I can´t almost believe that M. Shermer consider himself a skeptic and HE IS NOT skeptic about the stupid idea that humans somehow evolved from one of those weird worm like cambrian marine cratures, that really blows my mind and even worst, he goes even further to deffend such a stupid idea with such a radical and extremist fervor...pity on him
Michael Shermer presents a rational argument, Kent Hovind has nothing but strawman arguments, miss quotes textbooks and intermingles creation quotes (wales walking around) and attemps to make it look like a scientist said it when it was out of a creation publication.
@55metalmonkey For a really good laugh, Google for Hovind's dissertation. It begins thusly:
Hello, my name is Kent Hovind. I am a creation/science evangelist. I live in Pensacola, Florida. I have been a high school science teacher since 1976. I've been very active in the creation/evolution controversy for quite some time.
@AlanCFA Ya I read most of it but had to stop, far too painfull to read. I stopped at about chapter 3 mostly because it was getting dumber by the minute, but also glaring errors and inconsistant logic, I mean, who stops half way through a thought to quote bible verses that have almost nothing to do with the thought
the best part I found was " christians are often guilty of neglecting or twisting the bilbe to fit their lifestyles or pre concieved ideas" (bottom of introduction) kinda ironic eh?
@AlanCFA Hello, my name is Kent Hovind. I have been lounging in prison for the last several years because I cheated on my taxes and claimed my house was a church.
@TheThunderduck "...claimed my house was a church." Well, it was not a church, but it was an amusement park. If you consider walking around in his back yard and looking at dinosaur sculptures amusing (which, apparently, creationists do)
What the scientists need to do (since Hovind backs up his bible claims with his version of "science"), is challenge him to a debate on biblical "history". SOme god "speaking" everything into existence, Adam the mud-man, Eve the rib-woman, the talking snake, the boat full of dinosaurs, etc.
Estimates of the percentage of species that are now extinct is between 60% and 99%. What Shermer is touting as intermediates could very well be now extinct species.
Funny Hovind should listen to his own advice and get a new job. Its amazing that he didn't mention the inner ear shape of early whales which have a bone that only whales have.
Embarrassment of riches? More like an embarrassment of IMAGINATION. With the 3 skulls at .31, where are the rest of the creatures? At .11, they're drawings, not actual photos. It's ironic, Shermer shows Gould, who admitted, there's an absent of fossil intermediates in the fossil record!
Evolutionists need to show ALL the fossils to show 1 creature evolving into a different creature for any of the fossils to be called transitional. They also think drawings and computer graphics prove evolution.
@AntichristComes Wow, you've got such an advanced understanding of how evolution works.
Every living creature is transitional. The reason that idiots like you demand evidence of one creature transitioning into another is a result of our modern propensity for classification. There isn't a sudden cut-off from one classified living being to another - everything is in a constant state of transition. That's how evolution works. Creationism thinks it wins by setting up falsely predicated arguments.
@AntiFlavour "Every living creature is a transitional"
Only in your imagination.
"That's how evolution works"
Because you said it? You think evolution works because you can pretend that all creatures are transitionals without the proof, or you saw the proof on Star Trek. Well, I want the FOSSILS, that show a reptile has ever evolved into a bird. An Archaeopteryx isn't proof because it's one fossil. Look up the word transition in the dictionary. ONE fossil doesn't prove a transition.
1) Why don't intelligent design proponents ever submit their work to standard scrutiny - like peer review or journal submissions? If what you think is true, you could be ushering in a whole new era of science, rather than be seen as a group of unscientific fringe lunatics.
2) What do you say to the overwhelming (near absolute) scientific consensus that says that even if they didn't have any fossils - evolution would STILL be true?
@AntiFlavour "Peer review"? I'm sure YOU'VE NEVER seen EVERY article ever written, not even close... have you? How do you KNOW their are no "peer review" articles on the subjects that favor special creation? Anymore, people are pressured into not thinking outside of the realm of naturalism or evolution. If they do, they can lose their professorships, etc. "Peer review" isn't anything to brag about when a bunch of grown-ups are so closed minded, and who are ready to ostracize opposing opinions.
@AntiFlavour There are many scientists who aren't in the same boat as the evolutionists, who are real scientists, who aren't trying to create HOAXES and FRAUDS (i.e. Nebraska, Piltdown, Indonesian Man, Lucy, etc.) to push their world-view...
"The Institute for Creation Research's followers take science more seriously than most scientists do. [Their faculty have] absolutely respectable, legitimate doctorates from major American universities."- Paul Toumey; from his Ph.D. thesis in anthropology.
@AntiFlavour "What do you say... even if they didn't have any fossils - evolution would STILL be true?"
I would say, evolutionists NEED those fossils for credibility, BUT they don't exist. Without the transitional fossils, Darwinism enters the realm of useless rhetoric, and all they have left are computer graphics, graphs and charts, and drawings as their only "proof". Evolution is very laughable, and a con-game... without those transitional fossils.
@AntichristComes - Oh cool, I see now. Well, how about you make a really big push to get intelligent design recognised as legitimate science? It would be impossible for ALL the members of ALL the scientific societies and representative groups in the developed world to have such a seamless conspiracy, without any leaks, to keep intelligent design deliberately down. It couldn't be pure hoax that all the universally recognised best scientists all support evolution as a fact. And surely intelligent
design, like you say, has some reputable scientists on its side that aren't motivated purely by bronze age religious reasons. If it's a rock solid theory, then there must be an appeal to legitimate scientists who AREN'T religious or at least motivated by religion - and moreover some of these scientists must have something better than the same old repudiated creation arguments that didn't stand up even in the 1950's. You could really usher in a whole new era of science man - go for it! Do it!
@AntiFlavour I.D. is real science, even if evolutionists don't want to acknowledge it as such.
A seamless conspiracy? All they need, is to have the same world-view... the view that says,"there is no God". It's not like they need to all get together and plot out a conspiracy.
Also, not ALL the BEST scientists believe in evolution. Many evolutionary scientists admit evolution doesn't have a fossil leg to stand on. You can find quotes all over the internet attesting to that fact.
@AntichristComes But many believers in God support the theory of evolution.
Please help me find some of these quotes. I find a lot of the pre-eminent scientists at the most reputable universities disagree about specifics WITHIN evolution, but none of them dispute the fact of evolution itself. All of them seem to think that the best intelligent design proponents can do is point out current gaps in evolution that they can no better fill themselves, without positing a testable theory of their own
@AntiFlavour "many believers in God support the theory of evolution"
If they're Christians, they're heretics, because they don't know their Bible. Many believers in Hitler supported the genocide of the Jewish people... so what?!?
If you are any good at using Google, you'll be able to find the quotes. Don't expect to find damning quotes against evolution, by evolutionists, on atheistic websites.
If evolution was true, transitions should be OBSERVED throughout the fossil record. There are none.
Cont... Here are some quotes from evolutionists in their moments of honesty...
"It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student...have now been 'debunked.' Similarly, my own experience of more than twenty years looking for evolutionary lineage's among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proved them equally elusive."
- Derek Ager [Univ. at Swansea, Wales]; PROC. GEOL. ASSO., Vol.87, p.132
Wow, these really are THE BEST examples that you've put forward. I'm totally convinced now. Again, why don't you really push for intelligent design as the new fundamental framework of modern science? You could usher in a whole new era of understanding in the scientific world, and Christianity could relive some of its glory days outside the American South and Midwest at the same time.
@AntiFlavour "Wow, these really are THE BEST examples that you've put forward"
Please, don't con me, although, evolutionists are THE BEST con artists out there. As long as the public remains asleep or at least duped, the evolutionists will have their way, hiding the truth, while pretending that computer graphics and drawings are equal to hard evidence.
@AntichristComes No, honestly, you've blown me away. I can honestly say this in spite of the fact that every national representative body in science in the OECD, representing every scientific discipline in all the world's most developed nations, saying that intelligent design is a load of religiously motivated drivel based on a desperation retreat and without any robust scientific merit. Really, it's been YOU that has converted me in spite of everything running against you. Congratulations.
@AntiFlavour *cough* Here's another quote, from an evolutionist about The Institute for Creation Research...
