I don't like how Ross interprets most of scripture litereally to an extreme, accept when it comes to the 6 days. His interpretation of the 6 days is an exegetical nightmare. Can you imagine Moses writing those verses and actually really meaning some long period of time, like millions and millions. teaching their Jewish kids "now remember, when I say day, I mean millions of years. don't forget that now..." Much respect to him, but I believe that many of his interpretations are very bias.
Hugh Ross is not a a evolutionist but uses some teaching of it which means that he believes in it but wont admit that he is a evolutionist. He also teaches f thermodynamics diffrent than 99.9 percent of professor with a Dr degree in it.
Man.. Kent, you are soooo arrogant! Ignorance is bliss huh? Dr. Ross, you are so patient and such a gentleman! You are so educated brother and God has blessed you with wisdom and courtesy to compliment it. I hope God's Holy Spirit speaks to Kent in that small, still voice and shows himself how he looks to the world. What an embarrassment he is, not only to himself, but to the whole faith. fruitlessness at it's finest and complete lack of humility.
Let me guess, it's a wall, with a staircase going up to a door. Nice job Dr. Truman. Thanks.. and in case I don't see ya, good afternoon, good evening and good night!
The genesis account is very straightforward and clear that those were literal days, and to believe otherwise is to compromise the word of God with man made theories, you must either believe the theories, or the Bible, they are both beliefs. Hovind stood his ground well.
all these cultures didnt start with a 7 day week. but over time people realized its the best way to represent time and the seasons. and its not perfect from god, thats why we have to have a leap year every4!
Okay, this is the first time I've actually seen Kent Hovind in action, and already I've lost all respect for him. Never mind whether or not his arguments hold water (and they're shaky at best, even if you give him EVERY benefit of the doubt); he's an arrogant jerk. Dr. Ross has much, much more patience than I'd've had; I would have told Hovind to knock the personal attacks off after number three or four. What a fraud.
When God created The Universe he layed the 'Foundations of The Earth', this preceded and was a separate event to the six day creation. When He created the Earth the Spirit hovered above the waters, The Earth was already there but was void and without form, a blank page.
Ross shows his inept education of evolutionary theory here, he's just wrong about what has evolved and the evidence for it. We know for a fact everything alive today has evolved from previous ancestors, we know for a fact that everything living today wasn't alive in the same state as, say, the cretacious period, jurassic period, etc. Ross is just wrong, Hovind is just an idiot.
stacierussom "it doesn't take millions of years". The same can be said of "it doesn't take one 24-hour day". He could have created in not just a fraction of a second, but because He exists outside of space time, He could have created in "no" time at all.
The main problem with Ross's whole concept is that he is putting restrictions on God. Who the hell does he think he is claiming that God is too inefficient to create everything FULLY DEVELOPED. Why must everything require "millions of years" to develope. I'm pretty sure almighty turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt, which defies ALL aspects of physics. So stop trying to use physics to prove that God can't create a universe without billions of years. It's insulting and disrespectful.
@kfcguy1999 i totally agree. If God said let there be... then there is...it doesnt take millions or thousands of years. when he says he wants something, he makes it happen. if its ur turn to die and he is ready for u, it doesnt take millions of years for it to happen.
This is where Dr Ross shines. He proves here beyond a shadow of a doubt that God's word (the bible) and modern science make a great marriage, and are inseparable.
@Mr308winmag Anything dalerob66 "made" would be an explosion. The Big Bang was an expansion of space-time from a point of singularity. And don't fear the theory, as it was a Christian (Georges Lemaitre) who came up with it.
@gmn545 I do fear a theory that contradicts the Word of God. If Georges Lemaitre were a true Christian than he would know that the "big bang" is not the teaching of the Bible. Because the Bible is the absolute authority of the believer.
@Mr308winmag How does it contradict? As Ross notes, it speaks of the universe's expansion ("continually stretched out") and that it marked the beginning of the universe as we know it. Prior to this theory, Steady-State (a static, eternal universe) was espoused by even Einstein. And the Bible (Gen. 1:1) definitely states there was a "beginning". Your statement on Lemaitre is merely a No True Scotsman fallacy, and the claim that the Bible is the absolute authority is solely a Protestant concept.
@gmn545 The BIble say's God spoke the world into existence. God said "let there be light and there was light" no where does it say that a "big bang" followed. If you choose to believe that then go ahead. As far as the Bible being the absolute authority in a christians life it was is and will be. I guess only because it's "God's Word"!! I dont know seems like something we'd want to pay attention to. Just sayin.
@Mr308winmag That isn't a contradiction. Once again, the Big Bang merely states that space-time (i.e. universe, light's included) is the result of an initial expansion and that the universe is "continually being stretched out", as Ross said. There's clearly room for a transcendant being "speaking it into existence." And again, your claim regarding the Bible is solely a Protestant concept...unless you're claiming Orthodox and Catholics aren't "true Christians" (No True Scotsman fallacy).
@gmn545 Why do you continually defend the idea of a big bang? Can't you just accept what the Bible say's? Why do people alway's have to say it should've said this or it could've said that? God say's what He means, and means what He say's. Everything else is simple theory and there is no evidence for it. I believe that God's Word is that powerful! I'm sure He has a loud voice so there's your "big bang" if you just gotta have one. I stick to my claim. Take it however you will.
@Mr308winmag Because all the evidence points toward the Big Bang. Hubble's Law; the blackbody spectrum of cosmic microwave background radiation; the ratio of the lighter elements (e.g. deuterium, lithium, helium) that exist; general relativity, etc. And again, it in no way contradicts the Bible. And the word "theory" in science means explanation for a set of empirical observations; it's not just mere conjecture. Your can stick to your claim, but it doesn't haven't provided any basis for it.
@gmn545 There is no evidence as you say it's all based on theory and there is still conjecture and you can't get around that because that is "fact". The definition for theory doesn't change just because you use it in science. It's still a guess! You put your faith in a "big bang" I'll put mine in God's Word it's pretty simple. We both have to excercise faith in doing so.
@Mr308winmag How is there no evidence when I just cited the evidence? Closing your eyes to it won't make it go away. And the definition of 'theory' DOES change within the context of science. A scientific theory - designed analytically to explain a set of empirical observations (i.e. FACTS) - and the colloquial "theory" are NOT the same thing. I don't have to put "faith" in a big bang when the evidence points towards it (Hubble's Law, CMB radiation, general relativity). Please educate yourself.
@gmn545 Heres my facts. Psalm 33:6-10 "By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.: vs 9 "For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast." Hebrews 11:3 "Through faith we (believers) understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." But many are willingly ignorant of this fact according to 2 Peter 3:5. Please educate yourself. Or not whatever.
@Mr308winmag You claimed "there is no evidence"; I presented it and instead of acknowledging or attempting to refute it, you quote scripture? The only one being willingly ignorant here is you. Quoting a book filled with allegory, metaphor, poetry (you quoted Psalms lol) and using that to argue against verified scientific facts is both silly and disingenuous to the text. Eccl. 1:5 says "The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises"; that doesn't validate geocentrism lol
@gmn545 You presented no evidence only theory. You've let arrogance blind you from the truth. You have laughed at the Word's of God!!" Be not deceived God is not mocked whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap." If you were so wise you would know that it took scientists centuries to catch up with the "silliness" of the Bible. You seem to be an educated moron. You know a few scientific terms and that somehow gives you more credibility than God's Word? You don't get it because you can't.
