I wish Hovind would shut up and focus of the spiritual side of faith, because his so called false science garbage in believe the earth is only 6000 years is an embarressment to us other Christians. I as a Christian would feel like telling that idiot to stop because I can't stand him.He and others that think the world is 6000 years old bring Christianity a bad name. Focus on the spiritual part of Christianity and Jesus as opposed to your bullshit science attempt.
Last I knew we can only determine up to a fraction (of a fraction) of a second after the big bang. Even then it does indicate that all matter, energy, time, space expanded from the single point. In that way, yeah I agree that everything started then. However there is no real way to do anything other than speculate pre-big bang. While I dont argue for causality (as pre-big bang may have always existed) its possible to say time not matter started.
You can't speculate a "before time". "Before" IS a time. Without a time, there's not even a "before" for there to be a nothing in. It's not even empty or small, it's just entirely nonsense. There is no point on Earth south of the south pole either.
@rkyeun I didn't watch the vids but I did find the full transcript of the talk (much quicker to read).
I see how Hawking puts the idea forth but I still am having a hard time getting my head around it. Even as an Earth Scientist I find this beyond me; I'd have to do more digging to further my understanding.
However, from what I did understand your point is correct. There is a relative "start" of time-space and I concede the point.
There are two kinds of known singularity, and at each causality bites it in a different way. At short distance from a black hole, the distortion of space and time forms an event horizon, an end to the universe. At the event horizon, causes vanish into the singularity and have no further effects. The other end is a white hole, and rather than an event horizon it has a big bang, from which effects emerge with no prior cause.
Time started with time already started. Hm, is that tautology?
@rkyeun Lol, yes, I said the same thing in the last two sentences. I didn't say "time started with time already started" however, that would have been redundantly redundant.
This is definitely a subject which I have no formal training in though the concept of a white hole is intriguing.
@rkyeun Oh, another mistake on my part; you were saying that "time started with time started." Sheesh, I am not comprehending tonight. I think I'll go back to the rocks where I'm actually informed. *walks off dejected before laughing heartily*
There's no sense in trying to count ALL Hovind's lies until after he's dead. Practically every other word counts as its own lie. He can tell more lies than he does sentences. It's really quite amazing. That's why the SI unit of deception is the Hovind, which corresponds to one lie or logical fallacy per second.
@shanedk What's hilarious is that he thinks that there is no way to prove the unifying theory of biology, but believes that there is a conspiracy by the Freemasons to kill most of the population of the Earth with no evidence.
@shanedk It's almost like they have to believe everything is a conspiracy, including the formation of the planets, weather patterns,and the fall TV line up.
@WhenDreamsTouchFire So in ring species the middle species are of the same kind as both end species, but the end species are not the same kind as each other?
@WhenDreamsTouchFire "this idea that animals can simply mate over and over for millions of years and over time develop new species (aka kinds), is just preposterous."
We've SEEN IT HAPPEN!!! Speciation has been observed NUMEROUS times!!! You're arguing with OBSERVED FACT!!!
@WhenDreamsTouchFire Oh, and it's interesting that you didn't quote this bit from the Wikipedia page: "Contrary to the creationist views, all necessary intermediate stages have been found in extant beetles within or closely related to the bombardier beetle family, with each intermediate giving a definite advantage to the organism."
@shanedk Probably because he never read it. Creationists never read the articles they quote, they read the quote mined version on creationist websites.
In all fairness, Hovind didn't say that James Hutton was the first to propose an ancient earth but one of the first, and he is absolutely correct in that. Not sticking up for the extremely thick Kent Hovind, I just felt I had to champion James Hutton who, like myself, was an Edinburgh lad. :)
Can you please explain the issue of irreducible complexity?
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. - Charles Darwin
@jaded423 See "Genetic variability, twin hybrids and constant hybrids, in a case of balanced lethal factors." Genetics 3:422-499. Evolution PREDICTS irreducibly complex structures. They CAN evolve from numerous, successive slight modifications.
@jaded423 I think the issue is that Michael Behe, a biochemist (i.e. not an evolutionary biologist) wrote a definition of intelligent design that set unreasonable standards on what constitutes "numerous, successive slight modifications". He says that if a structure, by the removal of one part, would cease its current function, then it is irreducibly complex. That is ridiculous because "part" is very vague. It does little to damage evolution. It is based on ignorance of the individual processes.
[as well as control of] defecation, and the expulsion of the fetus during labor. For these important reasons, the coccyx can never be classified as a rudimentary or vestigial rudiment of our ancestors.
