall into place to create something complex intentionally, I believe they would call him a genius.
Evidence... We have the transitional fossils of our early ape ancestors showing our earliest form, much like a bi-pedal ape, gradually proceeding to what we look like today. Also, as was said, we actually have a chromosome that's the result of a fusion of two ape chromosomes. Generally you can look at so many transitional fossils, there's just no denying it. Also, as said, Biology and genetics are fundamentally tied into this theory.
Thanks for the answer, but no, we're not getting anywhere:) What you said preaches well, but there have been no tranisitonal forms found. Anyway I'll not discuss it further here, it only gets on people's nerves. If you wish to continue, msg me privately, and I wish you a good day. Cheers^^
I'll go against my better judgement and do that then: Search google for Ambulocetus Fossil and you'll find the transitional fossil(the ones with blue background) of that which when translated from Latin means The Walking Whale. It's the transitional form of the whale when it was a land animal, and there are more transitional fossils of the ambulocetus than this, showing the development of its ears, etc.
Science is true, evolution is false, case closed. I have nothing against science, we need it for studies in organisms, etc. However, only 1 thing is wrong, not putting god in the equation and evolution being a false teaching. Someone, something, or higher created (GOD) created the planet we live on today.
The point with the picture analagy is this: Somone created it. I know it is not a living thing. But that is not the point, the point is the logical reasoning, when you see a picture you know the pinter exsist. Then you say, well the picture is not alive. The point here is that God is infinite, and he can create animals, cells, planets etc. Things that humans can't create out of nothing, cause of our finiteness. I am not saying I understand how God created, but i do belive he did.
I believe Martin is right about how there are classes, and structures like a bat who have arms that are used the same way as humans but there not homologous to each other. The problem is evolutionist do not have evidence of these things happening in the current day. Like Kent pointed out, do you see a platypus giving birth to a dog. Case closed I think Kent is right and that Martin needs to find more evidence before arguing with Gods word. You will see God, and tell him your a monkey? HAHAHA
Here are some things you and I can't "see". A child growing into an adult. A continent drifting. The earth orbiting the sun. Do you therefore doubt these things? The pace of evolution is glacial (except of course in terms of viruses which being simpler can change very quickly, so much so it actually presents a problem in hospitals), so unless you live a few million years you are unlikely to be able to pull up a lawnchair and watch evolution at work.
The second law of thermal dynamics talks about entropy and heat reduction with non living material. Where as, biological therm dynamics deals with heat transfer and reproduction.
Honestly, how much of your knowledge of thermal dynamics was learned in an educational setting (i.e. non-church/creationism book)?
I highly recommend reading, "Biological Thermodynamics" by Haynie (I might have the authors name wrong)
The evolutionist never said that a platypus turns into a dog. If you can't grasp the basics of the discussion, I can recommend many "Our God is an Awesome God" videos you may prefer to check out.
How did you not see Kent Hovind being RIDICULED in these videos? HE was totally and utterly destroyed, resorting to practically blocking his ears because he could not accept Martin's view, which was backed up expectionally well.
There is no missing link! Evolution can't be testet ! DON*T YOU UNDERSTAND. CAN*T YOU SEE!! IT IS SO LOGICAL..! An painter creates a picture. You just need to see the picture to know there is a painter. In the same way you can look at CREATION
Ummm... I think you just missed the point with was brought up a few times in the show. Let me try to explain it: A painting doesn't reproduce and therefore it can't evolve.
no, thats not at all true, ur dealing wiht inanimate structures, not life, life happens on its own, it breaks through barriers, painfully, sometimes forcefully, but life finds a way. paintings cannot occur on their own, cells can, given energy, and the right enviroment, and all that is left to do is for life to take its course
Kent Hovind is so pathetic he wasn't even listening to what the kid had to say. He answered Kent's questions and Kent continued asking them again and again as if they were never answered. What a horribly pathetic guy.
VitalSigns1 3 months ago
Why do creationists demand that science produce a croco-duck, or find a dog that breeds kittens? No evolutionary scientist claims this happens. These things would *disprove* evolution!
akylae101 5 months ago
Hovind is like a reeeally annoying kindergartener. "Then where's the pinecone man?" "Where's the half dog half cat?"
fdasherv 5 months ago
My dogs don't only produce other dogs but they also produce piles of shit in my backyard. There's also dog shit coming out of Kent Hovinds mouth. So dog shit has two separate ancestors. Thats proof that creationism is false and evolution is correct.
This argument makes just as much sense and creationist arguments and there is just as much evidence to support it...NONE. Meanwhile there is a mountain of evidence in support of evolution which is backed up my real science.