@Mr308winmag I can tell I'm talking to someone who is both staggeringly ignorant of science and personally incredulous to facts. I don't laugh at the "Word of God"; I laugh at you for misrepresenting it to support your weak stance. You say "no evidence only theory" when Hubble's LAW and CMB radiation are established FACTS that point directly toward the big-bang expansion. You don't attempt to refute the evidence I present because you don't know what ANY of them are - it's quite obvious. lol
@gmn545 Using your own words "Hubble's law and cmb point directly towards" a big bang. They DON'T PROVE ANYTHING!!! They simply point towards it. Many scientists say the evidence "Points toward intelligent design". I put my faith in the biblical version of creation and you put your faith in a "big bang" that the bible never even hinted towards. A big bang that no matter how you try to spin it still means a great expansion or "EXPLOSION"!!!! Explosion's don't bring order! Creation does. I'm done.
@Mr308winmag By your standard of "proof", no criminal court case could ever have a valid verdict. Again you demonstrate your staggering ignorance of the scientific method. The "scientists" that back ID were utterly refuted during the Dover Trial. "ID isn't science" was the verdict of Judge Jones III - a devout Lutheran - who, unlike you, is objective. Ross already pointed out scripture's mention of "the heavens being continually stretched out" (Hubble's Law). Again it's NOT an explosioin. lol
@Mr308winmag Go to google and put in the words "big bang not explosion" and educate yourself via the sites that pop up. It was Fred Hoyle who gave it the name "Big Bang", misrepresenting it because he favored the (now disproven) Steady-State Theory that the universe is static and eternal. It was the findings of a Christian - Lemaitre - and further findings of Hubble & Einstein that proved Hoyle wrong. You really ought to educate yourself about this, instead of settling for personal incredulity.
This show reminds me of a hundreds of pages long thread on the workings of the warp drive in Star Trek that I once saw on a forum. It's just as pointlessly lost in details and fundamentally not based in reality. There are two big differences: The trekkies were much, much smarter than (at least) Kent Hovind. And they were at least vaguely aware that what they were discussing was based in fiction.
Kent Hovind asked Hugh Ross in minute 02.24: You are telling me that Scientist had observed the furtherst start that there is(the furthest of the universe)?and Ross answered "Yes". Hugh Ross is a shameless man, how easy is to catch a lie of false people, Thanks God.
@sillydillydokieo Shut up SATAN!!! If people are killed, it is because there are creatures like you, hating without any reason. turn back to God if you can.
@Kage717 dang man, clever. You watching this video is like having a student teach the teacher; You're in the wrong place and you're making a fool of yourself
@joshuaspolar ... not so sure about the fool making part... and wrong place? what? am i not welcome to share my opinion on youtube? i'm guessing i offended you... sorry buddy!
@Kage717 yes actually, you were pretty offensive. You called two human beings you have never met "dogs." maybe I was raised different but that doesn't sound right
on top of that you're inadvertently stating you don't believe either of them. Well, Hugh Ross has got more knowledge than i'll ever have. What he researches seems to back up very well what he says and believes. You say he's way off? the only thing he doesn't "agree" with is complex evolution. who's to say he's wrong?
And here's some information they have yet to discover. 1) the Spirit of God hovering over the face of the waters indicates a judgment preceded. And there is a FLOOD in Genesis 1. God wiped SOMETHING or SOMEONE out. 2) The sun and moon were MADE not created, and they were done of day 4. 3) Light has no beginning or creation because "GOD IS LIGHT." 4)
Hovind is WRONG on "created" and "made" being used interchangably. There are websites where you can easily see the difference in the Hebrew lexicon. And this is where he missed the Gap "theory." The Gap "theory" is in fact TRUE. There are A LOT of gaps in Genesis. Example: In Job we learn the the angels shouted and sang when the earth was created. So that's clearly a gap in the first verse of Genesis alone.
The young earth and old earth both came from Catholic. Augustine believes it's billions the other bishop was actually the author of 6,0000 years old earth base on it's precision in 10,000 different books in his library of history and generation of men. I'm just astounded that There are actually many more yec in protestants and the Pontifical Academy accepts billions which is ridiculous.
Now the key is that the host is protestant and he seemed biased on billiond=s
Hovind thinks Ross' position means that we can only understand Genesis because of modern cosmology. Does this dumbnut not realize that Ross has been referring to the original Hebrew the entire time? Surely Genesis would have been better understood by people who actually use words like "Yom" rather than 21st century english people who assume the translated word means "day" as we take it to mean! Hovind's a piece of slime, I hope he rots in jail and spends plenty of time "on his knees"!
@Birdieupon: no need to call him slime. Dr. Hovind has helped the Kingdom of God in a lot of ways. But he holds to SOME positions that are wrong. I hate that he is in prison. He made some bad decisions that cost him, and if you're a Christian, you ought to pray for him, his family, and his ministry.
This would have been a better use of time if they had just (or mainly) debated the facts. They did that a little but mainly disagreed in the interpretation of the Bible. The thing is, most viewers already knew before the debate started there was disagrement on the interpretation of the Bible. I think many if not most Christians could accept either scenario and therefore just want to know what kind of phsical or physics arguements each side has. They gave a little there should've been more.
The universe is infinite... "If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD."
This is where Ross goes down hill. Species level (aka Macroevolution) has occurred and has even been documented in human history...and in actual animals, not just bacteria.
@Joseph565112 Can you give links to these cases? To clarify, macroevolution is not on simply the species level, it's higher. Change on the species level is specieation and that has been documented. But finches turn into finches, mosquitoes to mosquitoes, bacteria to bacteria. What has don't been seen or documented is something like reptiles giving rise to birds. Can you show true macro-scale evolution, somewhere around the family or order level?
Kent Hovind acts like a dumb child. Seriously, how did this man get known? He has NO understanding of science, and he asks the dumbest questions, and using the dumbest arguments.
This is not a debate, which is people trying to educate a willfully dishonest, ignorant, immature enlarged child. Not only that, he probably is going to hell by his own standards.
Anti-science, religious bigot. From his HORRIBLE [horrible!] child-like written dissertation, to being put in jail for tax fraud, he sucks.
@FreeTunes498 I meant what I said on a broader spectrum. He acts like a child on more than one level, even taking into account if he has ADHD. Thanks for pointing that out though, I didn't know that.
Gen 2:21-23 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his RIBS, anc closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the RIB, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.--fake bible version like ross and ankerberg use will mess you up
@filoIII The Hebrew word literally means side, specifically the side of a person. It can mean rib but in a architectural sense, like the rib of a ship.
@tomopotamus the KJB translators disagree w/ you. which hebrew dictionary are you using, considering they are all different and disagree w/ ea. other? + each edition will disagree w/ the previous one. perhaps you're using the kittel's hebrew dictionary--convicted nazi war criminals. you gonna trust what they say about the jews? yet, many modern "bibles" use this for their O.T. you've been duped by marketing and being sucked back to rome w/ this "original" business
Young earth creationists have to be intellectually inferior, either through training (or lack thereof) or through some basic lack of any ability to think. Anyone who remains a YEC (like Hovind) after being simply informed of the facts is an absolute moron.