"The Institute for Creation Research's followers take science more seriously than most scientists do. [Their faculty have] absolutely respectable, legitimate doctorates from major American universities."- Paul Toumey; from his Ph.D. thesis in anthropology.
So again, your comment disregards the fact that ALL the scientists on the planet, even in the OECD, DON'T believe in evolution.
@AntichristComes Actually I never said that. All I've said is that all the representative scientific bodies and societies in the OECD have issued statements attesting to the fact of evolution and discrediting intelligent design. I never said there weren't scientists that didn't support or believe in the theory of evolution, or that scientists who didn't didn't go to good schools. All I'm saying is that all the luminaries in their fields seem to wind up on the evolution side - prove me wrong.
@AntichristComes No, seriously. Just tell me ONE intelligent design proponent who is widely considered the among the best in his field in ONE discipline. Just one guy or gal. Anyone can go to a good school, that doesn't prove very much. I wanna see proof of an ID proponent who is actually held in seriously high esteem by the greater scientific community.Surely if ID is such a robust framework there must be ONE person who fits this description. Or is it the 'conspiracy' keeping these people down?
@AntichristComes Oh sorry, I didn't realise I was going head to head with such intellectual powerhouses as Answers in Genesis.
I can safely concede defeat now, safe in the knowledge that 150 years of steadfastly applicative science is no match for an organisation that believes that the story of Noah's Ark LITERALLY happened, and is a far superior scientific explanation to boot.
@AntiFlavour "I can safely concede defeat now, safe in the knowledge that 150 years of steadfastly applicative science is no match for an organisation that believes..."
I thought you were talking about the myth of evolution, and NOT SCIENCE!
The worldwide fossil record fits best with that Noah's worldwide Flood story instead of Darwin's myth, because those transitionals are still missing. That's a good idea... you should concede. Also, think about turning to Jesus while there's still time.
@AntiFlavour "I didn't realise I was going head to head with such intellectual powerhouses as Answers in Genesis"
As I pointed out... evolution doesn't have a fossil leg to stand on, so you wouldn't have a chance against anyone at Answers in Genesis or ICR or Discovery . Org
@AntiFlavour Either show the transitional fossils that prove evolution is a fact (i.e. reptile into a bird, etc.), or admit defeat. Don't go on through life fooling yourself, that life can be created by a mindless, purposeless process called evolution. How can anyone have enough faith to be an atheist? There's only one reason... they don't want to stop sinning because sin is fun, and evolution gives them a reason, even if it's a poor reason, to think there's no God.
@AntichristComes You turn your computer off now and go train for special olympics. Your academic future is really bleak anyway. Special olympics will give you something to do... Keep your fingers out of your pants and nose.. as it where. Idle hands and all that.
Whoever invented sin should have made it less fun, huh?
@AntichristComes And again, I just have to ask - "If all of what you're saying is true, then why aren't you and the rest of the ID lobby making a real push WITHIN science - not within education or legislation - for ID to be given the recognition you feel it deserves?"
Could you also please tell me if there are any proponents of intelligent design that AREN'T religious? Fair question as regards neutrality I believe.
@AntiFlavour "Could you also please tell me if there are any proponents of intelligent design that AREN'T religious?"
Intelligent Design assumes that if there's a design, then there's a Designer. As for being religious, evolutionists are just as religious as any Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist, and are practicing their faith in macroevolution without having to OBSERVE the transitionals in the fossil record, or the Big Bang, or the primordial goop.
@AntichristComes OK, I'll rephrase the question so you can be specific rather than going off on a cliched tangent rant about evolutionary fundamentalists being 'religious'
"Are there any proponents of intelligent design that DO NOT follow the Abrahamaic, monotheistic religions - i.e. Christianity, Judaism, or Islam?"
@AntiFlavour Michael Cremo believes there was an Intelligent Designer/Creator, and he's a Buddhist. He wrote a very large book called Forbidden Archaeology.
@AntiFlavour Here is a better list of scientists who are skeptical of Darwinism which is much easier to read.
You can notice the first name on the list, Philip Skell, who was very experienced, and an evolutionist/biologist who believes ID should be taught in the same science class, and that evolution never contributed at all to the development of medicines or vaccines. There is an audio recording somewhere at the Discovery . Org website with this opinion from Dr. Skell.
@AntichristComes 'Scientists'. There is a difference between being sceptical of Darwinism (some parts are outdated- actual scientists adapt their theories to new evidence) and not believing in evolution.
Philip S. Skell (December 30, 1918 – November 21, 2010) He worked as a professor of chemistry at Penn State University.is an American chemist
Your claim that he is a biologist is a LIE.
Your claim that he is an "evolutionist" is not born out by his statement:
“the main purpose” of anyone teaching evolutionary biology in our schools is the “indoctrination of students to a worldview of materialism and atheism” --Phillip Skell
@AntichristComes When you can show real evidence of rabbit fossils in the precambrian that would be a great start. Where are these human footprints next to dinosaurs then? I've never seen them in any reputable scientific journals?
@kinkykirby And you're not going to find those dino footprints w/ human footprints in "scientific" journals because the journals that you are no doubt referring to are operated by evolutionists, and to allow such things would be shooting themselves in the foot.
It's just like when Jack Horner wouldn't allow the "soft tissue" found in the T-Rex to be tested for Carbon-14. If there is ANY Carbon-14 found in that soft tissue, that would prove the T-Rex was less than 50,000 yrs. old.
@kinkykirby Fossils tend to disappear and reappear in the strata. There may well be a "precambrian rabbit" out there. I find it silly that you guys can use the disappearing and reappearing in stratas as an excuse yet you don't accept it when we pull that card. We never find chicken and human footprints together even though we have lived at the same time. If this is the case, then your argument is nullified. Your definition of "reputable" is a journal that agrees with you. I think that covers it.
@AntiFlavour "And again, I just have to ask - "If all of what you're saying is true, then why aren't you and the rest of the ID lobby making a real push WITHIN science - not within education or legislation - for ID to be given the recognition you feel it deserves?""
And AGAIN I'll answer, ID is accepted in many schools and colleges, just not by evolutionists. Also, there is a push, and as more is known about the complexity of life, evolution takes one more hit towards extinction.
@AntichristComes What a load of bollocks. The theory of evolution becomes better supported by the day. ID is a joke in the science world! Everyone is laughing at you, 'haha those idiotic, brainwashed IDers! Look at them desperately trying to support their religion with pseudoscience!'
"Like many high school and college teachers today, I held the viewpoint that evolution was based on solid scientific facts. But when I started looking for those facts, I couldn't find them. The evidence for the origin of life by spontaneous generation from chemicals, and for the intermediate fossils that allegedly prove the macroevolution of all major life groups, was simply not there."- Donald A. Bierle [biologist/zoologist], former evolutionist and skeptic
"Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I determine I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts."- Francis Crick, Life Itself (1981) p.153
"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."- Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist, Erlangen University
the significative portion of the audience entertained with this ignorance spreding con, is a testimony of the poor eduacation and logical capabilities of students. all hovind speaches are nothing but intricated fallacies, misrepresentations of papers and even invented 'evidence'. thank god he's in jail.
I love when half the Creationists say that Intelligent Design has nothing to do with religion or God, and that that insinuation is a distraction from the real scientific debate. Then the other half of Christians don't get the memo and forget to differentiate between Creationism and Intelligent Design, and inadvertantly ruin the argument of the first half.
there was no contest in this entire. it was plain and simpl: Shermer played the real science card, and Hovind played the sort of already standard 'superficially logical to the lay mind' creationist card. So if you have little knowledge or respect for real science and decide to go for whats immediately 'reasonable' or 'logical'..you would go for Hovind
this is nacrissistic, egotistic, and intellectually lazy...
Excellent example of why REPUTABLE PEOPLE (like Shermer) should NOT DEBATE liars and phonies like Hovind (the KING of creationist liars and phonies). It serves no purpose other than to give a forum and credibility for liars.
@GetMeThere1 did you watch the video? You guys are so deluded it's not even funny, I can't imagine someone thinking that Shermer actually won. Kent debunked everything he said. Tell me what he didn't debunk.