Paul808996 7 months ago
Evolution takes faith just like christianity, they like to get all technical with genetics and stuff but you must "believe" that a butterfly and a cow has a common ancestor, when science proves that to be impossible.
stonebrownalien 7 months ago
@stonebrownalien 1- thats not how evolution works
2- you dont require faith to believe evolution, beacause there is evidence
shadowknigth94 3 months ago
Whenever Kent says his "Dogs only produce dogs" bullshit, why can't someone just explain to him that macroevolution doesn't place overnight, or in a few years, or in few hundred years, or even in thousands of years, but rather MILLIONS and MILLIONS of years. Do you have any fuckin idea how long just one million years is? These processes take tens and hundreds of millions of years.
smiller9295 7 months ago
i can't believe people still don't understand evolution. dogs are born dogs now but in a million years from now they could be born shmops. people need evolution to happen over night to believe it? pathetic...
MotorevsGod 11 months ago
@MotorevsGod you are using the evolutionist uniformitarian paradigm in an attempt to disprove darwinian-evolution it self. Don't worry you're not alone every uniformitarian evolutionist like your self that I've encountered so far in the web share the same fallacious logic and similar degree of erudition in their own belief system that is uniformitarian darwinan evolution; in which Darwin "freely confessed": "absurd in the highest degree."
19910381 9 months ago
@19910381 what are you talking about? where is an uniformitarian logic in my statement? yes, i do believe in some aspects of uniformitarianism but certainly i can't be sure that the past was acting exactly like the present. I just said that dogs could evolve in something else in a million years and that evolution like kent hovind understands is wrong.
MotorevsGod 9 months ago
@MotorevsGod The uniformitarian logic is based on Charles Lyell's imaginative story that the world is billions/millions of years old.
"i can't be sure that the past was acting exactly like the present." That's good.
"I just said that dogs could evolve in something else in a million years " How do you know? What evidence do you have? Did you know that scientists have discovered trilobites still alive today that were suppose to be "300-526 million" years old?
19910381 9 months ago
@19910381 the world IS billions of years old. did i say they will evolve? no, i said they could, based on evidence of evolution.
MotorevsGod 9 months ago
@19910381
"Did you know that scientists have discovered trilobites still alive today"
No they haven't. Stop lying.
voiceoftruth2006 8 months ago
"I don't want to pay for that in my school systems"
He didn't! And that's why he is in jail for tax evasion.
Pwn
EnderZ13 1 year ago 2
uhm... how did he get ownd exactly?
DeZzerTeD 1 year ago
@DeZzerTeD He wasn't. Martin tried to lie with his 'chromosome duplication' 0:47 ~
'Martin' was owned. 3:04
Martin: 'What the heck is this hehehehe" Psychology tells us that laughter is usually employed to hide emotional distress and to buy time in a serious conversation especially during moments where a person could not counter argue.
Martin shifted claims to prove evolution from similarity, polyploidy the rest are random one line flippant second hypotheses he made up on that spot.
19910381 9 months ago
This whole video is bias towards Evolution. Would like to see a completely unbiased video about this all because all I literally got out of it was that because 2 different mammals are similar, they must have been the same mammal billions and trillions and a lot more years ago. Yeah. This debate literally did nothing for me.
Jsiff 1 year ago
@Jsiff Yes and we can follow a system of collected animals and fossils within those millions of years backwards with decreasing diversity, closing off branches as we go backwards until they all stick to one branch that gets routinely more simple and less diverse as the clock is wound back to when abiogenesis occurred.
That is not bias; that is observable fact. Or we can say that some entity, living outside reality got bored and decided to violate the Law of the Conservation of Mass and Energy.
EnderZ13 1 year ago
@EnderZ13
Well I believe in God, and I know I'm going to get flamed for saying this - but, technically, He created the laws, so He can do whatever He wants with them, anyway.
So I have a question... I'm not very knowledgeable about Evolution so bear with me, so how do you guys think the universe was created? Is it the big bang or like a wrinkle in nothingness (which how could there be wrinkle in nothing?), I really have no idea...
Jsiff 1 year ago
@Jsiff I can tell you have no real knowledge about evolution because evolution and the beginning of the Universe are two completely separate areas of scientific study. An area best left to scientists.
EnderZ13 1 year ago
@EnderZ13
Well how do you believe the universe was started? Is it a hard question or something?
Jsiff 1 year ago
@EnderZ13 It is an ambiguous one that involves much study and calculation, and due to the nature of the mathematics as yet far discovered is rather vague on the exact methods..so yes. It is a hard question.
But I was merely before pointing out that those two sentences you put together were in no way related, so there was no need to put them together.
EnderZ13 1 year ago
If we evolved from monkeys by way of natural selection ......Why do we still have monkeys???????I thought they were inferior...
winpeg65 1 year ago
@winpeg65 That's like asking why are there different types of dog. We went one way. They went another. Humans and Chimps have 87 percent of the SAME DNA.
smokeassault117 1 year ago
"Ever heard of chromosomal duplication?"
"Yes."
"There's your answer."
"What?"
NoNameLikeThisOne 1 year ago
6:38
Wait... "because of their" what? WHAT??!
I must know! Is it the typical creationist rhetoric of "believing in evolution because you want to live in sin" or "don't like being unaccountable to a higher power" or "because giving up my diet of concaine-sprinkled california babies with cheese is too much to ask for?"