@MrMZaccone I wouldn't say that the people that continue to hold to a young earth position are morons. I used to be a young earther and it was difficult to give up that position. Reason being, the teaching is presented in such a way that it's almost impossible to deny it. It just seems so right and the arguments full proof. On top of that, the churches that hold a YE position tend to make it seem like if you deny a YE you're actually denying the trustworthiness of the Bible and are
essentially a heretic. So, that alone would make it difficult to shrug off the YE idea; like for me, I believe in the trustworthiness of the Bible and the arguments seemed plausible and air-tight, so it was rather hard to just let it go. I wanted to be faithful to God afterall. Know what I mean?
Thankfully, I've come around and realized that one can be a Christian and believe in an old Earth. Ultimately, the age of the Earth wasn't God's concern in the telling of the creation story.
@tomopotamus All right, perhaps I was a bit strict in my wording. What I meant by "intellectualy inferior" was perhaps better described in some cases as "inadequately equipped" in the sense of education. One can of course be both inteligent and educated in such a way that even logic won't make a dent. Logic is after all a teachable methodology. I'm curious to know what you think made the difference in your change of thought?
@tomopotamus Was it essentially the scientific method itself or something else? I'm very curious to know what finally sets one free of this kind of thinking? I have a friend whom I met in college when he was a born-again christian and who in the process of setting out to prove his beliefs irrefutable became essentially and atheist. I'd like your perspective on what has made an (allbeit, not so drastic) change in your thinking.
@tomopotamus i'll let you in on a secret. all the hebrew/greek dictionaries, lexicons, and interliners don't agree w/ one another and each edition of each of these don't agree w/ its predecesor.
@MrBillH60 A strawman argument is where, in a discussion such as this one, an opponent will misrepresent (mis-state) an opponent's position. Hovind has been a master of that in this discussion.
@tomopotamus Misrepresent a position? In this case it's call reverse physiology. evolutionist has been proven wrong with true evidence, not made up 1's as those that the evolutionist r manufacturing. So a straw man would refer to the evolutionist in this case. The strawman was a character in the Oz look'n 4 a brain. This is the evolutionist, trying to make a lie seem real, no brain.
@MrBillH60 No. A strawman argument is when someone misrepresents an opponents position or belief. Hovind definitely committed the strawman falacy. He represented Ross' position as an evolutionist one, which Ross repeated said he was not.
All that matters is Jesus Christ. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Kent Hovind is a sinner, I am a sinner, all of humanity are sinners, all are walking in eternal death. Only in Jesus Christ can we be made alive, for He is the Way and the Truth and the Life.
I think Mr. Kent Kovind is going in the right direction for creationism. He makes a great point the All Evolution Theories taught is a religion and should not be funded by American Tax Dollars. The U.S. Government does not fund all Bible Believing Christians. There both are religions.
@Inmatinus --- Oh I think you're right. It would have been much more difficult for them if there had been a third person who talked about reason and reality.
This is the point at which Hugh Ross completely drops the ball. I do pity him, he has to try to reconcile religious beliefs with his own scientific education and has to meet halfway, completely compromising both sides of this debate.
LOL..yes...when scientific EVIDENCE conflicts with your religious BELIEFS...you have to ignore the evidence. Kent Hovind does a great job of pushing people away from your religion.
@jackface0410 No, this is where Hugh Ross continues to beat Kent Hovind like a rented mule. Hovind's problem is his hubris. He is uneducated and unteachable in both science and the Scriptures. He already knows it all and nothing -- nothing -- will dissuade him. This is exactly the same spirit that enabled the most biblically soaked men in the world to crucify the Messiah that they had been waiting hundreds of years for.
@jackface0410 Yes, in so many ways this is true, and we have to be careful that we don't hold the bible as a changing book according to science. But at the same time we must be careful not to suppose that we have our interpretation absolutely correct. Even 2,000 years ago they had a different understanding of Genesis than Kent and how we read it. Consider also the Jews interpreted the messiah differently than when he was realised, our interpretation could be wrong with regard to Genesis
@TaNgLeD2121 yes, I know that. Just wanted to defend Hovind. He's just defending the Bible and Christianity. It's not cool to call someone retarded. So, sorry I called you that.
Jeez. I was really starting to like that astrophysicist until he brought up that ridiculous something-quadrillion statistic involving speciation. That's just bogus. Speciation has been observed dozens of times, both in the lab and in the wild. Which basically proves his assertion wrong. He may be a great astrophysicist, but biology really must not be his area of expertise.
How ironic is it that Hovind ALWAYS states that he resents that HIS tax dollars support evolution. HEY HOVIND, WHAT TAX DOLLARS? When you get out of prison eight years from now for tax fraud, please give me an answer.
Maybe that's why he committed tax fraud. Cos he didn't want to pay for the teaching of evolution; something he doesn't believe. In that case, seems like a pretty brave stance to take. Credit where it's due. lol
@obdami learn the difference between constitutional/apportioned and unconstitutional/unapportioned taxes, and the fraudulent irs/fiat currency in america, and how kent was not even breaking those unlawful laws. he was jailed and targeted for his beliefs, and its funny that you dont attack his views, you are just bitter that he makes you look stupid
@willyjackblueeyes hovind's asshole is getting torn open by a big black nigger dick in prison right now. then he sucks his own shit and blood off it with a big smile on his fucking face hahahahahahahahaha LUCIFER AHAHAHAHAHAHA
@sillydillydokieo dude you are pretty bad ass! gay as hell but super hardcore. but dont let me stop you from proving it to the world. share your bad assness with the world. let them know how smart and awesomely bad ass you are. blood and shit is always cool in my book.
Hugh could well be right about seeing the furthest star. There is a 'wall' at a certain distance beyond which we can't see, so I hear. For a creation to have a beginning, there must be a finite number of stars.
God is nevertheless bound by the rules he set in motion when he created. He is bound when working through matter and probably had to wait a day for some reason before each new creation.
that's all they knew back then and the bible obviously reflects the views of man in his intellectual infancy.you cannot blame them for their efforts. however, anyone who STILL attempts to propogate this view in the face of what science has shown us today to be true, has no business being called an educator!
2bongers, educate yourself! when you look at the moon you are not seeing it as it is, but as it was 8 seconds ago, and the sun as it was approximately 8 minutes ago. this is because light travels at a finite speed. therefore, it takes the light from each of these bodies to be delayed in reaching us. some galixies' light takes tens of millions of years to reach us. thus, we are "seeing into the past".
No, Hovind was never an actual teacher. He always says "I taught high school science for 15 years." but only the brand of science which he thought was appropriate in a homeschool setting.
His doctorate was in "Christian Education" from an unaccredited university.
Did I just hear hugh correctly? We use telescopes to see back in time to the creation point? I defer to my last comment! If that were the case, let's send oone of those puppies to the moon and find out who killed JFK. Rediculous claims.
yes, his wording is very sloppy, but i will try to explain what he is trying to convey. modern telescopes can magnify enough to view objects over 10 billion light years away. when viewing the farthest objects, we are observing galaxies and such being formed. the creation of galaxies. since what we are viewing is about 13 billion light years away, we are looking at the objects as they were 13 billion years ago.
You say that something that is 13 billion light-years away is 13 billion years old. Not necessarily. Why? DIRECTION. The only way your assumption could be true is if you can prove you're looking in the direction of the universe's center. The further a galaxy is from the universe's center, the newer/younger it must be as the expansion moves away from its center in an ever increasing universe. Also, nobody has ever proved that photons preserve their length in a place "X" light-years away from us.
The constant for the speed of light assumes a photon particle's length with no variation in vacuum space. The problem is that we don't know the conditions of space "X" light-years away & how it affects photons. There's a chance that the photons' length could be longer in certain areas of outer space making it possible for light to reach certain distances faster than it would do on Earth or even in our galaxy. We are simply assuming a constant when it could all be a false illusion of distance.
