He ignores facts really! Just admitt when you get owned by Kent Hovind its just that! you get owned! I'm not going to argue with unintellectual delusional bias disingenuous liars! So go ahead argue and lie all you want a-hole. I will only accept reality based thinkers not" I say this exists or doesnt exist cause I say so a-holes"! So go blow your hot air where there are zombies resonators like your self a-hole! A-HOLE!
In 1975 the UK switched the definition of 1 billion to fit with the U.S definition of 1 thousand million. Up until 1975, it was equivalent to million x million. Has scientific dating of time gone through a similar change??
As I see it their is and over reaction or zeolousness involved from the evolutionist side. How can evolution be proven if no one is thei,r both sides require faith but you see everyone calls Hovind crazy when their theory involves nothing making nothing.NOW THATS CRAZY!!!!!
@infonator1 Who was suggesting nothing making nothing? Hovind suggests that some deity conjured everything from nothing. Trying to find evidence for Hovind's hypotheses is like trying to find any relevant documentation to support his doctorate. Even the experiment he claims to have performed to prove his so called "Hovind Theory" regarding as supposed biblical flood disproved his loopy hypothesis!!
@CarajilloDulce exactly! you can't prove god made anything.... just as you can't prove much of what people call evolution be it the big bang or molecular evolution or whatever... its a belief. your welcome to not believe in it.
why cant the evolutionist let the creationist alone and live together? Its because there is an agenda to make their view prevalent and its the only side that is defended in colleges!
@infonator1 Because there are people lying about science. Kent Hovind lies. If he want to talk bible or religion that is fine. When he lies and tells people there was a global flood 4400 years ago or the universe is 6000 years old he needs to be corrected.
you havent heard his creationist videos ,where he comes up with fact after fact after fact ! I seriously dont listen to people who dont honestly listen to a persons facts like you! he has hours and hours of facts literally.If you could see the overall plan of removing the bible and instilling a godless world you'd see obvious tampering!
@infonator1 '' he comes up with fact after fact after fact !'' Kent Hovind ignores the facts. He ignors the fossil record "Fossils prove nothing'' He makes up stories to support his bible stories. A conopy of water is not a fact, it is something he made up because it fits the bible.
He thinks he can prove every scientist in the world wrong. LOL
Here I am in 2011, in a world where man can split the atom, watching a video over the internet on a computer and listening to two men arguing over this bullshit.Unbelievable.
My god that was painful to watch, i'm not sure which on is the bigger moron. Well Kent is, but Hugh is an idiot too. It amazes me the mental juggling people like him do to hold on to their silly beliefs.
It's good to have such decisions as this and it’s very interesting, but, the bottom line is we should be more concerned about the individuals Eternal Soul.
It's good to have such decisions as this and it’s very interesting but, the bottom line is we should be more concerned about the individuals Eternal Soul.
It's good to have such decisions as this and it’s very interesting but, the bottom line is we should be more concerned about the individuals Eternal Soul.
All this is nice and all, but evolution is wrong, hovind seems to come across as a KJV only Christian and is wrong and Ross is also wrong. They each have some things right, but wow. By the way, where is part 8 disc 2 of 2?
I say if god would have returned 1000 years ago science would not have mattered. What matter Is Gods word...Period.....Now with that said science has a place in the world for tech. and so on
Genesis 1 1In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth -- 2the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,
God layed 'The foundations of the Earth' before the creation
I cant help but wonder how many times Mr. Hovind says: I taught HS science for 15 YR. I'm not going back over it. I swear I know his resume better than who ever his new employer will. I agree the bible should be simple, but it isn't. That is a real problem. Not to mention all the other contradictions, and flawed logic. I say Hovind had his rear end handed to him. Mostly from his own mouth. I would have gone jihad on him.
@gregrutz I agree! BUT It is one thing to be proven wrong and quite another to loose a debate. In this case I think he is not only wrong, but also lost the debate.
@sillydillydokieo Unfortunately for you it will be God ridding the world of the wicked, unholy,blasphemers, non believers who spouted such abominations against their creator. Lets hope you see the truth one day
@sillydillydokieo When you writte ¨to rid¨ should we understand you mean to kill? . If your answer is YES, then you are no better than those ¨retards¨you mention, and evolution, if there is one, is no use .
I don't understand how ANYONE can prefer to believe a bronze and iron age book of myths over current scientific theory that not only explains the facts perfectly but makes accurate predictions that would put biblical prophecy to shame. It's idiotic beyond my comprehension.
Way to lose track of the Son of God gentlemen. Like Peter, James and John on the mountain with Jesus, Moses and Elijah. Sure these are of God, but they are not Jesus, His son. Do these men also need a cloud to cover them and the voice of God to tell them "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!"
Kent Hovins is absolutely right, it is establishing a cult. You must have a guru to change a certain text, just as the Pharisees did with the Written Torah, they created their own oral tradiotion and translation in or around 500 AD.
People really believe this crazy, incoherent crap in 2010?
Really?
I take solace in the fact that my children will have an evolutionary advantage over yours,(all of yours), because they will have a better understanding of the factual nature of the universe...
Your kids will be laughed at, just like those whom believe Elvis is alive today...
@badtrunk456 I don't necessarily agree with either of these people but I feel that it is a worth while debate(not sure if you have watched the previous 7 parts) but for a person to know that an argument is wrong they must be familiar with it. Your children will take solace in the fact that you took the time to research the bottom line instead of calling people "fucktards". That is what gives us the advantage
Hovind is obviously right, he doesn't try to twist God's word. If we stop thinking in evolutionary scheme, Bible will reveal pretty clear to us. We don't need evolution to understand the Bible. As Newton and Pasteur did not need it, we don't either. Bible makes sense only without evolution. Everyone, who studied the Bible responsibly, knows it.
@123Atheist oh, man this is nonsense, there is no evidence for evolution at all. I've been searching quite long time in this topic and I haven't seen yet any proof of evolution. I can say without shame that evolution has nothing common with science and it's stupid religious idea.
@Arainion lol No evidence for evolution? You are probably thinking about the strawman version of evolution that creationists make. The truth is that 99% of creationists i've seen don't understand evolution. 99.9% of earth and life scientists accept evolution as a fact. About 700, out of less than 500,000 scientists in america are creationists. Unless you want to claim it's a conspiracy. I'd be happy to provide evidence if you really want some.
@123Atheist Ok, give me some evidence. I talk with evolutionists almost every day and they are not able to give me any evidence. And they are really educated so they know what they talk about. But I can always disprove it.
@Arainion Like I said before, 99% of creationists I've seen don't fully understand evolution. So that may be the problem. So where shall i start? I think i'll start with how evolution is an observable, testable, and repeatable process. We've seen speciation happen, genes change, and sometimes new body parts appear. Clearly this means that species have the potential to change. Do you at least agree with that?
@123Atheist Ok, I agree that most of the species are able to change some way. But there are limits, thar have never been crossable. In fact, evolution has never been tested. I say, little changes happen, that's something called microevolution, it is proven process. But you never can see an origin of a new genes.I offer to you to discuss through E-mail. It'll be easier. Here is my adress. Davidprotest@yahoo.co.uk
"But there are limits, thar have never been crossable."
You acknowledge that species change over time. What boundaries, logical or biological, prevent small changes from accumulating over a long period of time?