Ahh damnit, just an extra second! Why'd it have to stop there?! :(
Paur 1 year ago
i agree with points the grad student says. a lot.
one point i want to give to jonathan at the end.
"finding a pinecone man wouldn't disprove the evolutionary theory, it would only modify the way the ancestry tree looks"
it's not true that that's false. The platypus was essentially a "pinecone man" and then they just fit it into the modified tree.
the only thing falsifiable with a pinecone-man is the current tree of ancestry, not evolution.
gwho 1 year ago
y-yu-y-you, ju-ju-ju ch-chan the free to evolve however they want,
what?
0:52
theREALiceveela 1 year ago
I'm not sure where Hovind was going with the complexity of amoeba. Creation would be better supported by simple creatures having simple structure.
How many components would a perfect creator need to make a paper clip?
tosspotovich 2 years ago
Wait, what? Hovind resents evolution being taught in schools because it's based on faith? Doesn't he want creationism to be taught in schools? What is more faith based than creationism?
BeekersSqueakers 2 years ago
@BeekersSqueakers thats his point. teach all the evidence for both, present both theories
on the superliminal level
textbooks and teachers say "it evolved. if u go far back enough, this and this had a common ancestor."
But no textbook or teacher even suggests "there might have been a designer"
on the evidence level
dinosaur footprints on top of human footprints, & human ones on top of dinosaur ones, or living plesiosaurs are not shown, but vestigial organs & homologous structures are.
gwho 1 year ago
First of all in school you need to teach facts, not inferences. The eixstance of an intelligent designer is not a fact. If you want it to become a fact find the creator and prove that A. it exists and B. that it did in fact design all living things. Until you do that the idea of a creator will not be a fact. At any rate Creationist "scientists" don't want to go through the work of having their "evidence" peer reviewed. They'd rather take the political route and spount lies and bible verses.
BeekersSqueakers 1 year ago
Secondly, I know about the alleged human and dinosaur foot prints. The human ones were in fact dinosaur ones in which the mud had filled in the two outside toes. Almost all creationists have abandoned using this as evidence. Also you need to cite a source for the pleisiosaur as I've never heard a peep of anyone finding one alive. Though, even if they had it wouldn't prove a creator or disprove evolution.
BeekersSqueakers 1 year ago
Comment removed
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 2 years ago
A duplication is just that a duplication now iknow this is going to be hard but where did the Extra info come from or more corretly where did it go.
winpeg65 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
winpeg65,
If the genes that were there before the duplication are modified to too great an extent the organism will die (it needs those genes to survive).
If they are duplicated, it has 2 (or more) copies of the same genes. Mutations of one of the copies are far less likely to kill the organism.
New information gradually accumulates by mutations over time.
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 2 years ago
Yes, simply duplicating a gene would do virtually nothing to actually change the individual by itself. The interesting thing is that the duplicated gene is often free of selective pressure, meaning it is allowed to mutate more rapidly than a single copy gene. And this is where the new genetic information comes from. As for 'where does it go', it doesn't really go any where. Genes can be deleted, though this mutation is usually very detrimental to the individual, and they can also be turned 'off.
BeekersSqueakers 2 years ago
(cont'd) But I'm not if this is ultimately what you are getting at. I'm assuming you are referring to amoebas etc. having more genetic material than humans or mammals. Asking 'where did the genes go' implies that the genes were always there. The answer is that they weren't. Amoebas TODAY have more genetic material than mammals. This does not mean that all that genetic material was present when our lineage split from the early amoebas.
BeekersSqueakers 2 years ago
(cont'd 2) The fact is that the amoebas have been evolving just as long as we have and in fact they have been evolving more than us. The reason is that the amoebas' reproduction rate is much more rapid than ours. Amoebas can go through thousands if not millions of generations in the time it takes a human to go through one. Faster reproduction results in a larger amounts of accumulated mutations, additions/changes in DNA, in the same amount of time.
BeekersSqueakers 2 years ago
(cont'd 3) And then on top of that you have the duplicated genes accelerating the process further. And this would explain why amoebas, as well as other creatures, have more DNA than humans who don't reproduce until about age 20 and only have a small hand full of offspring.
BeekersSqueakers 2 years ago
The student destroyed Hovind in the arguement?!? Where? When?
vekl 2 years ago
Just because Hovind didn't admit it does not mean exactly that. Throughout the video, he refutes every point Hovind makes. Hovind just is reluctant to stay at the same point for more than 20 seconds.
encarta007 2 years ago
Chroma. does duplicate all the time thats what it does. why? to make more of the same.
winpeg65 2 years ago
Evolution is a Religion.... you have to believe it happens.
winpeg65 2 years ago
Do we have to believe that you're not a tranvestite?
encarta007 2 years ago
You can believe anything you want thats the great thing about being a free agent. but to teach your beliefe as fact in schools is wrong.
winpeg65 2 years ago
Perhaps we should teach the lopsided "facts" of the bible?
Mentioning beliefs, do you BELIEVE that the Earth goes around the Sun?? We have as much evidence for evolution by natural selection.