"We are simply assuming a constant when it could all be a false illusion of distance."
Really? The key word in this statement is "could be", the problem with what you say is that you're not certain of what you say to be true, and you claim another to be wrong. So your mere rejection of something proven to be true is that something could? I want you to come back and prove to us scientifically your claims, and I will personally aid your trip to winning your nobel prize.
direction is not a significant factor in these calculations. If we can see an object 13 billion light years away, and you accept the simple science of measuring these distances (which Hovind blatantly rejects with no apparent logical reasoning), there MUST have been a 13 billion year time span for this light to reach us. This is also under the assumption that you accept the speed of light in a vacuum to be nonfluctuating, which i have a sneaking suspicion that Hovind would not accept..
Are you telling me that if you have objects in this order of incremental distance: universe's center as origin, then galaxy X, then Milky Way galaxy & finally galaxy Y & the distance to galaxy X measured from Earth is the same as that to galaxy Y, you claim that galaxy X could be older than galaxy Y? NONSENSE from Big Bang's perspective.
If you say it is possible, then you don't believe in a Big Bang given the fact that explosions push particles away from the initial mass and imply DIRECTION.
If you say it isn't possible, then your first argument was wrong. Either way you fail as much as the Big Bang theory also fails as a theory.
Try to understand that the further away a galaxy is from the center of the universe, the younger it must be where the expansion is presently occurring? Put pride aside and accept that you're wrong.
I don't like how Ross interprets most of scripture litereally to an extreme, accept when it comes to the 6 days. His interpretation of the 6 days is an exegetical nightmare. Can you imagine Moses writing those verses and actually really meaning some long period of time, like millions and millions. teaching their Jewish kids "now remember, when I say day, I mean millions of years. don't forget that now..." Much respect to him, but I believe that many of his interpretations are very bias.
elijahoil 2 weeks ago
two idiots debating who's the biggest idiot...
Ichthyologistic 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
morrisondan 3 months ago
Hugh Ross is not a a evolutionist but uses some teaching of it which means that he believes in it but wont admit that he is a evolutionist. He also teaches f thermodynamics diffrent than 99.9 percent of professor with a Dr degree in it.
Im with Hugh Ross 60 %
damaster86 3 months ago
good did it in no time cause he does not have time
77princesspink 3 months ago
Dr. Ross needs to stop interrupting.
rosebudmaster 3 months ago in playlist Liked
@rosebudmaster that is true.
elijahoil 2 weeks ago
@Americant47 God can't use scientific laws? Seems like you're limiting God...
JaffarDS 4 months ago in playlist Kent Hovind vs Hugh Ross (disc 1 of 2)
"I certainly resent my tax dollars going to support that."
Yes, Kent. We know.
ElasticGiraffe 5 months ago 2
Man.. Kent, you are soooo arrogant! Ignorance is bliss huh? Dr. Ross, you are so patient and such a gentleman! You are so educated brother and God has blessed you with wisdom and courtesy to compliment it. I hope God's Holy Spirit speaks to Kent in that small, still voice and shows himself how he looks to the world. What an embarrassment he is, not only to himself, but to the whole faith. fruitlessness at it's finest and complete lack of humility.
spiritwarrior1 5 months ago
Let me guess, it's a wall, with a staircase going up to a door. Nice job Dr. Truman. Thanks.. and in case I don't see ya, good afternoon, good evening and good night!
spiritwarrior1 5 months ago
So, tell me, Dr. Truman, what's behind that last star at the end of the universe?
spiritwarrior1 5 months ago
And Hovind wins again.
rosebudmaster 6 months ago
The genesis account is very straightforward and clear that those were literal days, and to believe otherwise is to compromise the word of God with man made theories, you must either believe the theories, or the Bible, they are both beliefs. Hovind stood his ground well.
stonebrownalien 7 months ago in playlist Kent Hovind vs Hugh Ross (disc 1 of 2)
@stonebrownalien Well Said.
Logandown 6 months ago
@7:18 Um, what tax dollars, Kent?
COEXISTential 7 months ago 2
all these cultures didnt start with a 7 day week. but over time people realized its the best way to represent time and the seasons. and its not perfect from god, thats why we have to have a leap year every4!
guineapiggyman 7 months ago
if you watch this whole thing, kent uses the term 'straw man' 47 times! talk about a broken record
guineapiggyman 7 months ago
According to enoch, there are 7 giant stars controling the orbits in space.
uziel187 7 months ago
@uziel187 r u serious? jeez
guineapiggyman 7 months ago
This debate is pretty much 2 monkeys screaming at each other. One monkey just happened to have been trained by scientists.
Elitest2 8 months ago
Okay, this is the first time I've actually seen Kent Hovind in action, and already I've lost all respect for him. Never mind whether or not his arguments hold water (and they're shaky at best, even if you give him EVERY benefit of the doubt); he's an arrogant jerk. Dr. Ross has much, much more patience than I'd've had; I would have told Hovind to knock the personal attacks off after number three or four. What a fraud.
quietman71 9 months ago
"And I certainly resent my tax dollars going to support that." Kent Hovind.
He is in jail for tax evasion, do you see the irony here lol.
brewerbrian420 9 months ago
neither of these guys would ever be swayed by the opposite argument.. Cause both are set in their ways..
illuminatisos 11 months ago
why hasnt any one said that 6 days to god is a nano second
parrishstuckey1 11 months ago
@parrishstuckey1 -- because God is outside of space and time. (in fact, he created space and time)
ThrillerWA09 10 months ago
@ThrillerWA09 AMEN........
parrishstuckey1 10 months ago
When God created The Universe he layed the 'Foundations of The Earth', this preceded and was a separate event to the six day creation. When He created the Earth the Spirit hovered above the waters, The Earth was already there but was void and without form, a blank page.
redcolt777 11 months ago
Ross shows his inept education of evolutionary theory here, he's just wrong about what has evolved and the evidence for it. We know for a fact everything alive today has evolved from previous ancestors, we know for a fact that everything living today wasn't alive in the same state as, say, the cretacious period, jurassic period, etc. Ross is just wrong, Hovind is just an idiot.
Feralus69 1 year ago
stacierussom "it doesn't take millions of years". The same can be said of "it doesn't take one 24-hour day". He could have created in not just a fraction of a second, but because He exists outside of space time, He could have created in "no" time at all.
tuscaloosatanning 1 year ago
To quote Ross himself regarding his 'dust physically turning into Adam' theory - has he any evidence for this theory?
newfagscanttrif0rce 1 year ago
Hugh Ross is scientifically literate. The man seems like he is very intellectually honest.
22complexity 1 year ago
The main problem with Ross's whole concept is that he is putting restrictions on God. Who the hell does he think he is claiming that God is too inefficient to create everything FULLY DEVELOPED. Why must everything require "millions of years" to develope. I'm pretty sure almighty turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt, which defies ALL aspects of physics. So stop trying to use physics to prove that God can't create a universe without billions of years. It's insulting and disrespectful.
kfcguy1999 1 year ago
@kfcguy1999 i totally agree. If God said let there be... then there is...it doesnt take millions or thousands of years. when he says he wants something, he makes it happen. if its ur turn to die and he is ready for u, it doesnt take millions of years for it to happen.
stacierussom 1 year ago
2:16 extra-terrestrial perception???? HAHA
tuscaloosatanning 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Place your classify we offer you naughty women benaughtyman.info
kasunikaanjana 1 year ago
For every one who is bashing Kent Hovind for no reason, he's absolutely right. You can use science to prove God.