@flylike1 It's just impossible. It can never happen. The genes are not able to generate any new information. All changes (mutation) are just loosing information, not gaining. There is nothing as a good mutation at all. Every genetisist knows it.
Stating something is "just impossible" isn't evidence. You have still yet to provide ANY logical or biological barriers that would prevent events like speciation, stop the effect of genetic drift, and so on.
"All changes (mutation) are just loosing information, not gaining."
This statement tells me two things. 1) You don't understand what evolution is. 2) You don't understand what a mutation is. Define for me "information" please.
"There is nothing as a good mutation at all. Every genetisist knows it."
You have no reference for this, not surprising, considering you're laughably wrong. Most mutations are neutral, many are negative, but some, albeit few, are positive. Mutations are random- when random mutations increase the FITNESS (likelihood of survival, has nothing to do with your "information) of an organism, and that beneficial mutation can be passed on to its offspring, it has evolved via mutation
The difference between a good mutation and a bad mutation can be as simple as the environmental conditions. In parts of Africa, a genetic mutation causes sickle cell disease, which is disadvantageous to say the least. However, that mutation also makes them immune to malaria, a very prevalent and deadly disease. This is only one example. The ability of humans to digest milk past infancy is a relatively new one. Milk (like Cow's milk), being nutritionally dense, is a valuable part of the diet.
@123Atheist If you want to give me any evidence, i'd be glad. I wonder, what you will give me. But you should know that most of the evidence that evolutionist have I've already seen.
@Arainion It's the same with me. I've been searching for evidence for creationism and God, bit i've found nothing either. Maybe one of us isn't searching hard enough.
At 5:30, Hovind nails the problem for Ross. Ross believes that the universe is "millions and billions" of years old, and then squeezes scripture to fit into that notion.
Looks like Hovind is debating 2 men with the same frame of mind. Hard to get a point across with 2 guys interupting. God did not intend for us to have a doctrine in astronomy or any other field to interpret his true words. Although I don't agree with all Hovind believes he does make arguments against the big bang THEORY.
In acts the eunuch clearly states how can I know what I read without someone to interpret it for me. And God did give that....Its the catholic church. You baptists are nuts.
I wish Ankerberg would just shut the fuck up for fucks sake. I can't stand watching many of these videos because he talks more on the show then his guests do. He also gives a ten minute recap everytime they come back from a bloody break. STFU already Ankerberg! Hetotally ruin these debates. He should let his guests speak and keep his opinions out of. On top of it, John is so odd looking, I'd like to walk up to him with a bat and smash his face in. He is the epitome of shitty hosts.
The point in which religion goes wrong is when it begins to assert empirical claims without any evidence living up to any empirical standard. What most religions will fall back upon in defense for their purposeful existence in this world are the "good" virtues and lessons they teach. These arguments are normative in nature and religious supporters have full right in making these normative claims. Therefore religion needs to leave empirical claims to science and logic.
Actually I think Kent Hovind is simply believing what the bible says and taking it at face value. You know, if you find yourself denying what the Word of God so clearly says in order to justify your opinion (or your sin) you are on a slippery slope.
I disagree. Hovind seems to be looking at the text through a particular lens and rejects to see it any other way. He even equates his interpretation as "what the Bible says" as if Ross doesn't believe what the Bible says. The fact is that Genesis was written around 1400 B.C. at a time when scientific knowledge was near nil. Therefore, the inspired creation account doesn't seek to tell us HOW God created, just the He did; or else we would expect see atoms mentioned in the text.
@GaryLyons Really? Which translation or revision of the Bible are you referring to? How clear is what god says if there are inconsistencies between the numerous translations. How do you feel about the interpretation agreed upon at Nicaea and the revisions in the KJV? Which Bible is inerrant? Surely the original BIble (the Hebrew/Aramaic one) should be. Kent argues the point from the KJV and conveniently ignores the inconsistencies between it and the originals. Slippery slope, indeed.
kENT HOVIND USES CIRCULAR REASONING PERIOD.hE SAYS HE ONLY HAS THE TRUTH OF THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE.HE'S ALSO JUDGING SALVATION OF HUGH NOT ON THE ACTIVE AND INACTIVE WORK OF CHRIST!!.BUT ON HIS INTERRPRETATION !.
@obdami i do have to disagree. it seems he had ross spinning in circles and caught him on the fact that when science changes how old the universe is that ross will look foolish. remember, this is in 2000, and ross said they definately have found the beginning of the universe thru astronomy. they just recently found another cluster of galaxies previously unseen. just another educated idiot ross is. is he a Christian????????? maybe
We have witnessed the visible edge of the universe with the image of cosmic background radiation. How long ago that happened is still not perfectly clear. There is a slight margin of error that will continue to be whittled away with technological advancements. The precision will continue to grow, and we will continue to be able to focus on new objects.
Ross is correct when he speaks of astronomy.
Just not nessecarily when he talks about anything else.
I think it's funny how the "neutral" moderator begins arguing with Hovind here! Clearly, his view is not a popular one. We need to let God's word interpret creation, and not the other way around. This doesn't stroke man's ego, but it's infallible.
@fretworx ROFL, that's PRECISELY what I was just about to state...Happens ALL THE TIME in these kinds of sensitive debates...The moderators are COMPULSED to jump in because of their convictions...
The reason why the host never elaborates on Hovind's educational credentials, is that unlike Ross, Hovind bought his degree from a mill called "Patriot Bible University", a completely unacreditted institution. His title of "Dr" from his PhD is completely undeserved and deceitful.
Kent Hovind is currently in jail for fraud and conspiracy. He has no credentials and should not be looked to as an authority. Hugh Ross at least has a legitimate degree and has published his work for peer review. If you read the bible in the original hebrew it very nicely fits the scientific evidence for an old earth.
but there you have the exact reason why Hovind takes that route. He is an intellectual lighweight. He would never have a voice, he would not be a part of the public discourse if he stayed within the realms of science. But as the skillful voice of ignorant, indoctrinated masses he can debate science illumenaries.
hoving was trying to paint his car......on the back of the can it said "shake vigoriously befor use**............ he decided the words ment exactly that so he put the can down and started jumping around shaking as hard as he could!
That's brilliant. I'm equally impressed with your spelling of Hovind, vigorously, before, and meant. Bravo. Score one for you. Public school educated, I'm guessing?
ya, you got me im a terrible speller, you are sooo much greater then i am,... your typing and grammar skills are soooo great, i bet you know exactly how your computer works too, if i ever need advice on how to play dungeons and dragons, or write an essay on the benefits of fiber you will be the first geek i ask..
You are taking how God created the earth way too seriously. It doesnt matter so much how God created the earth, but the important thing is that He did create the earth. Both Ken Hovind and Hugh Ross are solid Christians, and they both believe that God created the earth, and paid the price for our sins. Thats the important thing.
I think the only one who would be able to know how old the earth is, would be one who would have to be there before "The Beginning" itself came into existence. But that's just my take on it.
When Ross speaks of only getting hydrogen for thousands of years since Creation, he's forgetting God's word, when he speaks to it! Matter is linked to God in a very intimate way; it is an extension of Him.
The hydrogen may have been fused into the heavier elements simply by God saying, 'Let there be...'