@micah1116 : What you don't understand is that Hovind lies about almost EVERYTHING. Most of what Hovind says has been thoroughly debunked--so thoroughly that it's OBVIOUS that he intentionally lies and misleads. Check out "talkorigins dot-org" for info on debunking Hovind.
@micah1116 : Look. I'm not going to indulge you in this silliness (and no, Shermer is not wrong). All of Hovind's nonsense has been WIDELY refuted. His stuff is pure baloney. If you have a need to believe it, then....good luck to you; but stop bothering me about it.
One of the things that really annoys me about this discussion in general, is the use of the term "evolutionist." It's supposed to imply that all the people who believe in evolution share some kind of ideological bias, which couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, if any scientist had evidence that evolution was false, he would become one of the most famous biologists in history. And people think droves of biologists are passing this chance up out of bias towards Darwin? BULLSHIT
So many comments that have nothing to do with what is being talked about. I hate seeing all the comments bashing Hovind about being in prison blah blah blah. Kent Hovind embarrassed Shermer proving that the so called vestigial structures are actually helpful in our anatomy.
So many comments that have nothing to do with what is being talked about. I hate seeing all the comments bashing hovind about being in prison blah blah blah. Kent hovind embarrassed shermer proving that the so called vestigial structures are actually helpful in our anatomy.
So many comments that have nothing to do with what is being talked about. I hate seeing all the comments bashing hovind about being in prison blah blah blah. Kent hovind embarrased shermer proving that the so called vestigial structures are actually helpful in our anatomy.
So many comments that have nothing to do with what is being talked about. I hate seeing all the comments bashing hovind about being in prison blah blah blah. Kent hovind embarrased shermer proving that the so called vestigual structures are actually helpful in our anatomy.
Hovind spends more words on insults and accusations than on citing sources for his own information, and then he accuses his opponents of propaganda.
Then he tries to tell us that we'd rather subject our blood to UV radiation than fry our rods and cones. And apparently he doesn't know eyes are filled with aqueous fluid, which is... WA-TER.
Bang on, Kenty boy.
Oh, and by the way... How's that "bend over" thing working out for you?
*sigh* Reading these comments and watching this video is pathetic. First off none of these evolutionists can agree on whats right and whats wrong, Secondly, they don't even think about what they believe in, Thirdly, all they do is say "oh Kent is stupid blah blah blah he's in prison (for something irrelevant to his debating) he can't be right" and FINALLY i like what my biology teacher said about how evolution is always evolving, they keep changing the facts to fit the theory (thats not science)
@guitardrummer321 well, i wouldnt say his tax evasion is unrelated. "go to my website and buy all the dvds". he ties the two together quite nicely. his lectures, videos, theme park are a business. he needs an audience. his audience are creationists. creationism is wrong, has been proven wrong scientifically so many times that its basically in third world countries, isamic theocracies, and the united states that its even a topic that gets talked about :)
@Neeboopsh oh i didn't know they had a kent hovind theme park. His audience is churches and colleges, im pretty sure he goes to colleges specifically to debate evolutionists and prove them wrong in front of the students their brainwashing. By "creationism being proven wrong" im assuming all that your talking about is that the miracles it talks about in the bible are "illogical" . And yes tax fraud has nothing to do with disproving evolution....
@guitardrummer321 well, my point is that kent hovind sells items to creationists. he then doesnt pay tax on his sales (theme park revenues, dvds, etc). so yes, his motive for profit, then not paying tax on that profit (he claimed it is for a ministry/religious institution - hence tax exempt) while promoting and selling items. that ties his creationism to profit, to illegal activities and dishonesty. moreover, the universe wasnt created in six days less than 10k y/ago, so biblical creation=false
Water blocks UV light??? I guess those people using UV to sterilize their drinking water are what, morons??? How can a fuckhead idiot ike this get away with such crap??? Doesn't anyone CHECK his moronic claims?
the irony in what kent was arguing is if something is created by your god, you exspect it to be perfect, however if there is something useless to that creature then it is not perfecticly created therefor flawed
I love Kent Hovind, he gets funnier and funnier each day. I should also point out that I believe it's the cornea which has the UV filter in the eye and that there are human beings (all of whom have had their corneas replaced) that can actually see UV light)
NCSE refused to debate him? He debated Eugenie Scott back in 1993 & she totally kicked his ass. Its on the NCSE Channel. He won't show the vid. Wonder why? Hovind Lie. The H.S. textbooks he shows calls them college books. Hovind lie. Only a Pakicetus skull? Look @ 6:42. Below the drawing is a pic of a fairly complete skeleton from NATURE. Hovind Lie. And if whale ancestors never lived on land why have an eye design for living in the air (As Hovind says)? Fish also have these eyes. Hovind lie?
@Arainion Did you watch the debate? Scott embarrassed Hovind. She really exposed a lot of his ignorance whihc is always funny because he shows such arrogance. It's interesting that he is the one that taped that debate but NCSE shows the video.
@snakeguy76 Of course I did see it, stupid question. I did not hear anything valuable from her, she was arrogant and she is a lier. She did not exposed anything, Hovind is obviously right, everyone with eyes and ears must see it.
finally a good creationist argument, the evolutionists have been crapping facts and laws on them. This is better than scientists with a religious upbringing trying to prove their mythology with crap
@rationalanarchy *Clicks thumb up*. I would add that even if an old vestigial structure now has a purpose, it doesn't disagree with evolutionary theory at all. There's a specific word for structures that used to be vestigial and have since taken on new purpose due to change in environment. I can't remember it now. Anyway, I think you'll get a kick out of a video entitled "40 Kent Hovind Lies Part 1 - HD and new audio". Check it out. It made me laugh.
It seems as though "dr." hovind doesn't get the point of vistigial structures. They are structures that used to have a function, but became useless due to changing environments and ongoing evolution (whale ancestors used to need those hips, but now they don't). He says that they have muscles attached that are very important, and that he used to teach anatomy. I checked wikipedia, and he doesn't have any credentials to speak of. He is either ignorant, or just plain lying to you!
@chuckinator0 Wikipedia was compiled by a bunch of rabid Atheists like yourself with a definate political bias. I wouldn't trust them any further than I could kick them.
@RabidCretardz I've never been described as "rabid" before. And actually, being someone who is proficient in Physics and Mathematics, I find most of Wikipedia's articles on these subjects to be rather spot on. Sometimes i disagree with some of the notation in the mathematics, and sometimes the definitions aren't very clearly stated, but overall Wikipedia is pretty good in these subjects. I have not read enough of the other subjects to give a fair criticism. Why bring up Wikipedia?
He most certainly IS a con artist, and he bought his fake "PhD" from a "university" that operates out of a mobile home. If you want a good chuckle, read his "doctoral dissertation" sometime, it reads like something out of a grade 8 special needs class.
why do creationists think everyone is lying to them? they all say that why the hell would people want to lie to them? when they say that its clearly just desperation....
Moron, I can't believe it Kent Hovind Just flat out lied to those people, And also toKent Hovind water doesn't protect you from UV light. You can still get a sun burn while in the water.
What? Pure water has a refraction index of 1.33. Given deep enough water, very little UV rays will penetrate. The more minerals dissolved in water, the higher the refraction.
Please... research before you make these rediculous comments.
Because evolution is always constantly happening. Nothing on earth is considered 'perfect', and everything has room for improvement. Evolution would never stop because it reached the 'perfect' finish.
@FiverBeyond - you didnt answer my question. if evolution is constantly happening, why didnt the human eye evolved to a better one? or are you saying that the eye of today is structurally and functionally better than the eye of yesterday... just a thought, im not a scientist by the way.
@attypulpol Because it is not a hindrance to the reproductive or survival ability of the organism. As long as it works, natural selection won't mess with it. If, however, bad eye design had caused humans to die at the age of 10, then only individuals with mutated good eyes would survive, passing those genes.