33SaintBernards 1 year ago
LOL at 2:21 thru 2:30!!
33SaintBernards 1 year ago
I am really amazed at the way brother Hovind reads the Bible. We people in the East don't read the Bible like he does.
amairaja 1 year ago
This is where Dr Ross shines. He proves here beyond a shadow of a doubt that God's word (the bible) and modern science make a great marriage, and are inseparable.
dalerob66 1 year ago 15
@dalerob66 Does he ever!!!. I admire him. He looks wise, calm, knowfull, mature, and especially patient!!
Rigelcentauri58 1 year ago
@Rigelcentauri58 Yes, he looks like a jesuit! :D :D :D
jary1844 1 year ago
@dalerob66 Go make a "Big Bang" and see what kind of order you get from that. Think about it.
Mr308winmag 8 months ago
@Mr308winmag Anything dalerob66 "made" would be an explosion. The Big Bang was an expansion of space-time from a point of singularity. And don't fear the theory, as it was a Christian (Georges Lemaitre) who came up with it.
gmn545 8 months ago
@gmn545 I do fear a theory that contradicts the Word of God. If Georges Lemaitre were a true Christian than he would know that the "big bang" is not the teaching of the Bible. Because the Bible is the absolute authority of the believer.
Mr308winmag 8 months ago
@Mr308winmag How does it contradict? As Ross notes, it speaks of the universe's expansion ("continually stretched out") and that it marked the beginning of the universe as we know it. Prior to this theory, Steady-State (a static, eternal universe) was espoused by even Einstein. And the Bible (Gen. 1:1) definitely states there was a "beginning". Your statement on Lemaitre is merely a No True Scotsman fallacy, and the claim that the Bible is the absolute authority is solely a Protestant concept.
gmn545 8 months ago
@gmn545 The BIble say's God spoke the world into existence. God said "let there be light and there was light" no where does it say that a "big bang" followed. If you choose to believe that then go ahead. As far as the Bible being the absolute authority in a christians life it was is and will be. I guess only because it's "God's Word"!! I dont know seems like something we'd want to pay attention to. Just sayin.
Mr308winmag 8 months ago
@Mr308winmag That isn't a contradiction. Once again, the Big Bang merely states that space-time (i.e. universe, light's included) is the result of an initial expansion and that the universe is "continually being stretched out", as Ross said. There's clearly room for a transcendant being "speaking it into existence." And again, your claim regarding the Bible is solely a Protestant concept...unless you're claiming Orthodox and Catholics aren't "true Christians" (No True Scotsman fallacy).
gmn545 8 months ago
@gmn545 Why do you continually defend the idea of a big bang? Can't you just accept what the Bible say's? Why do people alway's have to say it should've said this or it could've said that? God say's what He means, and means what He say's. Everything else is simple theory and there is no evidence for it. I believe that God's Word is that powerful! I'm sure He has a loud voice so there's your "big bang" if you just gotta have one. I stick to my claim. Take it however you will.
Mr308winmag 8 months ago
@Mr308winmag Because all the evidence points toward the Big Bang. Hubble's Law; the blackbody spectrum of cosmic microwave background radiation; the ratio of the lighter elements (e.g. deuterium, lithium, helium) that exist; general relativity, etc. And again, it in no way contradicts the Bible. And the word "theory" in science means explanation for a set of empirical observations; it's not just mere conjecture. Your can stick to your claim, but it doesn't haven't provided any basis for it.
gmn545 8 months ago
@gmn545 There is no evidence as you say it's all based on theory and there is still conjecture and you can't get around that because that is "fact". The definition for theory doesn't change just because you use it in science. It's still a guess! You put your faith in a "big bang" I'll put mine in God's Word it's pretty simple. We both have to excercise faith in doing so.
Mr308winmag 8 months ago
@Mr308winmag How is there no evidence when I just cited the evidence? Closing your eyes to it won't make it go away. And the definition of 'theory' DOES change within the context of science. A scientific theory - designed analytically to explain a set of empirical observations (i.e. FACTS) - and the colloquial "theory" are NOT the same thing. I don't have to put "faith" in a big bang when the evidence points towards it (Hubble's Law, CMB radiation, general relativity). Please educate yourself.
gmn545 8 months ago
@gmn545 Heres my facts. Psalm 33:6-10 "By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.: vs 9 "For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast." Hebrews 11:3 "Through faith we (believers) understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." But many are willingly ignorant of this fact according to 2 Peter 3:5. Please educate yourself. Or not whatever.
Mr308winmag 8 months ago
@Mr308winmag You claimed "there is no evidence"; I presented it and instead of acknowledging or attempting to refute it, you quote scripture? The only one being willingly ignorant here is you. Quoting a book filled with allegory, metaphor, poetry (you quoted Psalms lol) and using that to argue against verified scientific facts is both silly and disingenuous to the text. Eccl. 1:5 says "The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises"; that doesn't validate geocentrism lol
gmn545 8 months ago
@gmn545 You presented no evidence only theory. You've let arrogance blind you from the truth. You have laughed at the Word's of God!!" Be not deceived God is not mocked whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap." If you were so wise you would know that it took scientists centuries to catch up with the "silliness" of the Bible. You seem to be an educated moron. You know a few scientific terms and that somehow gives you more credibility than God's Word? You don't get it because you can't.
Mr308winmag 8 months ago
@Mr308winmag I can tell I'm talking to someone who is both staggeringly ignorant of science and personally incredulous to facts. I don't laugh at the "Word of God"; I laugh at you for misrepresenting it to support your weak stance. You say "no evidence only theory" when Hubble's LAW and CMB radiation are established FACTS that point directly toward the big-bang expansion. You don't attempt to refute the evidence I present because you don't know what ANY of them are - it's quite obvious. lol
gmn545 8 months ago
@gmn545 Using your own words "Hubble's law and cmb point directly towards" a big bang. They DON'T PROVE ANYTHING!!! They simply point towards it. Many scientists say the evidence "Points toward intelligent design". I put my faith in the biblical version of creation and you put your faith in a "big bang" that the bible never even hinted towards. A big bang that no matter how you try to spin it still means a great expansion or "EXPLOSION"!!!! Explosion's don't bring order! Creation does. I'm done.
Mr308winmag 8 months ago
@Mr308winmag By your standard of "proof", no criminal court case could ever have a valid verdict. Again you demonstrate your staggering ignorance of the scientific method. The "scientists" that back ID were utterly refuted during the Dover Trial. "ID isn't science" was the verdict of Judge Jones III - a devout Lutheran - who, unlike you, is objective. Ross already pointed out scripture's mention of "the heavens being continually stretched out" (Hubble's Law). Again it's NOT an explosioin. lol
gmn545 8 months ago
@Mr308winmag Go to google and put in the words "big bang not explosion" and educate yourself via the sites that pop up. It was Fred Hoyle who gave it the name "Big Bang", misrepresenting it because he favored the (now disproven) Steady-State Theory that the universe is static and eternal. It was the findings of a Christian - Lemaitre - and further findings of Hubble & Einstein that proved Hoyle wrong. You really ought to educate yourself about this, instead of settling for personal incredulity.
gmn545 8 months ago
@Mr308winmag amen!