Only fundies fixated on mythological stories fabricated by goat herders are against science and progress of humanity.
encarta007 2 years ago
I can't see Australia but I'm pretty damned sure it's there, because there is evidence. Same goes for evolution.
Doesn't work for any god or goddess. Why? No evidence.
NoodlesTux 2 years ago
@winpeg65 evolution is not a religion... you can see it happening. go culture some E.coli, gene-sequence it on day 1 and then on day 365 gene-sequence it again. mutations occured. it's that simple. in fact in one year, an E.coli colony, given enough resources and space can run through approximately 7000 generations (7000 human generations = 35000 years, if you take life expectancy at average 50 years)
OrnluWolfjarl 1 year ago
i guess hovind believes most murderers in the prison system should be released . obviously since nobody actually saw them commit the crime, it never really happened. no forget dna, fingerprints, ballistics, criminal records and all means of evidence that can point to that person irrefutably, since you didn't actually see it happen, it didn't happen. what a tool.
ylt34c 2 years ago
hovind just fires every question about elovution on martin that gets to his mind irrelevant if its just a thing he just doesnt know or a thing creationists always critisize and he fails with every singe try. very funny
S1nwar 2 years ago
"I don't want to pay for that in my school systems"
And I don't want to pay for rib-woman tricked by talking snake...
Cyrathil 2 years ago 10
Kent is basically unfamiliar with God's presentation of Common descent. If intelligent design is the creator's work, then he screwed up big time with Kent's genome. Natural selection will eventually weed his progeny out of the system. Thank God.
quantumbytes 2 years ago
Hovind is blindingly stupid. It's amazing. How can he be that stupid and still walk and talk. He probably has 46 chromosomes like other humans, but his brain--it's either gone or doesn't work. He can't even understand a simple conversation.
At the end of this video he claims that he's not government funded. All churches are government funded because they don't pay taxes. That is government funding.
heathdwatts 2 years ago
"blindingly stupid"
he's not uneducated. that's what makes it even worse; he knows exactly what he's doing. he's like a used-car salesman. he knows the product doesn't work well, but wants to sell it to ignorant people to make a profit. textbook con-artist.
"don't pay taxes"
neither does kent hovind, which is why he's currently serving a 10-year prison sentence.
gmn545 2 years ago
Jesus Christ is so awesome, Jesus and i have the sickest most narliest relationship ever, He so rad, Jesus will answer you if you ccall on His name. He delivered me from drugs and alcohol in one instant, I did nothing. My moms prayers answered, he is so real and wants to Chill with you guys!!! Seek Him out and u will find Him
risen73 2 years ago
what does that have to do with evolution and creationism debates... not all scientists are atheists. its possible to believe in evolution and be a christian... many scientists are. don't act so righteous and presume you are better than people based on assumptions.
WoodenSwordL 2 years ago
you're not government funded and you never will be.
millaspa 2 years ago
jesusonlyalways 2 years ago
I can't understand the sheer stupidity of creationinsts. The blatantly ignore fact and when they can't understand something....they said God did it. That's great.
It's going to be funny a few years from now, when they'll be so owned by scientists that they'll start claiming that god 'created' evolution.
Ahhhh man.
simsi1616 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Its so awesome how Hovind SPANKS this gradembryo....as usual.
9pt9 3 years ago
hahaha, right.
Anidem9 3 years ago
lol was wondering about the title, but Hovind makes the kid sound retarded.
torres182 3 years ago
Huh? Hovind is SHUT DOWN by Martin over and over.
Hovind can't even keep up when the interviewer tries to step in and help!
rodgierad 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
you're absolutely right kid is PWND by Hovind! ha ha ha... you evolutionists are in a drunkened daze.
rob21dog 3 years ago
Have you been watching the same videos as me cos kent got slaughtered by martin. And yes i study evolution in college, ROCK ON EVOLUTION
LifeChangeNow 2 years ago
what a waste of tuition and time!
rob21dog 2 years ago
No, if you could not notice the blatant pwnage of hovind, you obviously do not even comprehend what the student had to say. It is quite evident that hovind and you do not even have more than an elementary understanding of the theory of evolution. Religion is a waste of time. You creationists are in a delusional retardation.
wutdaFU3K 2 years ago
religion IS a waste of time! no doubt about it. That includes the religion of evolution. Why not turn from the dead religions and vain babblings and serve the living God who is both Creator and Judge.
rob21dog 2 years ago
Evolutionism is not a religion.
wutdaFU3K 2 years ago
Evolutionists, I know it is painful when something that you put your faith in is being exposed for the lie that it is. It is probably confusing and frustrating at the same time but there is hope. Find out who God is, find out who you are, be aware that the day of judgement is drawing near, repent of your sins and trust your Creator to save you from eternal hell fire. PICK UP A BIBLE AND READ IT! PLEASE! In the name of Jesus Christ.
rob21dog 2 years ago
I do read the bible. My parents force me to teach it at CCD. I cannot profess my atheism or else. Nothing is being exposed here. As time goes on, we progress- and find only more evidence to support our theory. At this point, after 150 years of debate between the smartest people in the world, 150 years of evidence and research, it would be almost impossible to find such refutable evidence that would disprove evolution....
wutdaFU3K 2 years ago
Indeed there are few things we do not understand at this point, but just because we don't understand exactly everything about a subject, does not mean that it is false. It would be as accurate as saying gravity is false because birds fly. You obviously have no comprehension of evolution. Why don't you put down the bible and start reading some truth.
wutdaFU3K 2 years ago
I DID read the bible ( KJV ) from cover to cover years ago when I used to be a believer. And yes, I understood it. Do you realize that while the word "hell" doesn't appear in the old testament the word "piss" does? :P
Hovind is a charlatan and rhetoritician, not a scientist.