The host of this debate is such a biased person.. He interrupts Hovind to often and sides with Ross. I wish the guy would just sit there and be quiet.. Let the guys debate..
This is my favorite Hovind quote: "I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught." It is from 'Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6' by Hovind.
HMMMMMMMMM, where does this leave Hovind if we use his own recommendations?
Thats not a contradiction. The truth is, that no matter what two people argue about whether or not creationism or Evolutionism is true, neither will be able to fully prove that Evolution is true.
Ken Hovind and Hugh Rosss jobs are not to prove Creationism, but to use science to prove that Creationism is a more solid theory than Evolutionism, and that New/Old Earth Creationism is more accurate biblically and scientifically solid than the other Creationism theory.
Heres a contradiction: Hugh Ross says that God had to have no interference on creations developement in order for evil to be defeated, yet he says that the fact that an actual explosion creating life is true because God interfered with the creation of man.
It is a contradiction. Do you not undertand Hovind's ideas? He believes that public schools should be done away with because of their teaching of evolution. He believes they should be replaced by schools teaching young earth creationism. He is proposing replacing the teaching of evolution (which he falsely labels a religion because it can't be proven) with creationism (which he also implies to be a religion because it cannot be proven). The man is exploiting religion to make a buck.
The fact is, that even though creationism cannot be proven, it is still true, because it is a more solid theory than evolution, and any other theory. Ken Hovind gives the statistics on the amount of murders, sexual sins, and laws broken that have happened ever since God's name was out of schools. He wants to lessen the violence and sexual immorality, and he wants for people to learn a stronger theory in schools. That is not trying to exploit religion to make a buck.
Incorrect. Creationism is not a scientific theory; it's not even a hypothesis. Appeals to the "supernatural" are unfalsifiable (automatically making it unscientific) and violate the underlying principle for all of modern science: methodological naturalism. Creationism is religion.
"Ken Hovind gives the statistics...that have happened ever since God's name was out of schools."
"Near-perfect correlations exist between the death rate in Hyderabad, India, from 1911 to 1919, and variations in the membership of the International Association of Machinists during the same period. Nobody seriously believes that there is anything more than a coincidence in that odd and insignificant fact."
You know, we may go on forever with this arguiment, but none of us will convince the other that one of our theories is correct.. I understand that you have strong theories against Ken Hovind, I see that you made a good argument against him. Since one of us will never convince the other, this argument is probably a waste of time.
i agree, he should be quiet for the sake of the debate. But then again, this debate isnt about who is smarter or a better debator, but what is the truth! If the announcer feels kent is wrong n wants his opinion to be heard he has every right.. although if i were him i would have at least let kent finish is statements rather than cut him off
Yeah, he wasn't really given a fair chance, but in all honesty, Hovind doesn't really deserve a debate. His arguments are simply illogical and irrational.
Correction to the last statement of my lower response to ausrusland: he responds with an off topic and usually offensive *portrayal* of their position.
He's limiting Hovind's opportunities of misrepresenting Ross (and all old earth creationists) position and from going off on wild tangents of utterly prejudiced judgments, something Hovind is famous for. Hovind quote mines more than any young earth creationist that I have encountered. He rarely allows the opposition an opportunity for a complete response and on the rare occasions when he does, he responds to that with an off topic and usually offensive defense of their position.
Dr. Ross said that theology is subject to human interpretation, however, the Bible itself teaches that the Holy Spirit who teaches the son of God. If one is not primarily a child of God can not interpret the Scriptures with the exception of the plan of salvation.
Sorry, but I don't believe that!! My problem is that too many people take the bible literally! There's CLEARLY many non-believers who can interpret the bible more accurately than many believers! There's only so many ways the scriptures can be interpreted!
Christianity- The belief that some cosmic Jewish Zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-women was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree. Makes perfect sense.
2) It doesn't happen today, but that doesn't prove it didn't happen in the past.
3)In the beginning there was nothing, and nothing happened to nothing, until nothing exploded, and created everything. Then, the nothing that became everything magically rearranged itself for no reason into self-replicating complex life forms, that became intelligent beings that believed in God.
1) Time isnt the only factor involved. Each of those factors are specified. Natural selection (a non-random process), genetic drift, etc.
2) evolution is change in allelic/genetic frequencies within a given population; it still occurs. just google "Observed Instances of Speciation."
3) nothing? strawman. the big-bang theory states that our universe (space-time) is the result of an expansion (not explosion) from a point of singularity (where energy/matter was already present) NOT 'nothing.'
cosmological physics is not biology. the big-bang theory is dealt with in the former only. evolution by natural selection is dealt with in biology. the two scientific theories are not the same.
your comment is God of the gaps argument ("we don't know how X came to be, so therefore God did it") & sets up a false dichotomy ("the answer must be God or "nothing"). both are logical fallacies. check this out:
"Re: Who created God?" by somecomputergeek (watch?v=n7Vt-TaTc5Y)
I don't believe I said anything about "God or nothing". However, the way i see it, "we can't actually see it so God did it" and "we can't actually see it so millions of years did it" are the same except for one thing. One of them judges you for the things you've done during your life and you are held responsible and the other bears no personal responsibilty.
incorrect. a means of determing the age of the universe exists (Lamda-CDM model), showing a development of the universe (from a point-of-singularity) over a span of about 13.73 billion years of cosmological time. This model is strongly supported by recent high-precision astronomical observations such as WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe).
"judges you"
non-sequitur. define "God" first...deistic or theistic? the latter demands WAY more evidence for its existence.
Theistic and we move away from the blanket of science and start recieving complaints from philosphers. There are provable laws of morality that have completely different characteristics to study than that of the scientific filed. interesting discussions though. Thanks
the argument from design (at best) can only argue for a deistic god. all your work is still WAY ahead of you to show that is personal (theistic).
the moral argument fails as well, since morality springs from human solidarity, for the benefit/survival of our species. there's nothing "supernatural" about it. in fact, theistic "objective morality" actually abolishes morality & destroys ethics, since deeds are only done in hopes of gaining a reward and/or out of fear of eternal punishment.
gmn545. intersting video. However, it is still like The Sims arguing there is no programmer. He is just simply outside of his creation. Makes sense to an atheist computer programmer but not an evolutionist. By the way, I love science. i just don't believe evolutionary theory about the origins of everything. I wasn't there when it was made/started and Neither were you. We can only believe what we think the evidence shows.
"it is still like The Sims arguing there is no programmer"
no its not. this variant of Paley's Watchmaker is a very poor argument. the argument from design is an inductive reasoning, based on human observation of other things/objects which we have observed being "designed." The same cannot be said of the universe, as matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed.
are you aware that not all 'evolutionists' are atheists? millions of theists (Reformed Jews, Catholics, etc) accept evolution.