Playpianokey 8 months ago
@Mr308winmag Amen!
pomeranian112233 4 months ago
@Mr308winmag amen!
Playpianokey 8 months ago
This show reminds me of a hundreds of pages long thread on the workings of the warp drive in Star Trek that I once saw on a forum. It's just as pointlessly lost in details and fundamentally not based in reality. There are two big differences: The trekkies were much, much smarter than (at least) Kent Hovind. And they were at least vaguely aware that what they were discussing was based in fiction.
Superphilipp 1 year ago
Omg Hugh Ross teaches local flood???
Everybody hates kent Hovind because he never loses the debates.
Its easy to win with the truth.
brandisify 1 year ago
@brandisify You are right. God bless you.
xchris1800 1 year ago
Kent Hovind asked Hugh Ross in minute 02.24: You are telling me that Scientist had observed the furtherst start that there is(the furthest of the universe)?and Ross answered "Yes". Hugh Ross is a shameless man, how easy is to catch a lie of false people, Thanks God.
xchris1800 1 year ago
@xchris1800 "thanks god"? thanks for what, you fucking dumbass? man it really takes a lot to not go killing people after reading comments like yours.
sillydillydokieo 1 year ago
@sillydillydokieo Shut up SATAN!!! If people are killed, it is because there are creatures like you, hating without any reason. turn back to God if you can.
xchris1800 1 year ago
@xchris1800 SATAN CONSUMES ME!!!!!!
sillydillydokieo 1 year ago
i'm watching two dogs barking over whether 2+2 equals 10 or 11... one of them is a little closer, but both are still way off.
Kage717 1 year ago
@Kage717 suuch a good comment
goatneck 1 year ago
@Kage717 dang man, clever. You watching this video is like having a student teach the teacher; You're in the wrong place and you're making a fool of yourself
joshuaspolar 1 year ago
@joshuaspolar ... not so sure about the fool making part... and wrong place? what? am i not welcome to share my opinion on youtube? i'm guessing i offended you... sorry buddy!
Kage717 1 year ago
@Kage717 yes actually, you were pretty offensive. You called two human beings you have never met "dogs." maybe I was raised different but that doesn't sound right
on top of that you're inadvertently stating you don't believe either of them. Well, Hugh Ross has got more knowledge than i'll ever have. What he researches seems to back up very well what he says and believes. You say he's way off? the only thing he doesn't "agree" with is complex evolution. who's to say he's wrong?
joshuaspolar 1 year ago
looks like the host didnt agree with ross about seeing the farthest stars
Gods0n1 1 year ago
5:40 the cameraman directly behind them is Michael Myers from Halloween
MyNamesToast 1 year ago
And here's some information they have yet to discover. 1) the Spirit of God hovering over the face of the waters indicates a judgment preceded. And there is a FLOOD in Genesis 1. God wiped SOMETHING or SOMEONE out. 2) The sun and moon were MADE not created, and they were done of day 4. 3) Light has no beginning or creation because "GOD IS LIGHT." 4)
pleonrhyme 1 year ago
Hovind is WRONG on "created" and "made" being used interchangably. There are websites where you can easily see the difference in the Hebrew lexicon. And this is where he missed the Gap "theory." The Gap "theory" is in fact TRUE. There are A LOT of gaps in Genesis. Example: In Job we learn the the angels shouted and sang when the earth was created. So that's clearly a gap in the first verse of Genesis alone.
pleonrhyme 1 year ago
The young earth and old earth both came from Catholic. Augustine believes it's billions the other bishop was actually the author of 6,0000 years old earth base on it's precision in 10,000 different books in his library of history and generation of men. I'm just astounded that There are actually many more yec in protestants and the Pontifical Academy accepts billions which is ridiculous.
Now the key is that the host is protestant and he seemed biased on billiond=s
CHECKrayrobionson 1 year ago
Kent Hoving does not have a PHD. He is not a doctor. He doesn't even know what a Genome is...lol He is a complete moron...
TILOTV 1 year ago
Hovind thinks Ross' position means that we can only understand Genesis because of modern cosmology. Does this dumbnut not realize that Ross has been referring to the original Hebrew the entire time? Surely Genesis would have been better understood by people who actually use words like "Yom" rather than 21st century english people who assume the translated word means "day" as we take it to mean! Hovind's a piece of slime, I hope he rots in jail and spends plenty of time "on his knees"!
Birdieupon 1 year ago
@Birdieupon: no need to call him slime. Dr. Hovind has helped the Kingdom of God in a lot of ways. But he holds to SOME positions that are wrong. I hate that he is in prison. He made some bad decisions that cost him, and if you're a Christian, you ought to pray for him, his family, and his ministry.
pleonrhyme 1 year ago
This would have been a better use of time if they had just (or mainly) debated the facts. They did that a little but mainly disagreed in the interpretation of the Bible. The thing is, most viewers already knew before the debate started there was disagrement on the interpretation of the Bible. I think many if not most Christians could accept either scenario and therefore just want to know what kind of phsical or physics arguements each side has. They gave a little there should've been more.
7777Ralph 1 year ago
@willoughbyorama... yes, as they were and WHERE they were 10BY ago. Currently, if they even exist, they'd probably be 12 or 14 BLY away.
Fetrovsky 1 year ago
Hahah Kent and Hugh's ties are amazing lol.
santiago262 1 year ago
The universe is infinite... "If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD."
mdixond88 1 year ago
LOL kent hovind- "i resent my tax dollars going towards that." WHAT TAX DOLLARS?
adrasvaiyen 1 year ago
This is where Ross goes down hill. Species level (aka Macroevolution) has occurred and has even been documented in human history...and in actual animals, not just bacteria.
Shameful.
Joseph565112 1 year ago 2
@Joseph565112 Can you give links to these cases? To clarify, macroevolution is not on simply the species level, it's higher. Change on the species level is specieation and that has been documented. But finches turn into finches, mosquitoes to mosquitoes, bacteria to bacteria. What has don't been seen or documented is something like reptiles giving rise to birds. Can you show true macro-scale evolution, somewhere around the family or order level?
mdcroskrey 1 year ago
@mdcroskrey, speciation is macroevolution, bubba. Where did you attend university may I inquire?
Any evolution at the species level on up through genus, and so-forth, is macroevolution.
A good example of macroevolution, therefore, would be that of the Devil's Hole Pupfish...ironically named, eh?
Seeds, Michael A., and Dana E. Backman. HORIZONS: Exploring the Universe. 11th ed. Belmont, CA: Brooks Cole, 2009. 28. Print.
Joseph565112 1 year ago 4
Religious creatards are so damn shameful. A fucking disgrace to humans...
martialme84 1 year ago
Kent Hovind acts like a dumb child. Seriously, how did this man get known? He has NO understanding of science, and he asks the dumbest questions, and using the dumbest arguments.
This is not a debate, which is people trying to educate a willfully dishonest, ignorant, immature enlarged child. Not only that, he probably is going to hell by his own standards.
Anti-science, religious bigot. From his HORRIBLE [horrible!] child-like written dissertation, to being put in jail for tax fraud, he sucks.
Raherin 1 year ago
@Raherin About the acting like a child, he has ADHD
FreeTunes498 1 year ago
@FreeTunes498 I meant what I said on a broader spectrum. He acts like a child on more than one level, even taking into account if he has ADHD. Thanks for pointing that out though, I didn't know that.