But as imperfect as it is now, it works fine, so natural selection basically ignores it. Hope this was clear enough
@danoso0931 - you say that "as long as it works, natural selection won't mess with it". according to science books, all living things came from microorganisms. they are supposed to have more survival/reproductive ability than human beings and other mammals? how did simple celled organisms gazillion of years ago develop arms, forearms, and other human parts, when they adopt to environment and reproduced more easily than human beings/mammals?? weird science.
@ mickeykozzi, sorry that my questions sound "stupid" or "dumb" to you. as i said, im not a scientist. you will also sound dumb if you ask a question to an egoistic person who knows about the subject perfectly well.
@ to those who responded.. thanks for the insight.
Hovind is a moron, vestigial doesn't mean useless, it means repurposed. All of the examples of vestigial structures he mentioned have characteristics of other appendages that are unnecessary. Evolution isn't always gaining something, it's adaptation to an environment regardless of how much information is needed to form them. UV is one of the last wavelengths of light water stops, and only does at the point that most if not all other color is gone.
Hovind claims he accepts all science except evolution. But he rebutled many other science to prove that evolution is not fact. Other science he falsified, such as biology, paleontology, genetics, cosmology, chemistry and the dating techniques, which is very important in science.
So I guess the more science subjects he falsify to disprove evolution, the more evident that evolution supports science.
Which means that evolution is NOT RELIGION!!!!!!!!!!!!
They are not legs dumb arse!, they are muscle anchorage points, you lot actually think they evolved from cows or vice versa??, wow!, so whos the delusional ones again?!, GET BACK IN YA HOLE!!!.
@Aheadstix85 Actually, the truth is that they evolved from ungulates, which is a very broad group that also encompasses cows. But the closest relative to the whales is the hippo, which you will admit looks resembles the whale a little bit more. And it's also very clumsy on land but nimble in the water. Hovind's use of the word cow instead of ungulate is just an attempt to make it sound ridiculous
Hovind accuses other of lying but I'm sure he knows that vestigial in biology means; Occurring or persisting as a rudimentary or degenerate structure. A structure in an organism that has lost all or most of its original function in the course of evolution.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Excelent question Dr. Hovind, Dr. Shermer is not skeptic of a such ludicrous claim because he openly admited he is skeptic of everything else but not of his own advocacy to the scientific myth better known as the theory of evolution, where every single hallucination comes true, imagine sinonyx turning into whales, obviously giving enough time
Hovind kicks Shermer's ass. What a sad day for evolutionists hahaha
Dporebski20 3 months ago
@Dporebski20 everyday is a bad day for evalutionists cuzz they dont know what they are talking about hahaha
777Satanslayer 3 months ago
@Dporebski20
I can´t almost believe that M. Shermer consider himself a skeptic and HE IS NOT skeptic about the stupid idea that humans somehow evolved from one of those weird worm like cambrian marine cratures, that really blows my mind and even worst, he goes even further to deffend such a stupid idea with such a radical and extremist fervor...pity on him
realhomosapiens 3 months ago
Why does everything with theists have to do with sex???
baldurus1 3 months ago
Michael Shermer presents a rational argument, Kent Hovind has nothing but strawman arguments, miss quotes textbooks and intermingles creation quotes (wales walking around) and attemps to make it look like a scientist said it when it was out of a creation publication.
55metalmonkey 4 months ago
@55metalmonkey For a really good laugh, Google for Hovind's dissertation. It begins thusly:
Hello, my name is Kent Hovind. I am a creation/science evangelist. I live in Pensacola, Florida. I have been a high school science teacher since 1976. I've been very active in the creation/evolution controversy for quite some time.
It only gets worse from there.
AlanCFA 3 months ago
@AlanCFA Ya I read most of it but had to stop, far too painfull to read. I stopped at about chapter 3 mostly because it was getting dumber by the minute, but also glaring errors and inconsistant logic, I mean, who stops half way through a thought to quote bible verses that have almost nothing to do with the thought
the best part I found was " christians are often guilty of neglecting or twisting the bilbe to fit their lifestyles or pre concieved ideas" (bottom of introduction) kinda ironic eh?
55metalmonkey 3 months ago
@AlanCFA Hello, my name is Kent Hovind. I have been lounging in prison for the last several years because I cheated on my taxes and claimed my house was a church.
TheThunderduck 3 months ago
@TheThunderduck "...claimed my house was a church." Well, it was not a church, but it was an amusement park. If you consider walking around in his back yard and looking at dinosaur sculptures amusing (which, apparently, creationists do)
AlanCFA 3 months ago
Kent and four other scientists don't believe in evolution... But the ship sailed already. Kent Is Humor!!
wondergundy 4 months ago
it's amazing how atheistic macro- evolution breaks down when challenged.
whiteliketar 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hovind doesn't know what "vestigial" means.
odinata 5 months ago
What the scientists need to do (since Hovind backs up his bible claims with his version of "science"), is challenge him to a debate on biblical "history". SOme god "speaking" everything into existence, Adam the mud-man, Eve the rib-woman, the talking snake, the boat full of dinosaurs, etc.
jerico641 5 months ago
Shermer got his ass kicked.
achilles197474 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@achilles197474
Hovind got his ass kicked into jail.
odinata 5 months ago
Estimates of the percentage of species that are now extinct is between 60% and 99%. What Shermer is touting as intermediates could very well be now extinct species.
Mayburyj 5 months ago
Waa-ter
richardtodwyer 7 months ago
Funny Hovind should listen to his own advice and get a new job. Its amazing that he didn't mention the inner ear shape of early whales which have a bone that only whales have.
finderfinder100 7 months ago
It's funny how the whale fossil that is supposed to show the moving of the blow hole is actually missing the top of it's skull.
Forgive me for not remembering the names of these mythological animals.
knowwaie 7 months ago
Hovind's Dichotomy is false.
Ignorant - Not Ignorant, Lying - Not Lying
Either Hovind IS batshit crazy, or he is not.Those are true dichotomies
beiggo 7 months ago
Hovind is a dumb ass.
Illjord 7 months ago 2
lol! Hovind has a sense of humor
Law19157 9 months ago
Wow Hovind never stood a chance against a guy with an education.
Ozzyman200 10 months ago
Embarrassment of riches? More like an embarrassment of IMAGINATION. With the 3 skulls at .31, where are the rest of the creatures? At .11, they're drawings, not actual photos. It's ironic, Shermer shows Gould, who admitted, there's an absent of fossil intermediates in the fossil record!
Evolutionists need to show ALL the fossils to show 1 creature evolving into a different creature for any of the fossils to be called transitional. They also think drawings and computer graphics prove evolution.
AntichristComes 10 months ago 2
@AntichristComes Wow, you've got such an advanced understanding of how evolution works.
Every living creature is transitional. The reason that idiots like you demand evidence of one creature transitioning into another is a result of our modern propensity for classification. There isn't a sudden cut-off from one classified living being to another - everything is in a constant state of transition. That's how evolution works. Creationism thinks it wins by setting up falsely predicated arguments.
AntiFlavour 10 months ago
@AntiFlavour "Every living creature is a transitional"
Only in your imagination.
"That's how evolution works"
Because you said it? You think evolution works because you can pretend that all creatures are transitionals without the proof, or you saw the proof on Star Trek. Well, I want the FOSSILS, that show a reptile has ever evolved into a bird. An Archaeopteryx isn't proof because it's one fossil. Look up the word transition in the dictionary. ONE fossil doesn't prove a transition.
AntichristComes 10 months ago 2
@AntichristComes OK - can I put it to you another way?
1) Why don't intelligent design proponents ever submit their work to standard scrutiny - like peer review or journal submissions? If what you think is true, you could be ushering in a whole new era of science, rather than be seen as a group of unscientific fringe lunatics.
2) What do you say to the overwhelming (near absolute) scientific consensus that says that even if they didn't have any fossils - evolution would STILL be true?
AntiFlavour 10 months ago 2
@AntiFlavour "Peer review"? I'm sure YOU'VE NEVER seen EVERY article ever written, not even close... have you? How do you KNOW their are no "peer review" articles on the subjects that favor special creation? Anymore, people are pressured into not thinking outside of the realm of naturalism or evolution. If they do, they can lose their professorships, etc. "Peer review" isn't anything to brag about when a bunch of grown-ups are so closed minded, and who are ready to ostracize opposing opinions.