If you can agree that it may be possible for dimensions and material to exist that we do not have the senses to interpret, then we can really only say "we have never seen matter/energy created or destroyed. Infrared existed before we had the technology to see it. Just because we couldn't observe it doesn't mean it didn't exist. Absolute truth is that we believe we will find at the true climax of wisdom. The end result.
i admit ignorance when it comes to the "beginning," since our observations don't include "creation" of matter/energy. in fact, i think agnosticism on this issue is the only honest position that person can hold. its when some posit an answer (ex: God did it), that the burden of proof lies on their shoulders. i can't "disprove" a theistic god, any more than i can "disprove" fairies. yet since i currently have no evidence, the honest and rational stance to take (imo) is agnosticism/atheism.
the thing i hear all the time is that evolutionists tell creationists: u r wrong! u confuse evolution with abiogenesis. true, because most evolutionists believe in the big bang theory and the theory of abiogenesis. very few evolutionists believe in creation. evolutionists also assume that all those that take up the ID theory are christians which is not true. they simply believe in a designer. whether he is the christian God or another God it's still an issue
There are so many things wrong with your comment it's difficult to know where to star, but here goes. First of all you confuse evolution with abiogenesis and the big bang theory, you didn't address evolution at all in your obnoxious raving. Secondly you misrepresented and oversimplified both theories. Thirdly That isn't blind faith because there are mountains of scientific evidence for evolution and the big bang theory.
You're talking out of your ass, Hovind is a fool with a child's understanding of science. He actually said that the theory of evolution says that man came from monkeys. He's a fool.
Hovind got his masters and PHD online! His dissertation is riddled with grammar and spelling errors not to mention incomplete sections of his paper! He would NEVER HAVE GOTTEN a masters not to mention a PHD in the real world-he would have been LAUGHED out of the community! The guy is in prison as we speak! Hovind is a lying FRAUD!
Go Kent! Whoo hoo!
weversa 3 weeks ago
He ignores facts really! Just admitt when you get owned by Kent Hovind its just that! you get owned! I'm not going to argue with unintellectual delusional bias disingenuous liars! So go ahead argue and lie all you want a-hole. I will only accept reality based thinkers not" I say this exists or doesnt exist cause I say so a-holes"! So go blow your hot air where there are zombies resonators like your self a-hole! A-HOLE!
infonator1 1 month ago
In 1975 the UK switched the definition of 1 billion to fit with the U.S definition of 1 thousand million. Up until 1975, it was equivalent to million x million. Has scientific dating of time gone through a similar change??
HumanSayNo 2 months ago
As I see it their is and over reaction or zeolousness involved from the evolutionist side. How can evolution be proven if no one is thei,r both sides require faith but you see everyone calls Hovind crazy when their theory involves nothing making nothing.NOW THATS CRAZY!!!!!
infonator1 3 months ago
@infonator1 Who was suggesting nothing making nothing? Hovind suggests that some deity conjured everything from nothing. Trying to find evidence for Hovind's hypotheses is like trying to find any relevant documentation to support his doctorate. Even the experiment he claims to have performed to prove his so called "Hovind Theory" regarding as supposed biblical flood disproved his loopy hypothesis!!
CarajilloDulce 3 months ago
@CarajilloDulce exactly! you can't prove god made anything.... just as you can't prove much of what people call evolution be it the big bang or molecular evolution or whatever... its a belief. your welcome to not believe in it.
markvijit 3 months ago in playlist Hugh Ross vs Kent Hovind (OEC vs YEC)
why cant the evolutionist let the creationist alone and live together? Its because there is an agenda to make their view prevalent and its the only side that is defended in colleges!
infonator1 3 months ago
@infonator1 Because there are people lying about science. Kent Hovind lies. If he want to talk bible or religion that is fine. When he lies and tells people there was a global flood 4400 years ago or the universe is 6000 years old he needs to be corrected.
gregrutz 1 month ago
you havent heard his creationist videos ,where he comes up with fact after fact after fact ! I seriously dont listen to people who dont honestly listen to a persons facts like you! he has hours and hours of facts literally.If you could see the overall plan of removing the bible and instilling a godless world you'd see obvious tampering!
infonator1 3 months ago
@infonator1 '' he comes up with fact after fact after fact !'' Kent Hovind ignores the facts. He ignors the fossil record "Fossils prove nothing'' He makes up stories to support his bible stories. A conopy of water is not a fact, it is something he made up because it fits the bible.
He thinks he can prove every scientist in the world wrong. LOL
gregrutz 1 month ago
Kent Hovind is an absolute moron!. ANYONE who thinks he is right about the age of the earth, is just as retarded!!!.
morrisondan 3 months ago
Here I am in 2011, in a world where man can split the atom, watching a video over the internet on a computer and listening to two men arguing over this bullshit.Unbelievable.
Q3ToPBuZz 3 months ago
where i part 8 disc 2 of 2
phoenixangel1120 9 months ago
Thanks for these uploads, but hey, I think you're missing part 8 disc 2 of 2
dessdinovakj 9 months ago
My god that was painful to watch, i'm not sure which on is the bigger moron. Well Kent is, but Hugh is an idiot too. It amazes me the mental juggling people like him do to hold on to their silly beliefs.
emelianenkoo 9 months ago in playlist BelieveGrace5 Creation v. Evolution
This has been flagged as spam show
It's good to have such decisions as this and it’s very interesting, but, the bottom line is we should be more concerned about the individuals Eternal Soul.
lonelyheartband 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's good to have such decisions as this and it’s very interesting but, the bottom line is we should be more concerned about the individuals Eternal Soul.
lonelyheartband 9 months ago
It's good to have such decisions as this and it’s very interesting but, the bottom line is we should be more concerned about the individuals Eternal Soul.
lonelyheartband 9 months ago
All this is nice and all, but evolution is wrong, hovind seems to come across as a KJV only Christian and is wrong and Ross is also wrong. They each have some things right, but wow. By the way, where is part 8 disc 2 of 2?
SteveeB41 10 months ago
Geology proves the earth is old.
Astronomy proves the universe is old.
Paleontology proves we evolved.
Geology proves there was never a global flood.
Why don't these people read a science book and get an education.
gregrutz 11 months ago
I say if god would have returned 1000 years ago science would not have mattered. What matter Is Gods word...Period.....Now with that said science has a place in the world for tech. and so on
parrishstuckey1 11 months ago
@parrishstuckey1 But science keeps proving the bible wrong.
gregrutz 11 months ago
Genesis 1 1In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth -- 2the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,
God layed 'The foundations of the Earth' before the creation
redcolt777 1 year ago
I cant help but wonder how many times Mr. Hovind says: I taught HS science for 15 YR. I'm not going back over it. I swear I know his resume better than who ever his new employer will. I agree the bible should be simple, but it isn't. That is a real problem. Not to mention all the other contradictions, and flawed logic. I say Hovind had his rear end handed to him. Mostly from his own mouth. I would have gone jihad on him.
Thanks for the series!
pumpstations 1 year ago
@pumpstations Any college science student can prove Kent wrong.
gregrutz 11 months ago
@gregrutz I agree! BUT It is one thing to be proven wrong and quite another to loose a debate. In this case I think he is not only wrong, but also lost the debate.
pumpstations 11 months ago
I wonder in how many day's will God RECREATE new heaven and new earth? Few days or hundreds millions of years?
jary1844 1 year ago
Haha! I like the Dino tie! Such a silly thing, but quite potent in the context of the interview.
BlckSbthMan 1 year ago
we need to rid the earth of every retard that believes in god
sillydillydokieo 1 year ago
@sillydillydokieo Unfortunately for you it will be God ridding the world of the wicked, unholy,blasphemers, non believers who spouted such abominations against their creator. Lets hope you see the truth one day
Markjbl32 1 year ago
@Markjbl32 keep telling yourself all that :)
sillydillydokieo 1 year ago
@sillydillydokieo When you writte ¨to rid¨ should we understand you mean to kill? . If your answer is YES, then you are no better than those ¨retards¨you mention, and evolution, if there is one, is no use .