Raherin 1 year ago
"We've seen the furthest star away in existence." HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
terradactylclaw 1 year ago
@terradactylclaw why is that so funny? or do you mean that the stars we see today who are billions of years old, might have been destroyed by now?
quezcatol 1 year ago
Gen 2:21-23 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his RIBS, anc closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the RIB, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.--fake bible version like ross and ankerberg use will mess you up
filoIII 1 year ago
@filoIII The Hebrew word literally means side, specifically the side of a person. It can mean rib but in a architectural sense, like the rib of a ship.
tomopotamus 1 year ago
@tomopotamus the KJB translators disagree w/ you. which hebrew dictionary are you using, considering they are all different and disagree w/ ea. other? + each edition will disagree w/ the previous one. perhaps you're using the kittel's hebrew dictionary--convicted nazi war criminals. you gonna trust what they say about the jews? yet, many modern "bibles" use this for their O.T. you've been duped by marketing and being sucked back to rome w/ this "original" business
filoIII 1 year ago
I think Ankerburg is being dupped...if he believes Hugh Ross.
shanana000 1 year ago
Young earth creationists have to be intellectually inferior, either through training (or lack thereof) or through some basic lack of any ability to think. Anyone who remains a YEC (like Hovind) after being simply informed of the facts is an absolute moron.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@MrMZaccone I wouldn't say that the people that continue to hold to a young earth position are morons. I used to be a young earther and it was difficult to give up that position. Reason being, the teaching is presented in such a way that it's almost impossible to deny it. It just seems so right and the arguments full proof. On top of that, the churches that hold a YE position tend to make it seem like if you deny a YE you're actually denying the trustworthiness of the Bible and are
tomopotamus 1 year ago
essentially a heretic. So, that alone would make it difficult to shrug off the YE idea; like for me, I believe in the trustworthiness of the Bible and the arguments seemed plausible and air-tight, so it was rather hard to just let it go. I wanted to be faithful to God afterall. Know what I mean?
Thankfully, I've come around and realized that one can be a Christian and believe in an old Earth. Ultimately, the age of the Earth wasn't God's concern in the telling of the creation story.
tomopotamus 1 year ago
@tomopotamus All right, perhaps I was a bit strict in my wording. What I meant by "intellectualy inferior" was perhaps better described in some cases as "inadequately equipped" in the sense of education. One can of course be both inteligent and educated in such a way that even logic won't make a dent. Logic is after all a teachable methodology. I'm curious to know what you think made the difference in your change of thought?
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@tomopotamus Was it essentially the scientific method itself or something else? I'm very curious to know what finally sets one free of this kind of thinking? I have a friend whom I met in college when he was a born-again christian and who in the process of setting out to prove his beliefs irrefutable became essentially and atheist. I'd like your perspective on what has made an (allbeit, not so drastic) change in your thinking.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
Oh yeah, Kent Hovind is a KJV-onlyist. That's why he doesn't like the use of Hebrew; the KJV is supreme is his mind, not the original language.
Kent's argument for why evolution isn't true: the KJV doesn't say it happened that way. Pesky Hugh Ross and his scientific stuff. Oy.
tomopotamus 1 year ago
@tomopotamus i'll let you in on a secret. all the hebrew/greek dictionaries, lexicons, and interliners don't agree w/ one another and each edition of each of these don't agree w/ its predecesor.
filoIII 1 year ago
@filoIII If that's so, it actually weakens the YEC theory.
tomopotamus 1 year ago
At 2:20, Hugh made a bogus claim about knowing the farthest star.
Creationcreed 1 year ago
@Creationcreed No, it's not a bogus claim. Did you even listen to his explanation?
tomopotamus 1 year ago
5:35 Hugh Ross blew my mind!!! Both Kent and Hugh are very intelligent men.
seanfenrir 1 year ago
At 5:30, evolution gets slapped in the face
jonmarcmondor 1 year ago
Ross is an complete moron
djaffry 1 year ago
Hovind is RIGHT
djaffry 1 year ago
Will some one please tell me what is a STRAWMAN? that one in the Wizard Of Oz?
MrBillH60 1 year ago
@MrBillH60 A strawman argument is where, in a discussion such as this one, an opponent will misrepresent (mis-state) an opponent's position. Hovind has been a master of that in this discussion.
tomopotamus 1 year ago
@tomopotamus Misrepresent a position? In this case it's call reverse physiology. evolutionist has been proven wrong with true evidence, not made up 1's as those that the evolutionist r manufacturing. So a straw man would refer to the evolutionist in this case. The strawman was a character in the Oz look'n 4 a brain. This is the evolutionist, trying to make a lie seem real, no brain.
MrBillH60 1 year ago
@MrBillH60 No. A strawman argument is when someone misrepresents an opponents position or belief. Hovind definitely committed the strawman falacy. He represented Ross' position as an evolutionist one, which Ross repeated said he was not.
tomopotamus 1 year ago
MAH BOI ROSS. YEAAAUUHH
TheDevilWearsPradaa 1 year ago
All that matters is Jesus Christ. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Kent Hovind is a sinner, I am a sinner, all of humanity are sinners, all are walking in eternal death. Only in Jesus Christ can we be made alive, for He is the Way and the Truth and the Life.
GaryLyons 1 year ago
I think Mr. Kent Kovind is going in the right direction for creationism. He makes a great point the All Evolution Theories taught is a religion and should not be funded by American Tax Dollars. The U.S. Government does not fund all Bible Believing Christians. There both are religions.
6972741595 1 year ago
I love this debate -- Dumb versus Dumberer. Hilarious.
obdami 1 year ago
Comment removed
robertchflynn 1 year ago
Comment removed
robertchflynn 1 year ago
@obdami
Lucky them, the dumbest ain't there, aka evolutionist/atheist.
Inmatinus 1 year ago
@Inmatinus --- Oh I think you're right. It would have been much more difficult for them if there had been a third person who talked about reason and reality.
obdami 1 year ago
@obdami
Yeah, you're right. We can start by dismissing atheistic community as a alternative.
Inmatinus 1 year ago
Comment removed
fairscience 2 years ago
oh mr. ross.... you were doing so well untill evolution came up :D great debate actually, interesting to see it between two 'believers'
alexkidd3d 2 years ago
@alexkidd3d Dr. Hugh Ross would be correct ..IF there was no adaptive capacity to exogenous shocks but there is so he is utterly wrong.
axe863 1 year ago
This is the point at which Hugh Ross completely drops the ball. I do pity him, he has to try to reconcile religious beliefs with his own scientific education and has to meet halfway, completely compromising both sides of this debate.
jackface0410 2 years ago 13
@jackface0410
LOL..yes...when scientific EVIDENCE conflicts with your religious BELIEFS...you have to ignore the evidence. Kent Hovind does a great job of pushing people away from your religion.
MrJmm999 2 years ago
@jackface0410 No, this is where Hugh Ross continues to beat Kent Hovind like a rented mule. Hovind's problem is his hubris. He is uneducated and unteachable in both science and the Scriptures. He already knows it all and nothing -- nothing -- will dissuade him. This is exactly the same spirit that enabled the most biblically soaked men in the world to crucify the Messiah that they had been waiting hundreds of years for.