It gets increasingly annoying listening to Hovind continually comparing inanimate contructs with biological organism to bolster his sorry arguments against this lucid young grad student's premises.
hekesuede 2 years ago
My apologies; I just checked my searchable, e-bible ( 1611 authorized King James Version ) and "hell" IS indeed mentioned in the OT quite a few times. However I was right about "piss" being in there also, I think it appears at least eight times!
It's been years since I researched the bible so I hope you all will forgive my mistake :)
hekesuede 2 years ago
"hell" in the OT is she'ol, correctly translated as "grave". ecclesiastes says that the body (dust) returns to the ground/earth and the spirit (breath) returns to god who gave it. clashing with "god's people" in OT led to your women & children being killed or enslaved, your flocks scattered, & finally u die, going to she'ol (grave); end of story. Not until gentle Jesus, meek & mild, are we told that if we don't make the right propitiations, after we die we can depart into everlasting hellfire.
gmn545 2 years ago
Interestingly enough the words "piss" or "pisseth " ( LOL ) does not appear in the NT.
hekesuede 2 years ago
Different authors.
PAKMAN52 2 years ago
WHAT???
Did you watch this video or not?
It is clear to everyone who has even read the most basic, cut-down, small words, big print version of the most basic elements of evolutionary theory, that Kent Hovind has absolutely no clue about any of it.
Every time he opens his mouth he says something so stupid that I actually feel myself wincing. The man is an abject moron of the highest order.
If you can't see that, then I guess you are of the intellectual level of someone who would believe in magic.
Macque77 2 years ago
Kent STILL doesn't not REMOTELY understand what he means by common ancestor. I admit, I don't like biology so I haven't studied it much, so there were one or two things Martin was saying I'm not clear on, but the common ancestor is one of the easiest things to possibly understand. At the end he still thought the common ancestor of the platypus and the dragon fly was some hybrid between the two. Not at all Kent, not at all.
LanceDirk 3 years ago
Kent is now going to hell, he just go sodomised hard.
Tris10 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
kents point was that have you seen two apes reproduce a human baby? have you seen two ravens reproduce a hawk? even if they are very very similar a raven will always reproduce a raven unless this unseen "evolution" presents itself and says otherwise... according to evolution we all came from a rock and then a bunch of chemicals came together in a big cluster fuck and all of a sudden we were bacteria... but bacteria can only reproduce bacteria... have you ever seen bacteria spawn a human? lol
LeeSteels 3 years ago
I don't know where u get your information from, no biologist has ever said we came from a rock. evolution explains the diversity of life not the origin of life. Us coming from a rock is closer to the creation literalist story of a magic man from nowhere making man out of dirt and women from a dirty rib. u also have poor understanding of evolution, changes created from generation to generation r usually to small to notice. If a raven gave birth to hawk that would liklier yield proof to a creator
argetfalcon 3 years ago
Just like Hovind, you have shown that you have no understand of how evolution works.
maglavagna 3 years ago
Have you ever seen humans or animals pop into existence by magic?
RevKentHovind 3 years ago 10
nope- I haven't seen anything ever be made from nothing-not from a rib, nor dirt, nor ...
Boomr616 3 years ago
have you?
rob21dog 3 years ago
@RevKentHovind awesome response there :) PWND
likeroby 1 year ago
Have you ever seen the transmutation of species happening?
19910381 9 months ago
@RevKentHovind "Have you ever seen humans or animals pop into existence by magic?" Actually the 'cambrian explosion' fits very well with the creationism paradigm.
19910381 9 months ago
"...according to evolution we all came from a rock and then a bunch of chemicals came together in a big cluster fuck..."
YOU made that up! Evolution never makes any of these claims.
The Theory of Evolution-or common ancestry works BACKWARDS, not forward-if two apes produced a human, it would destroy evolution!