AntichristComes 10 months ago
@AntiFlavour There are many scientists who aren't in the same boat as the evolutionists, who are real scientists, who aren't trying to create HOAXES and FRAUDS (i.e. Nebraska, Piltdown, Indonesian Man, Lucy, etc.) to push their world-view...
"The Institute for Creation Research's followers take science more seriously than most scientists do. [Their faculty have] absolutely respectable, legitimate doctorates from major American universities."- Paul Toumey; from his Ph.D. thesis in anthropology.
AntichristComes 10 months ago
@AntiFlavour "What do you say... even if they didn't have any fossils - evolution would STILL be true?"
I would say, evolutionists NEED those fossils for credibility, BUT they don't exist. Without the transitional fossils, Darwinism enters the realm of useless rhetoric, and all they have left are computer graphics, graphs and charts, and drawings as their only "proof". Evolution is very laughable, and a con-game... without those transitional fossils.
AntichristComes 10 months ago
@AntichristComes - Oh cool, I see now. Well, how about you make a really big push to get intelligent design recognised as legitimate science? It would be impossible for ALL the members of ALL the scientific societies and representative groups in the developed world to have such a seamless conspiracy, without any leaks, to keep intelligent design deliberately down. It couldn't be pure hoax that all the universally recognised best scientists all support evolution as a fact. And surely intelligent
AntiFlavour 10 months ago
design, like you say, has some reputable scientists on its side that aren't motivated purely by bronze age religious reasons. If it's a rock solid theory, then there must be an appeal to legitimate scientists who AREN'T religious or at least motivated by religion - and moreover some of these scientists must have something better than the same old repudiated creation arguments that didn't stand up even in the 1950's. You could really usher in a whole new era of science man - go for it! Do it!
AntiFlavour 10 months ago
@AntiFlavour I.D. is real science, even if evolutionists don't want to acknowledge it as such.
A seamless conspiracy? All they need, is to have the same world-view... the view that says,"there is no God". It's not like they need to all get together and plot out a conspiracy.
Also, not ALL the BEST scientists believe in evolution. Many evolutionary scientists admit evolution doesn't have a fossil leg to stand on. You can find quotes all over the internet attesting to that fact.
AntichristComes 10 months ago
@AntichristComes But many believers in God support the theory of evolution.
Please help me find some of these quotes. I find a lot of the pre-eminent scientists at the most reputable universities disagree about specifics WITHIN evolution, but none of them dispute the fact of evolution itself. All of them seem to think that the best intelligent design proponents can do is point out current gaps in evolution that they can no better fill themselves, without positing a testable theory of their own
AntiFlavour 10 months ago
@AntiFlavour "many believers in God support the theory of evolution"
If they're Christians, they're heretics, because they don't know their Bible. Many believers in Hitler supported the genocide of the Jewish people... so what?!?
If you are any good at using Google, you'll be able to find the quotes. Don't expect to find damning quotes against evolution, by evolutionists, on atheistic websites.
If evolution was true, transitions should be OBSERVED throughout the fossil record. There are none.
AntichristComes 10 months ago
Here's a quote from Stephen J. Gould w/ reference...
"I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know."
- Stephen J. Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981)
I try to show quotes with references, but the references aren't always with the quote.
AntichristComes 10 months ago 2
Cont... Here are some quotes from evolutionists in their moments of honesty...
"It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student...have now been 'debunked.' Similarly, my own experience of more than twenty years looking for evolutionary lineage's among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proved them equally elusive."
- Derek Ager [Univ. at Swansea, Wales]; PROC. GEOL. ASSO., Vol.87, p.132
AntichristComes 10 months ago
Wow, these really are THE BEST examples that you've put forward. I'm totally convinced now. Again, why don't you really push for intelligent design as the new fundamental framework of modern science? You could usher in a whole new era of understanding in the scientific world, and Christianity could relive some of its glory days outside the American South and Midwest at the same time.
AntiFlavour 10 months ago
@AntiFlavour "Wow, these really are THE BEST examples that you've put forward"
Please, don't con me, although, evolutionists are THE BEST con artists out there. As long as the public remains asleep or at least duped, the evolutionists will have their way, hiding the truth, while pretending that computer graphics and drawings are equal to hard evidence.
AntichristComes 10 months ago
@AntichristComes No, honestly, you've blown me away. I can honestly say this in spite of the fact that every national representative body in science in the OECD, representing every scientific discipline in all the world's most developed nations, saying that intelligent design is a load of religiously motivated drivel based on a desperation retreat and without any robust scientific merit. Really, it's been YOU that has converted me in spite of everything running against you. Congratulations.
AntiFlavour 10 months ago
@AntiFlavour *cough* Here's another quote, from an evolutionist about The Institute for Creation Research...
"The Institute for Creation Research's followers take science more seriously than most scientists do. [Their faculty have] absolutely respectable, legitimate doctorates from major American universities."- Paul Toumey; from his Ph.D. thesis in anthropology.
So again, your comment disregards the fact that ALL the scientists on the planet, even in the OECD, DON'T believe in evolution.
AntichristComes 10 months ago
@AntichristComes Actually I never said that. All I've said is that all the representative scientific bodies and societies in the OECD have issued statements attesting to the fact of evolution and discrediting intelligent design. I never said there weren't scientists that didn't support or believe in the theory of evolution, or that scientists who didn't didn't go to good schools. All I'm saying is that all the luminaries in their fields seem to wind up on the evolution side - prove me wrong.
AntiFlavour 10 months ago
@AntiFlavour "All I'm saying is that all the luminaries in their fields seem to wind up on the evolution side - prove me wrong"
LOL! I can't even prove you right...
AntichristComes 10 months ago 2
@AntichristComes No, seriously. Just tell me ONE intelligent design proponent who is widely considered the among the best in his field in ONE discipline. Just one guy or gal. Anyone can go to a good school, that doesn't prove very much. I wanna see proof of an ID proponent who is actually held in seriously high esteem by the greater scientific community.Surely if ID is such a robust framework there must be ONE person who fits this description. Or is it the 'conspiracy' keeping these people down?
AntiFlavour 10 months ago
@AntiFlavour "Just tell me ONE intelligent design proponent who is widely considered the among the best in his field in ONE discipline"
Dr. David Menton... over 40 yrs of experience as a biologist. Works with Answers in Genesis.
You can find a list of names of scientists, with their profession, and what university they went to, who are skeptics of Darwinism...
discovery . org /articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd . pdf
AntichristComes 10 months ago 2
@AntichristComes Oh sorry, I didn't realise I was going head to head with such intellectual powerhouses as Answers in Genesis.
I can safely concede defeat now, safe in the knowledge that 150 years of steadfastly applicative science is no match for an organisation that believes that the story of Noah's Ark LITERALLY happened, and is a far superior scientific explanation to boot.
AntiFlavour 10 months ago
@AntiFlavour "I can safely concede defeat now, safe in the knowledge that 150 years of steadfastly applicative science is no match for an organisation that believes..."
I thought you were talking about the myth of evolution, and NOT SCIENCE!
The worldwide fossil record fits best with that Noah's worldwide Flood story instead of Darwin's myth, because those transitionals are still missing. That's a good idea... you should concede. Also, think about turning to Jesus while there's still time.
AntichristComes 10 months ago 2
@AntiFlavour "I didn't realise I was going head to head with such intellectual powerhouses as Answers in Genesis"
As I pointed out... evolution doesn't have a fossil leg to stand on, so you wouldn't have a chance against anyone at Answers in Genesis or ICR or Discovery . Org
AntichristComes 10 months ago
@AntiFlavour Either show the transitional fossils that prove evolution is a fact (i.e. reptile into a bird, etc.), or admit defeat. Don't go on through life fooling yourself, that life can be created by a mindless, purposeless process called evolution. How can anyone have enough faith to be an atheist? There's only one reason... they don't want to stop sinning because sin is fun, and evolution gives them a reason, even if it's a poor reason, to think there's no God.