Rigelcentauri58 1 year ago
Shit... I've stumbled across a debate between to complete retards... This is amazing that people hang from the words of morons.
Parabol0086 1 year ago
I'm just so happy that they both disagree with evolution...
zelda0521 1 year ago
5:33 "i think you've been crippled by your education"
I understand why kent hovind keeps himself ignorant now.
nohomo1234567890 1 year ago
I don't understand how ANYONE can prefer to believe a bronze and iron age book of myths over current scientific theory that not only explains the facts perfectly but makes accurate predictions that would put biblical prophecy to shame. It's idiotic beyond my comprehension.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
Way to lose track of the Son of God gentlemen. Like Peter, James and John on the mountain with Jesus, Moses and Elijah. Sure these are of God, but they are not Jesus, His son. Do these men also need a cloud to cover them and the voice of God to tell them "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!"
MyNamesToast 1 year ago
@MyNamesToast I would, why don't you?
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
The Devil is misguiding science, that he is residing in them radionuclides, and makes their clock of decay WRONG!
Ramen and HumdooleelooYeah!
Kind Hoofind was CREATED in 6 days, and he exactly speaks like that!
kleenex3000 1 year ago
Hovind*, sorry for the incorrect spelling.
BlitzAce322 1 year ago
Kent Hovins is absolutely right, it is establishing a cult. You must have a guru to change a certain text, just as the Pharisees did with the Written Torah, they created their own oral tradiotion and translation in or around 500 AD.
BlitzAce322 1 year ago
you can some up everything about what there arguing about with ross's statement at this point >> 4:34
echoniner111 1 year ago
People really believe this crazy, incoherent crap in 2010?
Really?
I take solace in the fact that my children will have an evolutionary advantage over yours,(all of yours), because they will have a better understanding of the factual nature of the universe...
Your kids will be laughed at, just like those whom believe Elvis is alive today...
Fucktards....
badtrunk456 1 year ago
@badtrunk456 I don't necessarily agree with either of these people but I feel that it is a worth while debate(not sure if you have watched the previous 7 parts) but for a person to know that an argument is wrong they must be familiar with it. Your children will take solace in the fact that you took the time to research the bottom line instead of calling people "fucktards". That is what gives us the advantage
ailm96094 1 year ago
I love how the goat takes notes as the intelligent man speaks. It's pointless, though, since it won't learn a thing.
Fetrovsky 1 year ago
Hovind is obviously right, he doesn't try to twist God's word. If we stop thinking in evolutionary scheme, Bible will reveal pretty clear to us. We don't need evolution to understand the Bible. As Newton and Pasteur did not need it, we don't either. Bible makes sense only without evolution. Everyone, who studied the Bible responsibly, knows it.
Arainion 1 year ago
@Arainion Of course Hovind doesn't twist "god's" word. He twists science instead.
123Atheist 1 year ago
@123Atheist oh, man this is nonsense, there is no evidence for evolution at all. I've been searching quite long time in this topic and I haven't seen yet any proof of evolution. I can say without shame that evolution has nothing common with science and it's stupid religious idea.
Arainion 1 year ago
@Arainion lol No evidence for evolution? You are probably thinking about the strawman version of evolution that creationists make. The truth is that 99% of creationists i've seen don't understand evolution. 99.9% of earth and life scientists accept evolution as a fact. About 700, out of less than 500,000 scientists in america are creationists. Unless you want to claim it's a conspiracy. I'd be happy to provide evidence if you really want some.
123Atheist 1 year ago
@123Atheist Ok, give me some evidence. I talk with evolutionists almost every day and they are not able to give me any evidence. And they are really educated so they know what they talk about. But I can always disprove it.
Arainion 1 year ago
@Arainion Like I said before, 99% of creationists I've seen don't fully understand evolution. So that may be the problem. So where shall i start? I think i'll start with how evolution is an observable, testable, and repeatable process. We've seen speciation happen, genes change, and sometimes new body parts appear. Clearly this means that species have the potential to change. Do you at least agree with that?
123Atheist 1 year ago
@123Atheist Ok, I agree that most of the species are able to change some way. But there are limits, thar have never been crossable. In fact, evolution has never been tested. I say, little changes happen, that's something called microevolution, it is proven process. But you never can see an origin of a new genes.I offer to you to discuss through E-mail. It'll be easier. Here is my adress. Davidprotest@yahoo.co.uk
Arainion 1 year ago
"But there are limits, thar have never been crossable."
You acknowledge that species change over time. What boundaries, logical or biological, prevent small changes from accumulating over a long period of time?
flylike1 1 year ago
@flylike1 It's just impossible. It can never happen. The genes are not able to generate any new information. All changes (mutation) are just loosing information, not gaining. There is nothing as a good mutation at all. Every genetisist knows it.
Arainion 1 year ago
"It's just impossible. It can never happen"
Stating something is "just impossible" isn't evidence. You have still yet to provide ANY logical or biological barriers that would prevent events like speciation, stop the effect of genetic drift, and so on.
flylike1 1 year ago
"All changes (mutation) are just loosing information, not gaining."
This statement tells me two things. 1) You don't understand what evolution is. 2) You don't understand what a mutation is. Define for me "information" please.
flylike1 1 year ago
"There is nothing as a good mutation at all. Every genetisist knows it."
You have no reference for this, not surprising, considering you're laughably wrong. Most mutations are neutral, many are negative, but some, albeit few, are positive. Mutations are random- when random mutations increase the FITNESS (likelihood of survival, has nothing to do with your "information) of an organism, and that beneficial mutation can be passed on to its offspring, it has evolved via mutation
flylike1 1 year ago
The difference between a good mutation and a bad mutation can be as simple as the environmental conditions. In parts of Africa, a genetic mutation causes sickle cell disease, which is disadvantageous to say the least. However, that mutation also makes them immune to malaria, a very prevalent and deadly disease. This is only one example. The ability of humans to digest milk past infancy is a relatively new one. Milk (like Cow's milk), being nutritionally dense, is a valuable part of the diet.
flylike1 11 months ago
@123Atheist If you want to give me any evidence, i'd be glad. I wonder, what you will give me. But you should know that most of the evidence that evolutionist have I've already seen.
Arainion 1 year ago
@Arainion It's the same with me. I've been searching for evidence for creationism and God, bit i've found nothing either. Maybe one of us isn't searching hard enough.
123Atheist 1 year ago
@123Atheist Yeah, maybe it's you.
Arainion 1 year ago
@Arainion hahaha! So is that a yes to my offer, or a no? If it's a no then don't bother replying.
123Atheist 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@123Atheist I am telling you, provide me some evidence, please.
Arainion 1 year ago
Hovind is under attack! That means he is right and the other guys know it! Ha ha!
ovidiutu 1 year ago
At 5:30, Hovind nails the problem for Ross. Ross believes that the universe is "millions and billions" of years old, and then squeezes scripture to fit into that notion.