You may want to re-read whatever you read and think you understand, and I wouldn't recommend Hovind's website or any other religous sites-they don't tend to have scientific info.
rodgierad 3 years ago
Well said LeeSteels. I was waiting for that kid to respond, but it seemed like he just didn't understand, even when Hovind dropped it down a few levels. I thought this video was about Hovind getting 'owned', but Hovind just seemed to make him look like an idiot.
natyia 3 years ago
If you and Hovind weren't working on the same scientifically illiterate level, you wouldn't embarrass yourself by posting such comments.
getyourfreakonalicia 3 years ago
@LeeSteels You obviously don't understand even the tiniest bit of what evolution is about. Please research the subject before making ignorant comments.
sunset261 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LeeSteels you do not know what evolution is.
mzyzer19 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LeeSteels Viruses. Dinosaurs. Shut the fuck up you ignorant little cunt.
smokeassault117 1 year ago
@LeeSteels Well it takes time, I'm not very keen on the subject but I'm pretty sure it takes alittle more than 4000 thousand years for a creature to evolve into something else. But scientists have recorded animals bone structure changin in the last 4k years. but if god did make us. I wonder wtf he thought when he created a mosquito or several millions of species in the oceans.
wafotnytt 7 months ago
lol, thank you grad student for putting up with Kent Hovind. Handled yourself well.
Unless I see two bikes in my backyard humping and producing litters, I dont think I would compare their process of coming into being.
mathmexican4234 3 years ago
Ouch, that was almost painful to watch. My congrats to the grad student for managing to listen to that.
yourwingman 3 years ago
The grad student should have said that only dogs come from dogs, just like only mammals come from mammals and only animals come from animals.
Also, I love the creationist conspiracy theory that scientists know that evolution is wrong and creation is true but cling on to evolutionary theory to avoid accountability. As if ignoring the fact that you have accountability will not make you accountable. I think this is the wackiest conspiracy theory, ever!
mtanti87 3 years ago
"sure why not?" haha love it... that's all you needed to say...
killbot9 3 years ago
Onions have 8 times the DNA of humans, it seems that some organisms simply have different rates of accumulating and dumping junk DNA. This appears to have little advantage, although I do remember reading once that Junk DNA could perhaps protect functional DNA from damage and mutation. in which case it might function a bit like a shield protecting the organism from changing too quickly, perhaps protecting unstable genes. evolution is not violated, in fact it explains this.
marsCubed 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this grad student is a damn liar from the word go. it's beyond obvious that absolutely anything living (among other things) is not simply a product of blind chance. no one lives their life believing such unimaginable odds in their daily activities. evolution is the epitome of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty. it's astounding the lengths people will go to in order to be their own god. ultimately it's about accountability and the fool's refusal to acknowledge that which is obvious.
anewday73 3 years ago
You're kinda dumb, yeah?
Duffy509 3 years ago 4
No..you are a lot dumb. You and others like you are the drag that keeps the Human Race from fulfilling it's potential by keeping the ignorant stumped with dark age unlogic.
Pendulum22 3 years ago 2
//anything living (among other things) is not simply a product of blind chance//
Evolution is not about blind chance. The process occurs by environmental necessity.
mirandansa 3 years ago
Great point...
When a bear is attacking a Creationist, does he ask have a philosophical argument with God as to why the bear was created, or does he run in an effort to SURVIVE?
So how about Evolution occurs out of environmental necessity for SURVIVIAL. SURVIVAL is the overwhelming goal. That's more than enough.
rodgierad 3 years ago
Actually, it's fairly easy to prove why Kent is wrong, and some of the proof of the theory of evolition. Just have a look see at:
watch?v=5MXTBGcyNuc&feature=channel
That shows how the phylogenetic trees are developed and helps you understand what the student meant of exceptions that would disprove evolution.
SentientSapient 3 years ago
Sumthinwitty -- when you were child, you didn't know you came from your mother? Didn't your parents ever tell you anything?
OneEyedJack1970 3 years ago
I thought it was the stork... that's what happened in Dumbo...
loopyloophole 3 years ago
Totally besides the point, it was an example of a gap in every human's knowledge that is filled as they learn more. I'm saying that just because we don't know how something works doesn't mean we should assume a deity beyond our comprehension did it. If anything, that assumption only complicates matters. If we don't know something, we investigate it until we figure it out. Without this approach we would still be trepanning people when they get migraines
Sumthinwitty 3 years ago
Read DNA and the Origin of Information by Stephen Meyer. This was the result of many scientists who met on the coast of California who are believers of Darwin's theory that are saying there is NO naturalistic explanation of cause that produces information. They dont have the answer for how a complex cell can organize DNA within a cell. GOd must be considered.
khadsell 3 years ago
They don't have the answer for how a complex cell can organise DNA within a cell YET!!!
When you were a child and you didn't know where babies came from did you assume that was god too?
Is every gap in human knowledge god to you?
We don't know whats at the center of the earth (for certain, we've never been there), is that where god lives?
Sumthinwitty 3 years ago
There is NO naturalistic explanation of cause that produces information. This is scientific fact. Not natural selection or organizational processes. Kent is absolutely right that intelligent design HAS to be considered as a possibility as much as any theory, period. Intelligence CAN produce information, nothing else known at present. We do not have to be present to infer intelligent design took place.
khadsell 3 years ago
Ummm, what about the example you JUST heard? And if it's a scientific fact, where did you get it? Did you do research, or look at someone else's research... or go to college? Duplication = more information. Copied information mutates (becomes different) and, oh look, becomes entirely new information to that species.