AntichristComes 10 months ago
@AntichristComes You turn your computer off now and go train for special olympics. Your academic future is really bleak anyway. Special olympics will give you something to do... Keep your fingers out of your pants and nose.. as it where. Idle hands and all that.
Whoever invented sin should have made it less fun, huh?
wondergundy 4 months ago
@AntichristComes
They Represent 1% of the scientific community.
Thomaspain85 3 months ago
@AntichristComes And again, I just have to ask - "If all of what you're saying is true, then why aren't you and the rest of the ID lobby making a real push WITHIN science - not within education or legislation - for ID to be given the recognition you feel it deserves?"
Could you also please tell me if there are any proponents of intelligent design that AREN'T religious? Fair question as regards neutrality I believe.
AntiFlavour 10 months ago
@AntiFlavour "Could you also please tell me if there are any proponents of intelligent design that AREN'T religious?"
Intelligent Design assumes that if there's a design, then there's a Designer. As for being religious, evolutionists are just as religious as any Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist, and are practicing their faith in macroevolution without having to OBSERVE the transitionals in the fossil record, or the Big Bang, or the primordial goop.
AntichristComes 10 months ago
@AntichristComes OK, I'll rephrase the question so you can be specific rather than going off on a cliched tangent rant about evolutionary fundamentalists being 'religious'
"Are there any proponents of intelligent design that DO NOT follow the Abrahamaic, monotheistic religions - i.e. Christianity, Judaism, or Islam?"
AntiFlavour 10 months ago
@AntiFlavour Michael Cremo believes there was an Intelligent Designer/Creator, and he's a Buddhist. He wrote a very large book called Forbidden Archaeology.
AntichristComes 10 months ago 2
@AntiFlavour Here is a better list of scientists who are skeptical of Darwinism which is much easier to read.
You can notice the first name on the list, Philip Skell, who was very experienced, and an evolutionist/biologist who believes ID should be taught in the same science class, and that evolution never contributed at all to the development of medicines or vaccines. There is an audio recording somewhere at the Discovery . Org website with this opinion from Dr. Skell.
AntichristComes 10 months ago 2
Cont... I forgot to put the URL of the site with the easier to read list of scientists who are skeptical of Darwinism.
Here it is...
discovery . org /scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download . php ?id=660
AntichristComes 10 months ago 2
@AntichristComes 'Scientists'. There is a difference between being sceptical of Darwinism (some parts are outdated- actual scientists adapt their theories to new evidence) and not believing in evolution.
kinkykirby 9 months ago
@AntichristComes Appeals to authority eh?
LoneRookRS1 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AntichristComes
Philip S. Skell (December 30, 1918 – November 21, 2010) He worked as a professor of chemistry at Penn State University.is an American chemist
Your claim that he is a biologist is a LIE.
Your claim that he is an "evolutionist" is not born out by his statement:
“the main purpose” of anyone teaching evolutionary biology in our schools is the “indoctrination of students to a worldview of materialism and atheism” --Phillip Skell
Your Discovery Institute lists are BOGUS.
odinata 5 months ago
@AntichristComes When you can show real evidence of rabbit fossils in the precambrian that would be a great start. Where are these human footprints next to dinosaurs then? I've never seen them in any reputable scientific journals?
kinkykirby 9 months ago
@kinkykirby And you're not going to find those dino footprints w/ human footprints in "scientific" journals because the journals that you are no doubt referring to are operated by evolutionists, and to allow such things would be shooting themselves in the foot.
It's just like when Jack Horner wouldn't allow the "soft tissue" found in the T-Rex to be tested for Carbon-14. If there is ANY Carbon-14 found in that soft tissue, that would prove the T-Rex was less than 50,000 yrs. old.
AntichristComes 9 months ago
@kinkykirby Fossils tend to disappear and reappear in the strata. There may well be a "precambrian rabbit" out there. I find it silly that you guys can use the disappearing and reappearing in stratas as an excuse yet you don't accept it when we pull that card. We never find chicken and human footprints together even though we have lived at the same time. If this is the case, then your argument is nullified. Your definition of "reputable" is a journal that agrees with you. I think that covers it.
blondetrumpetboy 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AntiFlavour "And again, I just have to ask - "If all of what you're saying is true, then why aren't you and the rest of the ID lobby making a real push WITHIN science - not within education or legislation - for ID to be given the recognition you feel it deserves?""
And AGAIN I'll answer, ID is accepted in many schools and colleges, just not by evolutionists. Also, there is a push, and as more is known about the complexity of life, evolution takes one more hit towards extinction.
AntichristComes 10 months ago
@AntichristComes What a load of bollocks. The theory of evolution becomes better supported by the day. ID is a joke in the science world! Everyone is laughing at you, 'haha those idiotic, brainwashed IDers! Look at them desperately trying to support their religion with pseudoscience!'
kinkykirby 9 months ago
Cont...
"Like many high school and college teachers today, I held the viewpoint that evolution was based on solid scientific facts. But when I started looking for those facts, I couldn't find them. The evidence for the origin of life by spontaneous generation from chemicals, and for the intermediate fossils that allegedly prove the macroevolution of all major life groups, was simply not there."- Donald A. Bierle [biologist/zoologist], former evolutionist and skeptic
AntichristComes 10 months ago
Cont...
"Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I determine I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts."- Francis Crick, Life Itself (1981) p.153
"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."- Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist, Erlangen University
AntichristComes 10 months ago 2
@AntichristComes
It's funny, christian dumbasses try to put science like myths and their stupid christianity like science.
"ONE fossil doesn't prove a transition"
¿hey not? ¿because you said it?
It's incredible, they don't see the absurds and contradictions y the stupid christian mythology, and try to find contradictions in science.
But ¿who cares? evolution is supported by ALL IN SCIENTIFIC COMUNITY, ¿who cares about stupid brainless christians?
Elohir2 6 months ago
@AntiFlavour
O yeah!
The stupid, primitive and infantile story of the mudman, the rib-woman and the talkin snake is better that science ¿right?
AHAHAHAHA!!
creationists are the funniest joke.
Elohir2 6 months ago 2
the significative portion of the audience entertained with this ignorance spreding con, is a testimony of the poor eduacation and logical capabilities of students. all hovind speaches are nothing but intricated fallacies, misrepresentations of papers and even invented 'evidence'. thank god he's in jail.
sirdelrio 11 months ago
Hovind definately won by far.
RabidCretardz 11 months ago 3
@RabidCretardz Any college science student can prove Howind wrong. He doesn't even understand evolution.
gregrutz 11 months ago
I love when half the Creationists say that Intelligent Design has nothing to do with religion or God, and that that insinuation is a distraction from the real scientific debate. Then the other half of Christians don't get the memo and forget to differentiate between Creationism and Intelligent Design, and inadvertantly ruin the argument of the first half.
marlboroman1985 11 months ago 2
I almost felt bad for Hovind. It's like watching a child falling down trying to stand up and falling down again.
baldurus1 1 year ago
there was no contest in this entire. it was plain and simpl: Shermer played the real science card, and Hovind played the sort of already standard 'superficially logical to the lay mind' creationist card. So if you have little knowledge or respect for real science and decide to go for whats immediately 'reasonable' or 'logical'..you would go for Hovind
this is nacrissistic, egotistic, and intellectually lazy...
avion85 1 year ago
Water blocks UV light, i never laughed so much in my life. :)
Mitche23 1 year ago
I'm not a YEC but I have to admit that Hovind did make Shermer look stupid
the1qb 1 year ago
Creationism is not just "not science"...it's not even HONEST.
NevilleRhysBarnes 1 year ago
Excellent example of why REPUTABLE PEOPLE (like Shermer) should NOT DEBATE liars and phonies like Hovind (the KING of creationist liars and phonies). It serves no purpose other than to give a forum and credibility for liars.
GetMeThere1 1 year ago
@GetMeThere1 It's hilarious how you claim Kent is a liar, yet he exposed everything Michael shermer said as being a lie.
micah1116 1 year ago 2
@micah1116 : Uh....no. What's hilarious is how you BELIEVE that.