KnowJesusKnowPeace 1 year ago
Looks like Hovind is debating 2 men with the same frame of mind. Hard to get a point across with 2 guys interupting. God did not intend for us to have a doctrine in astronomy or any other field to interpret his true words. Although I don't agree with all Hovind believes he does make arguments against the big bang THEORY.
armlucky13 1 year ago
@armlucky13 you do realise that the bible was made by like 100 roman priest selecting diffrent papers? while throwing out others.
quezcatol 1 year ago
In acts the eunuch clearly states how can I know what I read without someone to interpret it for me. And God did give that....Its the catholic church. You baptists are nuts.
Dreamsex101 1 year ago
I wish Ankerberg would just shut the fuck up for fucks sake. I can't stand watching many of these videos because he talks more on the show then his guests do. He also gives a ten minute recap everytime they come back from a bloody break. STFU already Ankerberg! Hetotally ruin these debates. He should let his guests speak and keep his opinions out of. On top of it, John is so odd looking, I'd like to walk up to him with a bat and smash his face in. He is the epitome of shitty hosts.
HaligonianType1 1 year ago
all the lexicons disagree w/ one another. beware of this hebrew/greek baloney
filoIII 1 year ago
The point in which religion goes wrong is when it begins to assert empirical claims without any evidence living up to any empirical standard. What most religions will fall back upon in defense for their purposeful existence in this world are the "good" virtues and lessons they teach. These arguments are normative in nature and religious supporters have full right in making these normative claims. Therefore religion needs to leave empirical claims to science and logic.
doseyt 1 year ago
ROSS MY BOY. YEAAAUHH BRAHH
TheDevilWearsPradaa 1 year ago
Hovind's understanding of science is laughable.
vozuluzov 1 year ago
Actually I think Kent Hovind is simply believing what the bible says and taking it at face value. You know, if you find yourself denying what the Word of God so clearly says in order to justify your opinion (or your sin) you are on a slippery slope.
GaryLyons 1 year ago 19
@GaryLyons Amen.
dogooda12 1 year ago
@GaryLyons
-
I disagree. Hovind seems to be looking at the text through a particular lens and rejects to see it any other way. He even equates his interpretation as "what the Bible says" as if Ross doesn't believe what the Bible says. The fact is that Genesis was written around 1400 B.C. at a time when scientific knowledge was near nil. Therefore, the inspired creation account doesn't seek to tell us HOW God created, just the He did; or else we would expect see atoms mentioned in the text.
AgApE010 1 year ago
@GaryLyons
argument from authority
TheLiberalSoup 10 months ago
@GaryLyons Really? Which translation or revision of the Bible are you referring to? How clear is what god says if there are inconsistencies between the numerous translations. How do you feel about the interpretation agreed upon at Nicaea and the revisions in the KJV? Which Bible is inerrant? Surely the original BIble (the Hebrew/Aramaic one) should be. Kent argues the point from the KJV and conveniently ignores the inconsistencies between it and the originals. Slippery slope, indeed.
COEXISTential 7 months ago
kENT HOVIND USES CIRCULAR REASONING PERIOD.hE SAYS HE ONLY HAS THE TRUTH OF THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE.HE'S ALSO JUDGING SALVATION OF HUGH NOT ON THE ACTIVE AND INACTIVE WORK OF CHRIST!!.BUT ON HIS INTERRPRETATION !.
777bal 2 years ago
It's hilarious how Hovind gets his ass kicked in this debate and is exposed for the ignorant redneck Babtist that he is.
obdami 2 years ago
@obdami i do have to disagree. it seems he had ross spinning in circles and caught him on the fact that when science changes how old the universe is that ross will look foolish. remember, this is in 2000, and ross said they definately have found the beginning of the universe thru astronomy. they just recently found another cluster of galaxies previously unseen. just another educated idiot ross is. is he a Christian????????? maybe
filoIII 1 year ago
@filoIII
We have witnessed the visible edge of the universe with the image of cosmic background radiation. How long ago that happened is still not perfectly clear. There is a slight margin of error that will continue to be whittled away with technological advancements. The precision will continue to grow, and we will continue to be able to focus on new objects.
Ross is correct when he speaks of astronomy.
Just not nessecarily when he talks about anything else.
L00NGB00W 1 year ago
I think it's funny how the "neutral" moderator begins arguing with Hovind here! Clearly, his view is not a popular one. We need to let God's word interpret creation, and not the other way around. This doesn't stroke man's ego, but it's infallible.
fretworx 2 years ago 6
@fretworx ankerberg is known to be half a heritick anyhow. see what using fake bibles like him and ross will do for you?
filoIII 1 year ago
@fretworx Perfectly said! Thanks for your thoughts. God Bless!
TheMethadoneParty 1 year ago
@fretworx ROFL, that's PRECISELY what I was just about to state...Happens ALL THE TIME in these kinds of sensitive debates...The moderators are COMPULSED to jump in because of their convictions...
thelamb777 1 year ago
The reason why the host never elaborates on Hovind's educational credentials, is that unlike Ross, Hovind bought his degree from a mill called "Patriot Bible University", a completely unacreditted institution. His title of "Dr" from his PhD is completely undeserved and deceitful.
jackface0410 2 years ago
I suggest people look up Hovinds dissertation online, as it was recently made widely available (unofficially). Awesome paper.
henwli 2 years ago 2
Kent Hovind is currently in jail for fraud and conspiracy. He has no credentials and should not be looked to as an authority. Hugh Ross at least has a legitimate degree and has published his work for peer review. If you read the bible in the original hebrew it very nicely fits the scientific evidence for an old earth.
TheLawDawg 2 years ago
but there you have the exact reason why Hovind takes that route. He is an intellectual lighweight. He would never have a voice, he would not be a part of the public discourse if he stayed within the realms of science. But as the skillful voice of ignorant, indoctrinated masses he can debate science illumenaries.
omnivorous65 2 years ago
why is part 8 2 of 2 missing?
TaNgLeD2121 2 years ago
hoving was trying to paint his car......on the back of the can it said "shake vigoriously befor use**............ he decided the words ment exactly that so he put the can down and started jumping around shaking as hard as he could!
TaNgLeD2121 2 years ago
That's brilliant. I'm equally impressed with your spelling of Hovind, vigorously, before, and meant. Bravo. Score one for you. Public school educated, I'm guessing?
fretworx 2 years ago
ya, you got me im a terrible speller, you are sooo much greater then i am,... your typing and grammar skills are soooo great, i bet you know exactly how your computer works too, if i ever need advice on how to play dungeons and dragons, or write an essay on the benefits of fiber you will be the first geek i ask..
TaNgLeD2121 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I don't know who either of theses people are .
so from that perspective I see two people trying to figure out how best to shove a square peg in a round hole.
creationism is a clearly a square peg and science is clearly a round hole.
in order for creationism to continue to exist in the face of accumulated knowledge it must integrate with science somehow.
so basically it seems like they're just trying to figure out just how to go about doing that.
5thhorsman 2 years ago
Comment removed
5thhorsman 2 years ago
That is because Ross has legitimate credentials. Have you see the school where Hovind got his "Doctorate"? And look up his "Dissertation"?
Stitchman3875 2 years ago
what year is this from
swecalf 2 years ago
You are taking how God created the earth way too seriously. It doesnt matter so much how God created the earth, but the important thing is that He did create the earth. Both Ken Hovind and Hugh Ross are solid Christians, and they both believe that God created the earth, and paid the price for our sins. Thats the important thing.