Down syndrome = more chromosomes for one more example. The end.
Muchodelcrazy 3 years ago 2
I saw a half man half blood sucker--he works for the IRS.
carrierwave1 3 years ago
The faulty idea that.. "given enough time, anything can happen." is the basis for evolution. Face it, it is "faith" no matter what you believe. Faith is only as good as the object one is trusting in. I prefer to put my faith in a CREATOR. The alternative is "billions and billions of years".
carrierwave1 3 years ago
No, it's not faith. Evolution is built upon evidence, faith is not.
DecmanReturns 3 years ago
Faith from webster:
Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
nomilkforsanta 3 years ago
Nothing can be proven, even our observation. Therefore we are God (Consciousness)
khadsell 3 years ago
Esoteric psyco-babble.
carrierwave1 3 years ago
why is everything that you don't understand psycho-babble?
BIGgourami 3 years ago
We are aware, therefore we are...All is God.
khadsell 3 years ago
I don't see too many creationists commenting on these videos... it must be so scary for them...
estefez 3 years ago
See how he unloads his bullshit after the rape? this guy is a fucking tard.
NathBonn 3 years ago
Fuck Kent Hovind
Fonzerele 3 years ago
Hey Kent! Proove to me that a baby boy becomes a man! A 6 month boy just say becomes an 80year old man! The child cant instantly become an 80 year old man can it? Evolution is like growth it has to change slowly you idiot. A tiger and a lion are very simular and can mate but they have infertile young together. but they had a very close common ancestor, hence why they look alike hence why they can mate but theyve grown to far apart for that offspring to be fertile!!!!!
NicNasty1981 3 years ago 3
My xenu that man is an idiot!!
NicNasty1981 3 years ago
kent hovind is the epitomy of ignorance and sheer stupidity!
linkSCO 3 years ago 6
Kent's not a scientist, and should stop trying to be one. If he were so sure in his religion, he'd know that it's about faith, not proof or evidence. By attempting to prove Christ, he's actually defeating the purpose of religion. By trying to disprove science, he's actually helping science.
Really, he's murdering his own belief system, and helping his "enemy" to gain in popularity and strength.
What an idiot.
BYONDTer13 3 years ago 6
Actually, a Euglena is an organism that contains clorophyll
shad0ki11 3 years ago
wow brain really destroyed kenk who knows nothing he couldn't even win after brain left
roryoc31 3 years ago
Haven't read it yet but wanted to still post. Concentrates on the Wolves lineage but it's probably the same.
In my experience people are very cautious to label things "The Ancestor" preferring to always label things "cousins". A very interesting (long) read on common ancestry can be found in Dawkins' "Ancestors Tale", I haven't finished it yet but it's quite brilliant.
peterdelane 3 years ago
I always assumed dogs came from wolves?
peterdelane 3 years ago
dogs and wolfs have a common ancestor
roryoc31 3 years ago
"dogs and wolfs have a common ancestor"
and this common ancestor between dogs and wolves was itself a wolf i.e. wolves haven't differentiated enough from their common ancestors with dogs to become a separate species. Cladistically, dogs are actually wolves, just like mammals are actually reptiles... even though for convenience we define reptiles as a paraphyletic group of non mammalian and non avian Amniotes.
Eikinkloster 3 years ago
o but a dog is a subspecies of the wolf
roryoc31 3 years ago
I guess you can't put links in posts because it keeps deleting mine on me. I googled wolf evolution and searchingwolf had a superb page laying it all out from distant past to present. That was the link i originally wanted to put in.
peterdelane 3 years ago
All I did to find this out was to google: Dog ancestor.
EikC 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Science is true, evolution is false, case closed. I have nothing against science, we need it for studies in organisms, etc. However, only 1 thing is wrong, not putting god in the equation and evolution being a false teaching. Someone, something, or higher creator (GOD) created the planet we live on today.
lunk2k 3 years ago
cant put god in science. science is the study of only natural phenomenon. its literally impossible to use science and end with a supernatural answer.
zeus982 3 years ago 7
if you dont beleve in evolution then youre also making an attack on biology, geology, and chemistry. You cant really believe in one without believing in the other, unless ofcourse you are uninformed.
thecommonsenseguy 3 years ago
Agree with lunk2k. But we won't achieve anything discussing it here, stomping on each other. If anyone wants to convert me to believe in evolution, all I need is one proof that it happened. But what I usually see is angry replies, even if I just want to help clear things up. If we came here by evolving, how come we're so self destructive all of a sudden? That's counter evolution:(
MajSmJz 3 years ago
Human base chromosome number 2 is two ape chromosomes fused together. The evidence is there if your willing to look. Remember that evolution doesn't mean anything about God other than how elegant creating an entire universe becomes when you preform only one action and all the pieces fall into place. If a person could arrange an event where all the pieces could fall into place to create something complex intentionally, I believe they would call him a genius.
animecha 3 years ago 3
Evidence... We have the transitional fossils of our early ape ancestors showing our earliest form, much like a bi-pedal ape, gradually proceeding to what we look like today. Also, as was said, we actually have a chromosome that's the result of a fusion of two ape chromosomes. Generally you can look at so many transitional fossils, there's just no denying it. Also, as said, Biology and genetics are fundamentally tied into this theory.