GetMeThere1 1 year ago
@GetMeThere1 did you watch the video? You guys are so deluded it's not even funny, I can't imagine someone thinking that Shermer actually won. Kent debunked everything he said. Tell me what he didn't debunk.
micah1116 1 year ago
@micah1116 : What you don't understand is that Hovind lies about almost EVERYTHING. Most of what Hovind says has been thoroughly debunked--so thoroughly that it's OBVIOUS that he intentionally lies and misleads. Check out "talkorigins dot-org" for info on debunking Hovind.
GetMeThere1 1 year ago
@GetMeThere1 so your admitting that Shermer is wrong, and why don't you see where hovind responds to talk origins, i'm sure you won't watch that.
micah1116 1 year ago
@micah1116 : Look. I'm not going to indulge you in this silliness (and no, Shermer is not wrong). All of Hovind's nonsense has been WIDELY refuted. His stuff is pure baloney. If you have a need to believe it, then....good luck to you; but stop bothering me about it.
GetMeThere1 1 year ago
One of the things that really annoys me about this discussion in general, is the use of the term "evolutionist." It's supposed to imply that all the people who believe in evolution share some kind of ideological bias, which couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, if any scientist had evidence that evolution was false, he would become one of the most famous biologists in history. And people think droves of biologists are passing this chance up out of bias towards Darwin? BULLSHIT
Hammerfly86 1 year ago
Every time he objects to tax money being spent on something I giggle.
Naiant 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So many comments that have nothing to do with what is being talked about. I hate seeing all the comments bashing Hovind about being in prison blah blah blah. Kent Hovind embarrassed Shermer proving that the so called vestigial structures are actually helpful in our anatomy.
TerrificTyler777 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So many comments that have nothing to do with what is being talked about. I hate seeing all the comments bashing hovind about being in prison blah blah blah. Kent hovind embarrassed shermer proving that the so called vestigial structures are actually helpful in our anatomy.
TerrificTyler777 1 year ago
So many comments that have nothing to do with what is being talked about. I hate seeing all the comments bashing hovind about being in prison blah blah blah. Kent hovind embarrased shermer proving that the so called vestigial structures are actually helpful in our anatomy.
TerrificTyler777 1 year ago
So many comments that have nothing to do with what is being talked about. I hate seeing all the comments bashing hovind about being in prison blah blah blah. Kent hovind embarrased shermer proving that the so called vestigual structures are actually helpful in our anatomy.
TerrificTyler777 1 year ago
Shermer put Hovind on his knees... but Hovind's used to being on his knees now, and it ain't for prayin.'
nolobede 1 year ago
Hovind spends more words on insults and accusations than on citing sources for his own information, and then he accuses his opponents of propaganda.
Then he tries to tell us that we'd rather subject our blood to UV radiation than fry our rods and cones. And apparently he doesn't know eyes are filled with aqueous fluid, which is... WA-TER.
Bang on, Kenty boy.
Oh, and by the way... How's that "bend over" thing working out for you?
d00df00d 1 year ago
*sigh* Reading these comments and watching this video is pathetic. First off none of these evolutionists can agree on whats right and whats wrong, Secondly, they don't even think about what they believe in, Thirdly, all they do is say "oh Kent is stupid blah blah blah he's in prison (for something irrelevant to his debating) he can't be right" and FINALLY i like what my biology teacher said about how evolution is always evolving, they keep changing the facts to fit the theory (thats not science)
guitardrummer321 1 year ago
@guitardrummer321 well, i wouldnt say his tax evasion is unrelated. "go to my website and buy all the dvds". he ties the two together quite nicely. his lectures, videos, theme park are a business. he needs an audience. his audience are creationists. creationism is wrong, has been proven wrong scientifically so many times that its basically in third world countries, isamic theocracies, and the united states that its even a topic that gets talked about :)
Neeboopsh 1 year ago
@Neeboopsh oh i didn't know they had a kent hovind theme park. His audience is churches and colleges, im pretty sure he goes to colleges specifically to debate evolutionists and prove them wrong in front of the students their brainwashing. By "creationism being proven wrong" im assuming all that your talking about is that the miracles it talks about in the bible are "illogical" . And yes tax fraud has nothing to do with disproving evolution....
guitardrummer321 1 year ago
@guitardrummer321 well, my point is that kent hovind sells items to creationists. he then doesnt pay tax on his sales (theme park revenues, dvds, etc). so yes, his motive for profit, then not paying tax on that profit (he claimed it is for a ministry/religious institution - hence tax exempt) while promoting and selling items. that ties his creationism to profit, to illegal activities and dishonesty. moreover, the universe wasnt created in six days less than 10k y/ago, so biblical creation=false
Neeboopsh 1 year ago
Water blocks UV light??? I guess those people using UV to sterilize their drinking water are what, morons??? How can a fuckhead idiot ike this get away with such crap??? Doesn't anyone CHECK his moronic claims?
stojadinovicp 1 year ago 2
@stojadinovicp Yes, Kent just makes up anything he wants, it just has to fit the bible, he has no evidence.
gregrutz 1 year ago 2
the irony in what kent was arguing is if something is created by your god, you exspect it to be perfect, however if there is something useless to that creature then it is not perfecticly created therefor flawed
stupid kenty
riotguards 1 year ago
hovind wins
Onetruthrgv 1 year ago
@Onetruthrgv Hovind is an IDiot. Everything he says about science is wrong.
They teach cows turned into whales, NO THEY DON'T, a lie.
gregrutz 1 year ago
I love Kent Hovind, he gets funnier and funnier each day. I should also point out that I believe it's the cornea which has the UV filter in the eye and that there are human beings (all of whom have had their corneas replaced) that can actually see UV light)
squeezycheeseypeas 1 year ago
NCSE refused to debate him? He debated Eugenie Scott back in 1993 & she totally kicked his ass. Its on the NCSE Channel. He won't show the vid. Wonder why? Hovind Lie. The H.S. textbooks he shows calls them college books. Hovind lie. Only a Pakicetus skull? Look @ 6:42. Below the drawing is a pic of a fairly complete skeleton from NATURE. Hovind Lie. And if whale ancestors never lived on land why have an eye design for living in the air (As Hovind says)? Fish also have these eyes. Hovind lie?
snakeguy76 1 year ago
@snakeguy76 Any chance you could send me a link to that debate between Hovind and Scott?
Korkzor 1 year ago
@Korkzor
watch?v=H7XUsgat1j0
snakeguy76 1 year ago
@snakeguy76 And you are saying that Eugenie Scott kicked his ass. You must be joking. It's lie.
Arainion 1 year ago
@Arainion Did you watch the debate? Scott embarrassed Hovind. She really exposed a lot of his ignorance whihc is always funny because he shows such arrogance. It's interesting that he is the one that taped that debate but NCSE shows the video.
snakeguy76 1 year ago
@snakeguy76 Of course I did see it, stupid question. I did not hear anything valuable from her, she was arrogant and she is a lier. She did not exposed anything, Hovind is obviously right, everyone with eyes and ears must see it.
Arainion 1 year ago
@Arainion She is a liar? Hovind is obviously right?
Either you are joking, or you are a complete moron.
snakeguy76 1 year ago
@snakeguy76: DFTT man... jsut ignore the moron and mark his crap as spam...
stojadinovicp 1 year ago
@Arainion Any college educated kid can kick Kent's ass.
Just listen to him try to prove all of science wrong, he can't talk fast enough.
gregrutz 1 year ago
finally a good creationist argument, the evolutionists have been crapping facts and laws on them. This is better than scientists with a religious upbringing trying to prove their mythology with crap
SurfbyShootin 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Kent Hovind is so hilarious.
He doesn't even know the bare fundamentals of biology or any science for that matter.