EAKven 1 year ago 3
@jackface0410 Yes, in so many ways this is true, and we have to be careful that we don't hold the bible as a changing book according to science. But at the same time we must be careful not to suppose that we have our interpretation absolutely correct. Even 2,000 years ago they had a different understanding of Genesis than Kent and how we read it. Consider also the Jews interpreted the messiah differently than when he was realised, our interpretation could be wrong with regard to Genesis
stephjh2006 1 year ago
Comment removed
TaNgLeD2121 2 years ago
@TaNgLeD2121 What's thow? Someone is retarded.
widener25 2 years ago
@widener25 i typed "throw" wrong,.........its sad you couldnt figure that one out
TaNgLeD2121 2 years ago
@TaNgLeD2121 yes, I know that. Just wanted to defend Hovind. He's just defending the Bible and Christianity. It's not cool to call someone retarded. So, sorry I called you that.
widener25 2 years ago
uh, he never got out.
Stitchman3875 2 years ago
Jeez. I was really starting to like that astrophysicist until he brought up that ridiculous something-quadrillion statistic involving speciation. That's just bogus. Speciation has been observed dozens of times, both in the lab and in the wild. Which basically proves his assertion wrong. He may be a great astrophysicist, but biology really must not be his area of expertise.
ScientiaVeritasEtLux 2 years ago
That was hilarious.
Kent: "You've seen the oldest star in the universe?"
Ross: "Yeah"
Kent: "D'oh."
maemorri 2 years ago
How ironic is it that Hovind ALWAYS states that he resents that HIS tax dollars support evolution. HEY HOVIND, WHAT TAX DOLLARS? When you get out of prison eight years from now for tax fraud, please give me an answer.
obdami 2 years ago 16
Maybe that's why he committed tax fraud. Cos he didn't want to pay for the teaching of evolution; something he doesn't believe. In that case, seems like a pretty brave stance to take. Credit where it's due. lol
BloodOfRayne 2 years ago 2
I doubt that. It was GREED, pure and simple.
obdami 2 years ago
@obdami I'm tired of people talking about this. If you can't refute Kent's information jus attack the tax issue.
Creationcreed 1 year ago
@obdami The tax that you regularly pay to the gov't... ?
FederationAdmiral 1 year ago
@obdami He means the tax dollars that he would have to pay they are his tax dollars he is just not paying them =P and i don't blame him
joseph941000able 1 year ago
@obdami
That is WHY is he STOPPED paying those taxes.
Jazzel93 1 year ago
@obdami learn the difference between constitutional/apportioned and unconstitutional/unapportioned taxes, and the fraudulent irs/fiat currency in america, and how kent was not even breaking those unlawful laws. he was jailed and targeted for his beliefs, and its funny that you dont attack his views, you are just bitter that he makes you look stupid
willyjackblueeyes 1 year ago
@willyjackblueeyes hovind's asshole is getting torn open by a big black nigger dick in prison right now. then he sucks his own shit and blood off it with a big smile on his fucking face hahahahahahahahaha LUCIFER AHAHAHAHAHAHA
sillydillydokieo 1 year ago
@sillydillydokieo dude you are pretty bad ass! gay as hell but super hardcore. but dont let me stop you from proving it to the world. share your bad assness with the world. let them know how smart and awesomely bad ass you are. blood and shit is always cool in my book.
willyjackblueeyes 1 year ago
@obdami amazing.
Kage717 1 year ago
Hugh could well be right about seeing the furthest star. There is a 'wall' at a certain distance beyond which we can't see, so I hear. For a creation to have a beginning, there must be a finite number of stars.
God is nevertheless bound by the rules he set in motion when he created. He is bound when working through matter and probably had to wait a day for some reason before each new creation.
Pulsar205 2 years ago
that's all they knew back then and the bible obviously reflects the views of man in his intellectual infancy.you cannot blame them for their efforts. however, anyone who STILL attempts to propogate this view in the face of what science has shown us today to be true, has no business being called an educator!
aburling7 2 years ago
2bongers, educate yourself! when you look at the moon you are not seeing it as it is, but as it was 8 seconds ago, and the sun as it was approximately 8 minutes ago. this is because light travels at a finite speed. therefore, it takes the light from each of these bodies to be delayed in reaching us. some galixies' light takes tens of millions of years to reach us. thus, we are "seeing into the past".
aburling7 2 years ago
Why does it say "Dr." Kent Hovind? Wasn't he just a high school teacher?
DarthSkater6 2 years ago
No, Hovind was never an actual teacher. He always says "I taught high school science for 15 years." but only the brand of science which he thought was appropriate in a homeschool setting.
His doctorate was in "Christian Education" from an unaccredited university.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
Did I just hear hugh correctly? We use telescopes to see back in time to the creation point? I defer to my last comment! If that were the case, let's send oone of those puppies to the moon and find out who killed JFK. Rediculous claims.
2Boanerges 2 years ago
yes, his wording is very sloppy, but i will try to explain what he is trying to convey. modern telescopes can magnify enough to view objects over 10 billion light years away. when viewing the farthest objects, we are observing galaxies and such being formed. the creation of galaxies. since what we are viewing is about 13 billion light years away, we are looking at the objects as they were 13 billion years ago.
willoughbyorama 2 years ago 6
You say that something that is 13 billion light-years away is 13 billion years old. Not necessarily. Why? DIRECTION. The only way your assumption could be true is if you can prove you're looking in the direction of the universe's center. The further a galaxy is from the universe's center, the newer/younger it must be as the expansion moves away from its center in an ever increasing universe. Also, nobody has ever proved that photons preserve their length in a place "X" light-years away from us.
MoooHamMad 2 years ago
The constant for the speed of light assumes a photon particle's length with no variation in vacuum space. The problem is that we don't know the conditions of space "X" light-years away & how it affects photons. There's a chance that the photons' length could be longer in certain areas of outer space making it possible for light to reach certain distances faster than it would do on Earth or even in our galaxy. We are simply assuming a constant when it could all be a false illusion of distance.
MoooHamMad 2 years ago
@MoooHamMad:
"We are simply assuming a constant when it could all be a false illusion of distance."
Really? The key word in this statement is "could be", the problem with what you say is that you're not certain of what you say to be true, and you claim another to be wrong. So your mere rejection of something proven to be true is that something could? I want you to come back and prove to us scientifically your claims, and I will personally aid your trip to winning your nobel prize.
ogirv101 2 years ago
direction is not a significant factor in these calculations. If we can see an object 13 billion light years away, and you accept the simple science of measuring these distances (which Hovind blatantly rejects with no apparent logical reasoning), there MUST have been a 13 billion year time span for this light to reach us. This is also under the assumption that you accept the speed of light in a vacuum to be nonfluctuating, which i have a sneaking suspicion that Hovind would not accept..
willoughbyorama 2 years ago
What? Not an important factor? Are you out of your mind?
When determining the age of a star, planet, or an entire galaxy, scientists use luminosity, spectrum range and MOTION.
Motion involves DIRECTION. So, of course direction is one of the most important factors involved.
MoooHamMad 2 years ago
Are you telling me that if you have objects in this order of incremental distance: universe's center as origin, then galaxy X, then Milky Way galaxy & finally galaxy Y & the distance to galaxy X measured from Earth is the same as that to galaxy Y, you claim that galaxy X could be older than galaxy Y? NONSENSE from Big Bang's perspective.
If you say it is possible, then you don't believe in a Big Bang given the fact that explosions push particles away from the initial mass and imply DIRECTION.
MoooHamMad 2 years ago
If you say it isn't possible, then your first argument was wrong. Either way you fail as much as the Big Bang theory also fails as a theory.
Try to understand that the further away a galaxy is from the center of the universe, the younger it must be where the expansion is presently occurring? Put pride aside and accept that you're wrong.
MoooHamMad 2 years ago