Is that any good?
EikC 3 years ago
Thanks for the answer, but no, we're not getting anywhere:) What you said preaches well, but there have been no tranisitonal forms found. Anyway I'll not discuss it further here, it only gets on people's nerves. If you wish to continue, msg me privately, and I wish you a good day. Cheers^^
MajSmJz 3 years ago
I would much rather call you oblivious and ignorant and not waste my time with you. No transitional fossils? You are oblivious and ignorant.
EikC 3 years ago 2
Show me pictures and examples of such fossils if you can. That is, after you get your demeanor together.
MajSmJz 3 years ago
I'll go against my better judgement and do that then: Search google for Ambulocetus Fossil and you'll find the transitional fossil(the ones with blue background) of that which when translated from Latin means The Walking Whale. It's the transitional form of the whale when it was a land animal, and there are more transitional fossils of the ambulocetus than this, showing the development of its ears, etc.
EikC 3 years ago
Science is true, evolution is false, case closed. I have nothing against science, we need it for studies in organisms, etc. However, only 1 thing is wrong, not putting god in the equation and evolution being a false teaching. Someone, something, or higher created (GOD) created the planet we live on today.
lunk2k 3 years ago
The point with the picture analagy is this: Somone created it. I know it is not a living thing. But that is not the point, the point is the logical reasoning, when you see a picture you know the pinter exsist. Then you say, well the picture is not alive. The point here is that God is infinite, and he can create animals, cells, planets etc. Things that humans can't create out of nothing, cause of our finiteness. I am not saying I understand how God created, but i do belive he did.
jaarrestad 3 years ago
Kent Hovind is a total moron. God is Santa Claus for adults.
ColoradoMikeyS 3 years ago 5
I believe Martin is right about how there are classes, and structures like a bat who have arms that are used the same way as humans but there not homologous to each other. The problem is evolutionist do not have evidence of these things happening in the current day. Like Kent pointed out, do you see a platypus giving birth to a dog. Case closed I think Kent is right and that Martin needs to find more evidence before arguing with Gods word. You will see God, and tell him your a monkey? HAHAHA
lunk2k 3 years ago
Here are some things you and I can't "see". A child growing into an adult. A continent drifting. The earth orbiting the sun. Do you therefore doubt these things? The pace of evolution is glacial (except of course in terms of viruses which being simpler can change very quickly, so much so it actually presents a problem in hospitals), so unless you live a few million years you are unlikely to be able to pull up a lawnchair and watch evolution at work.
uccomic 3 years ago
Your faith is FATHER TIME. He is eating away at your right now. 2nd law of thermal dynamics at work. Evolution is doomed by true science.
carrierwave1 3 years ago
You couldn't describe entropy if your life depended on it, my friend. Go back to school.
Muchodelcrazy 3 years ago
The second law of thermal dynamics talks about entropy and heat reduction with non living material. Where as, biological therm dynamics deals with heat transfer and reproduction.
Honestly, how much of your knowledge of thermal dynamics was learned in an educational setting (i.e. non-church/creationism book)?
I highly recommend reading, "Biological Thermodynamics" by Haynie (I might have the authors name wrong)
nomilkforsanta 3 years ago
The evolutionist never said that a platypus turns into a dog. If you can't grasp the basics of the discussion, I can recommend many "Our God is an Awesome God" videos you may prefer to check out.
uccomic 3 years ago
How did you not see Kent Hovind being RIDICULED in these videos? HE was totally and utterly destroyed, resorting to practically blocking his ears because he could not accept Martin's view, which was backed up expectionally well.
eddieman507 3 years ago 6
Oh man, this was badass. Kent was just completely destroyed, completely. Wow.
JackBz 3 years ago
lol @ jaarrestad noob.
TheJollyJoker414 3 years ago
There is no missing link! Evolution can't be testet ! DON*T YOU UNDERSTAND. CAN*T YOU SEE!! IT IS SO LOGICAL..! An painter creates a picture. You just need to see the picture to know there is a painter. In the same way you can look at CREATION
jaarrestad 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"A" not "an" you retard.
korwinblue 3 years ago
im just curious,
what about the birds liniage, the
aeroraptor, and archeopterx?
the homonid fossils?
the equine fossils?
the pachyderm fossils?
just want to hear out your views.
emancoy 3 years ago
Ummm... I think you just missed the point with was brought up a few times in the show. Let me try to explain it: A painting doesn't reproduce and therefore it can't evolve.
othakar 3 years ago
no, thats not at all true, ur dealing wiht inanimate structures, not life, life happens on its own, it breaks through barriers, painfully, sometimes forcefully, but life finds a way. paintings cannot occur on their own, cells can, given energy, and the right enviroment, and all that is left to do is for life to take its course
patrickdrennan 3 years ago