It is actually on the level of comedy for an educated person to listen to him speak. :)
karlkarlkarl1234 1 year ago
@rationalanarchy *Clicks thumb up*. I would add that even if an old vestigial structure now has a purpose, it doesn't disagree with evolutionary theory at all. There's a specific word for structures that used to be vestigial and have since taken on new purpose due to change in environment. I can't remember it now. Anyway, I think you'll get a kick out of a video entitled "40 Kent Hovind Lies Part 1 - HD and new audio". Check it out. It made me laugh.
chuckinator0 1 year ago
hovind wins
djaffry 1 year ago
It seems as though "dr." hovind doesn't get the point of vistigial structures. They are structures that used to have a function, but became useless due to changing environments and ongoing evolution (whale ancestors used to need those hips, but now they don't). He says that they have muscles attached that are very important, and that he used to teach anatomy. I checked wikipedia, and he doesn't have any credentials to speak of. He is either ignorant, or just plain lying to you!
chuckinator0 1 year ago 2
@chuckinator0 Wikipedia was compiled by a bunch of rabid Atheists like yourself with a definate political bias. I wouldn't trust them any further than I could kick them.
RabidCretardz 11 months ago
@RabidCretardz I've never been described as "rabid" before. And actually, being someone who is proficient in Physics and Mathematics, I find most of Wikipedia's articles on these subjects to be rather spot on. Sometimes i disagree with some of the notation in the mathematics, and sometimes the definitions aren't very clearly stated, but overall Wikipedia is pretty good in these subjects. I have not read enough of the other subjects to give a fair criticism. Why bring up Wikipedia?
chuckinator0 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
That con artist Hovind should be in prison... oh, wait.
StaceyC123 1 year ago 26
@StaceyC123
Hovind isn't a "con artists," he's a scientist with a phd. How many phd's do you have? O wait....
TypicalRepublican 1 year ago
@TypicalRepublican
He most certainly IS a con artist, and he bought his fake "PhD" from a "university" that operates out of a mobile home. If you want a good chuckle, read his "doctoral dissertation" sometime, it reads like something out of a grade 8 special needs class.
StaceyC123 1 year ago
wtf? the last 10 seconds of this vid will make you a little dumber for having heard it.
qarohc 1 year ago
Curious: What is the purpose of toenails on humans? Or body hair (especially on women)? Are they simple vestigial parts?
Boognish64 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Common ancestors... rhymes with Common bullshit.
NvdWesthuizen 2 years ago
lie
qarohc 1 year ago
Hovind is the worst kind of scum. He is purposefully lying because I can't believe there is someone so stupid walking the earth.
ray38montreal 2 years ago
Hovind said over and over that either someone was being ignorant of their whale anatomy etc. OR they are lying. He didn't just say they are lying.
littlelamb711 2 years ago
why do creationists think everyone is lying to them? they all say that why the hell would people want to lie to them? when they say that its clearly just desperation....
ThePresident001 2 years ago
Moron, I can't believe it Kent Hovind Just flat out lied to those people, And also toKent Hovind water doesn't protect you from UV light. You can still get a sun burn while in the water.
slicingwater 2 years ago
Yes... but water DRASTICALLY increases the protection against UV.
Poor argument my friend, please think before you post, save us some time.
madmandrils05 2 years ago
What becuase its wet. Water is transparent, UV light has no trouble going through water.
slicingwater 2 years ago
What? Pure water has a refraction index of 1.33. Given deep enough water, very little UV rays will penetrate. The more minerals dissolved in water, the higher the refraction.
Please... research before you make these rediculous comments.
madmandrils05 2 years ago
They are laughing AT you Kent....not with you.
ThieleM 2 years ago
What outright lies from Kent Hovind!
They have found several skeletons of each of these animals.
FiverBeyond 2 years ago
if a human eye is a poor design, how come it did not evolved to a better one?
attypulpol 2 years ago
@attypulpol
Because evolution is always constantly happening. Nothing on earth is considered 'perfect', and everything has room for improvement. Evolution would never stop because it reached the 'perfect' finish.
FiverBeyond 2 years ago
@FiverBeyond - you didnt answer my question. if evolution is constantly happening, why didnt the human eye evolved to a better one? or are you saying that the eye of today is structurally and functionally better than the eye of yesterday... just a thought, im not a scientist by the way.
attypulpol 2 years ago
"if evolution is constantly happening, why didnt the human eye evolved to a better one?"
Like I said, this argument is just as dumb as saying, "if kids are growing, how come they're not bigger?"
Gilmaris 2 years ago
it still is, moron
mickeykozzi 2 years ago
what? i thought evolution is constantly happening?
attypulpol 2 years ago
@attypulpol Because it is not a hindrance to the reproductive or survival ability of the organism. As long as it works, natural selection won't mess with it. If, however, bad eye design had caused humans to die at the age of 10, then only individuals with mutated good eyes would survive, passing those genes.
But as imperfect as it is now, it works fine, so natural selection basically ignores it. Hope this was clear enough
danoso0931 2 years ago
@danoso0931 - you say that "as long as it works, natural selection won't mess with it". according to science books, all living things came from microorganisms. they are supposed to have more survival/reproductive ability than human beings and other mammals? how did simple celled organisms gazillion of years ago develop arms, forearms, and other human parts, when they adopt to environment and reproduced more easily than human beings/mammals?? weird science.
attypulpol 2 years ago
@attypulpol
That's like pointing at an 8 year old child, and saying, "if people grow to be 90 years old, how come this one is only 8 years old?"
Gilmaris 2 years ago
@ mickeykozzi, sorry that my questions sound "stupid" or "dumb" to you. as i said, im not a scientist. you will also sound dumb if you ask a question to an egoistic person who knows about the subject perfectly well.
@ to those who responded.. thanks for the insight.
attypulpol 2 years ago
Comment removed
attypulpol 2 years ago
Hovind is a moron, vestigial doesn't mean useless, it means repurposed. All of the examples of vestigial structures he mentioned have characteristics of other appendages that are unnecessary. Evolution isn't always gaining something, it's adaptation to an environment regardless of how much information is needed to form them. UV is one of the last wavelengths of light water stops, and only does at the point that most if not all other color is gone.
Phyerbyrd 2 years ago 2
@Phyerbyrd
Keep it short.......HOVIND IS A MORON !!
gregrutz 2 years ago
Hovind claims he accepts all science except evolution. But he rebutled many other science to prove that evolution is not fact. Other science he falsified, such as biology, paleontology, genetics, cosmology, chemistry and the dating techniques, which is very important in science.
So I guess the more science subjects he falsify to disprove evolution, the more evident that evolution supports science.
Which means that evolution is NOT RELIGION!!!!!!!!!!!!
boogoolicious 2 years ago
They are not legs dumb arse!, they are muscle anchorage points, you lot actually think they evolved from cows or vice versa??, wow!, so whos the delusional ones again?!, GET BACK IN YA HOLE!!!.
Aheadstix85 2 years ago
If they're not altered legs then why do whale fossils we've found have toes on the ends of those "anchor points"?
Phyerbyrd 2 years ago
@Aheadstix85 Actually, the truth is that they evolved from ungulates, which is a very broad group that also encompasses cows. But the closest relative to the whales is the hippo, which you will admit looks resembles the whale a little bit more. And it's also very clumsy on land but nimble in the water. Hovind's use of the word cow instead of ungulate is just an attempt to make it sound ridiculous
danoso0931 2 years ago
Shermer won by far.
Virgeo1228 2 years ago 8
@Virgeo1228 hah
RabidCretardz 11 months ago
Hovind accuses other of lying but I'm sure he knows that vestigial in biology means; Occurring or persisting as a rudimentary or degenerate structure. A structure in an organism that has lost all or most of its original function in the course of evolution.
foxlake02 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Excelent question Dr. Hovind, Dr. Shermer is not skeptic of a such ludicrous claim because he openly admited he is skeptic of everything else but not of his own advocacy to the scientific myth better known as the theory of evolution, where every single hallucination comes true, imagine sinonyx turning into whales, obviously giving enough time
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
Hovind has beaten like every single debate so far....
Demezoterra 2 years ago
@Demezoterra Bullshit!!.
Aheadstix85 2 years ago
If this was at UCI, I was there!
GPLeague 2 years ago
vestigial =/= none function
ajgrovery 2 years ago 3
Who honestly thinks pelvic whale bones are vestigial and serve absolutely no purpose??
jfly888 2 years ago
wut purpose do they serve?
Frizzail420 2 years ago
@jfly888 that isnt what it mean
I see a straw man
ajgrovery 2 years ago 2