MayAdonaibewithyou37 2 years ago
I think the only one who would be able to know how old the earth is, would be one who would have to be there before "The Beginning" itself came into existence. But that's just my take on it.
demondagger19 2 years ago
"I think you've been crippled by your education" Kent is really reaching for it isn't he?
Stitchman3875 2 years ago
When Ross speaks of only getting hydrogen for thousands of years since Creation, he's forgetting God's word, when he speaks to it! Matter is linked to God in a very intimate way; it is an extension of Him.
The hydrogen may have been fused into the heavier elements simply by God saying, 'Let there be...'
Pulsar205 2 years ago
Furthermore, Kent may be right about a meteor hitting the Earth and causing the Flood. Strong evidence suggests this.
But God could have just said 'Earth-split!' and it would have obeyed immediately :)
Pulsar205 2 years ago
The host of this debate is such a biased person.. He interrupts Hovind to often and sides with Ross. I wish the guy would just sit there and be quiet.. Let the guys debate..
jeonnie33 2 years ago
he does talk to much
jcpeterman 2 years ago
Yeah, he is biased. But Hovind blabbers on about nonsense and frequently contradicts himself
willoughbyorama 2 years ago
Hugh Ross contradicts himself, But I have not heard Ken Hovind contradict himself.
MayAdonaibewithyou37 2 years ago
Open your ears? Have you even tried listening?
This is my favorite Hovind quote: "I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught." It is from 'Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6' by Hovind.
HMMMMMMMMM, where does this leave Hovind if we use his own recommendations?
willoughbyorama 2 years ago
Thats not a contradiction. The truth is, that no matter what two people argue about whether or not creationism or Evolutionism is true, neither will be able to fully prove that Evolution is true.
MayAdonaibewithyou37 2 years ago
The only way to prove that a faith is true, is to go back in time, and watch Creation.
MayAdonaibewithyou37 2 years ago
Ken Hovind and Hugh Rosss jobs are not to prove Creationism, but to use science to prove that Creationism is a more solid theory than Evolutionism, and that New/Old Earth Creationism is more accurate biblically and scientifically solid than the other Creationism theory.
MayAdonaibewithyou37 2 years ago
Heres a contradiction: Hugh Ross says that God had to have no interference on creations developement in order for evil to be defeated, yet he says that the fact that an actual explosion creating life is true because God interfered with the creation of man.
MayAdonaibewithyou37 2 years ago
It is a contradiction. Do you not undertand Hovind's ideas? He believes that public schools should be done away with because of their teaching of evolution. He believes they should be replaced by schools teaching young earth creationism. He is proposing replacing the teaching of evolution (which he falsely labels a religion because it can't be proven) with creationism (which he also implies to be a religion because it cannot be proven). The man is exploiting religion to make a buck.
willoughbyorama 2 years ago
Comment removed
MayAdonaibewithyou37 2 years ago
Comment removed
MayAdonaibewithyou37 2 years ago
The fact is, that even though creationism cannot be proven, it is still true, because it is a more solid theory than evolution, and any other theory. Ken Hovind gives the statistics on the amount of murders, sexual sins, and laws broken that have happened ever since God's name was out of schools. He wants to lessen the violence and sexual immorality, and he wants for people to learn a stronger theory in schools. That is not trying to exploit religion to make a buck.
MayAdonaibewithyou37 2 years ago
@MayAdonaibewithyou37
"It is a more solid theory than evolution"
Incorrect. Creationism is not a scientific theory; it's not even a hypothesis. Appeals to the "supernatural" are unfalsifiable (automatically making it unscientific) and violate the underlying principle for all of modern science: methodological naturalism. Creationism is religion.
"Ken Hovind gives the statistics...that have happened ever since God's name was out of schools."
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
gmn545 2 years ago 2
"creationism cannot be proven, it is still true, because it is a more solid theory than evolution"
Yes, and your evidence is "the Bible tells me so." Yeah, that's real solid. What a joke.
obdami 2 years ago
@MayAdonaibewithyou37
"Near-perfect correlations exist between the death rate in Hyderabad, India, from 1911 to 1919, and variations in the membership of the International Association of Machinists during the same period. Nobody seriously believes that there is anything more than a coincidence in that odd and insignificant fact."
David Hackett Fischer
MyOverflow 1 year ago
You know, we may go on forever with this arguiment, but none of us will convince the other that one of our theories is correct.. I understand that you have strong theories against Ken Hovind, I see that you made a good argument against him. Since one of us will never convince the other, this argument is probably a waste of time.
MayAdonaibewithyou37 2 years ago
wow. when did he EVER say he wanted public schools replaced with schools that teach young earth creation. you are 100 percent making that up.
chrisctlr 2 years ago
i agree, he should be quiet for the sake of the debate. But then again, this debate isnt about who is smarter or a better debator, but what is the truth! If the announcer feels kent is wrong n wants his opinion to be heard he has every right.. although if i were him i would have at least let kent finish is statements rather than cut him off
henbenhena 2 years ago
Yeah, he wasn't really given a fair chance, but in all honesty, Hovind doesn't really deserve a debate. His arguments are simply illogical and irrational.
willoughbyorama 2 years ago
Wow, Too bad kent got into trouble - He clearly has true faith. Ross is on the road to apostacy.
lexscripta1 2 years ago
Correction to the last statement of my lower response to ausrusland: he responds with an off topic and usually offensive *portrayal* of their position.
Youlube32 2 years ago
that blonde guy just keeps on interupting Kent Hovind.
ausrusland 2 years ago
He's limiting Hovind's opportunities of misrepresenting Ross (and all old earth creationists) position and from going off on wild tangents of utterly prejudiced judgments, something Hovind is famous for. Hovind quote mines more than any young earth creationist that I have encountered. He rarely allows the opposition an opportunity for a complete response and on the rare occasions when he does, he responds to that with an off topic and usually offensive defense of their position.
Youlube32 2 years ago
Dr. Ross said that theology is subject to human interpretation, however, the Bible itself teaches that the Holy Spirit who teaches the son of God. If one is not primarily a child of God can not interpret the Scriptures with the exception of the plan of salvation.
llnegRitall 2 years ago
Sorry, but I don't believe that!! My problem is that too many people take the bible literally! There's CLEARLY many non-believers who can interpret the bible more accurately than many believers! There's only so many ways the scriptures can be interpreted!
99minerkc 2 years ago
Great info but alot to absorb. Science can never explain the mind of God no more than a monkey could explain Einsteins theories.
jeffpolara 2 years ago
Christianity- The belief that some cosmic Jewish Zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-women was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree. Makes perfect sense.
jpayne68177 2 years ago
This is how an atheist's mind works:
1) If you give it enough time, anything is
possible.
2) It doesn't happen today, but that doesn't prove it didn't happen in the past.
3)In the beginning there was nothing, and nothing happened to nothing, until nothing exploded, and created everything. Then, the nothing that became everything magically rearranged itself for no reason into self-replicating complex life forms, that became intelligent beings that believed in God.
MAKES PERFECT SENSE!!
EbonVoicez 2 years ago
That is not even close to how the atheist mind works. But it does show how ignorant you are to the atheist position.
jpayne68177 2 years ago
1) Time isnt the only factor involved. Each of those factors are specified. Natural selection (a non-random process), genetic drift, etc.
2) evolution is change in allelic/genetic frequencies within a given population; it still occurs. just google "Observed Instances of Speciation."
3) nothing? strawman. the big-bang theory states that our universe (space-time) is the result of an expansion (not explosion) from a point of singularity (where energy/matter was already present) NOT 'nothing.'
gmn545 2 years ago
gmn545. The "nothing" comes out of the evolution theory when one somply asks "where did the energy and matter come from"?
2Boanerges 2 years ago
2Boanerges,
cosmological physics is not biology. the big-bang theory is dealt with in the former only. evolution by natural selection is dealt with in biology. the two scientific theories are not the same.
your comment is God of the gaps argument ("we don't know how X came to be, so therefore God did it") & sets up a false dichotomy ("the answer must be God or "nothing"). both are logical fallacies. check this out:
"Re: Who created God?" by somecomputergeek (watch?v=n7Vt-TaTc5Y)
gmn545 2 years ago
I don't believe I said anything about "God or nothing". However, the way i see it, "we can't actually see it so God did it" and "we can't actually see it so millions of years did it" are the same except for one thing. One of them judges you for the things you've done during your life and you are held responsible and the other bears no personal responsibilty.
2Boanerges 2 years ago
"are the same"
incorrect. a means of determing the age of the universe exists (Lamda-CDM model), showing a development of the universe (from a point-of-singularity) over a span of about 13.73 billion years of cosmological time. This model is strongly supported by recent high-precision astronomical observations such as WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe).
"judges you"
non-sequitur. define "God" first...deistic or theistic? the latter demands WAY more evidence for its existence.
gmn545 2 years ago
gmn454 "judges you".
Theistic and we move away from the blanket of science and start recieving complaints from philosphers. There are provable laws of morality that have completely different characteristics to study than that of the scientific filed. interesting discussions though. Thanks
2Boanerges 2 years ago
the argument from design (at best) can only argue for a deistic god. all your work is still WAY ahead of you to show that is personal (theistic).
the moral argument fails as well, since morality springs from human solidarity, for the benefit/survival of our species. there's nothing "supernatural" about it. in fact, theistic "objective morality" actually abolishes morality & destroys ethics, since deeds are only done in hopes of gaining a reward and/or out of fear of eternal punishment.
gmn545 2 years ago
gmn545. intersting video. However, it is still like The Sims arguing there is no programmer. He is just simply outside of his creation. Makes sense to an atheist computer programmer but not an evolutionist. By the way, I love science. i just don't believe evolutionary theory about the origins of everything. I wasn't there when it was made/started and Neither were you. We can only believe what we think the evidence shows.
2Boanerges 2 years ago
"it is still like The Sims arguing there is no programmer"
no its not. this variant of Paley's Watchmaker is a very poor argument. the argument from design is an inductive reasoning, based on human observation of other things/objects which we have observed being "designed." The same cannot be said of the universe, as matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed.
are you aware that not all 'evolutionists' are atheists? millions of theists (Reformed Jews, Catholics, etc) accept evolution.
gmn545 2 years ago
If you can agree that it may be possible for dimensions and material to exist that we do not have the senses to interpret, then we can really only say "we have never seen matter/energy created or destroyed. Infrared existed before we had the technology to see it. Just because we couldn't observe it doesn't mean it didn't exist. Absolute truth is that we believe we will find at the true climax of wisdom. The end result.
2Boanerges 2 years ago
i admit ignorance when it comes to the "beginning," since our observations don't include "creation" of matter/energy. in fact, i think agnosticism on this issue is the only honest position that person can hold. its when some posit an answer (ex: God did it), that the burden of proof lies on their shoulders. i can't "disprove" a theistic god, any more than i can "disprove" fairies. yet since i currently have no evidence, the honest and rational stance to take (imo) is agnosticism/atheism.
gmn545 2 years ago
You better give Credit to Shawn (VenomFang X) for those 3 statements.
stephanwolf 2 years ago
All three are true so I posted them here.
EbonVoicez 2 years ago
You should look up the definition of the logical fallacy of an "appeal to ridicule".
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
the thing i hear all the time is that evolutionists tell creationists: u r wrong! u confuse evolution with abiogenesis. true, because most evolutionists believe in the big bang theory and the theory of abiogenesis. very few evolutionists believe in creation. evolutionists also assume that all those that take up the ID theory are christians which is not true. they simply believe in a designer. whether he is the christian God or another God it's still an issue
livisda 2 years ago
Kent Hovind, while his intentions are geuine, comes off as an arroagant, mean spirited idiot.
cujo7573 2 years ago
Comment removed
Zelbro 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I bet that's what everyone was telling themselves about Christ right before they hung Him on a cross.
Zelbro 2 years ago
Dumb and dumber!
DEZZIELIGHTBULB007 2 years ago 2
Hovind is a great teacher and a blessing to me. His lectures has taught me so much.
I am thankful for his miniistry and how he throw stumbling blocks in the way of the evolution religion
jimthebaptist67 2 years ago
Hm, Hovind or someone who believes him, I can't tell who's the greater fool.
MrSalamander7 2 years ago
Psalms 14:1
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God"
jimthebaptist67 2 years ago 6
Hmm, so people who base their beliefs on logic and evidence are fools and people who base it on blind faith aren't? That is insane.
MrSalamander7 2 years ago
Blind Faith?
Evolution says we come from a rock and the rock came from an explosion that came from a micro spinning object that just appeared....
Hmmm...Need I say more about blind faith
jimthebaptist67 2 years ago 2
There are so many things wrong with your comment it's difficult to know where to star, but here goes. First of all you confuse evolution with abiogenesis and the big bang theory, you didn't address evolution at all in your obnoxious raving. Secondly you misrepresented and oversimplified both theories. Thirdly That isn't blind faith because there are mountains of scientific evidence for evolution and the big bang theory.
MrSalamander7 2 years ago
Did you even watch this video because Dr Hovind shows there how wrong you are
jimthebaptist67 2 years ago
You're talking out of your ass, Hovind is a fool with a child's understanding of science. He actually said that the theory of evolution says that man came from monkeys. He's a fool.
MrSalamander7 2 years ago
He attacked your religion and that makes you angry. You go on as much faith as I do but at least I own up to it.
jimthebaptist67 2 years ago
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and you're an insult to the human frontal lobe. This conversation is over.
MrSalamander7 2 years ago
typical atheist. Throw out an insult. brag how smart they are and claim a victory.
jimthebaptist67 2 years ago
he has a Phd and tuaght science he knows more then you idiot plus evolution does say we evolved from monkies
ShootAAppleOffMyHead 2 years ago
Yeah he got his "PhD" at Midwestern Baptist College, dumb-ass. And no, evolution does not say that you fucking wanker.
MrSalamander7 2 years ago
ShootAAppleOffMyHead.... evolution doesn't say we evolved from monkies. Open a book and stop making an dumb fukwit outta yourself.
zaking 2 years ago
Hovind got his masters and PHD online! His dissertation is riddled with grammar and spelling errors not to mention incomplete sections of his paper! He would NEVER HAVE GOTTEN a masters not to mention a PHD in the real world-he would have been LAUGHED out of the community! The guy is in prison as we speak! Hovind is a lying FRAUD!
99minerkc 2 years ago