"The posterior surfaces [of the coccyx] serve as attachments for the gluteus maximus muscle and the sphincter and externus muscles. The gluteus maximus muscle is essential for defecation and labor during childbirth. The sphincter ani externus muscle is needed to keep the anal canal and orifice closed. These are obviously very important functions. The interior surfaces of the coccygeal vertebrae also serve as important attachments for muscles that aid in the containment of feces within the rectum
@shanedk Just because something has a minor role in the body doesnt mean it shouldnt be there. Not everything plays a huge role, you can have four of your toes removed and walk fairly normal, if you remove your pinky toe, the smallest one, you have balance issues.
@MatawanBullShark "PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACTS" I would settle for one, any one who says it takes millions of years can only start or see the end of an experiment. If you cant be at both ends, you cant be sure the experiment went according to plan.
@shanedk please give me one example of one species coming from another, find one, I will read about it, and apologize for spreading inaccurate information.
@jaded423 Nereis acuminata is one example. Ask for others and I'll provide. Or you can just look it up yourself; it's not like the information's not all over the place!
@shanedk I can find a multitude of examples of minor changes within a species. I was asking for One instance of inter-special evolution. One fossil link between two species, or one species that is alive that is a link between two others. I cannot find an occurrence of either.
@jaded423 You are demanding "proof" for something other than evolution! And the proof you're asking for would falsify the REAL theory of evolution. Just like Kirk Cameron and his "crocoduck."
Typical creationist tactic. I might have known you'd resort to it. Nothing but a bunch of liars...
@Megaritz God doesnt send people to hell for not believing in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. He sends them there for sinning. Jesus came and died to pay for your sins. Just like a man on death row. If the governor call and grants mercy on that man, he gets to live, but it isnt that the governor didnt call that got him on death row.
In any way I just don't like to see people not only lied to but also sent to hell for believing lies of this world, just read the bible I promise you'll line it if you just give it the same chance you gave evolution
@davidisstreet "In any way I just don't like to see people not only lied to but also sent to hell for believing lies of this world, just read the bible I promise you'll line it if you just give it the same chance you gave evolution"
Idol threats from a theist, here's my shocked face :D
Why don't YOU put down the frickin bible and try to UNDERSTAND evolution??? Evolution is a NAME for a PROCESS....
@davidisstreet But you know what those fossils DO prove: that the transitional species creationists constantly claim are imposssible without a doubt existed!!!!
"because the have been bombarded with evolutionary theory since childhood" - Oh yeah.........curse those evil teachers for exposing the malleable minds of innocent children to all those......PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACTS. How awful.......
@davidisstreet Why would God let people be sent people to an eternal Hell just for believing lies? Surely those people were victims and would not deserve such a fate?
Fail to remotely comprehend even the most minute point in regaurds to actually understanding the truth here. The information that he has been lieing about is no different than evolutionists lieing about their published information. And the creationists who believe in evolution only believe that because they have been bombbarded with the evolutionary theory since they were small children so they have just become another victim to the evolutionary religion. And I'm not trying to slander you in
@davidisstreet "And the creationists who believe in evolution only believe that because they have been bombbarded with the evolutionary theory since they were small children "
Ya, i'm sure the MANY theists who are scientists simply "believe" evolution because they were taught it. TESTING couldn't have anything to do with it, right? That would just be silly......
You're missing the whole point behind his video's, we want to get lies out of the text books, you can't prove for 1 that fossils ever even had a baby, (there's where it becomes a religion) because it's no longer science but a belief in something that you cannot test the scientific method on. But despite it not being able to be proved these supposed facts are hardwired into our kids from the moment they enter public school. You're so quick to pull the trigger and to pont out minor flaws that you
but hovind does not talk about stars! He is talking about the period of everything that exploded in the big bang. (Im commenting from my phone so i cant post comment responses)
@jesse8857 No, you're thinking about the Big Bang wrong. The Big Bang is NOT the expansion of matter and energy into an existing space; it's the expansion of space-time itself. It's expanding in relation to itself, because it now takes longer to go across the universe than it did before. But it CAN'T be spinning because THERE'S NOTHING FOR IT TI BE SPINNING IN RELATION TO!!!
@shanedk How said that I said the big bang was an expansion of matter? Space(time) itself cannot be expanding for there is nothing for it to be expanding in relation to!!!!!
@jesse8857 That's complete nonsense! Do you even understand the concept? Space is expanding because the distance between point A and point B is getting bigger. There does NOT need to be an external space for it to expand into BECAUSE IT MAKES ITS OWN SPACE!!!
@shanedk my point was, how can the universe be getting bigger when there is nothing in relation it can be getting bigger to? we can observe it is getting bigger inside the universe, but that doesn't help your case.
something spinning does not need to be spinning in relation to something else to be spinning. if we destroy everything but a spinning top, will it stop spinning? I'd be interested in you're reply
@jesse8857 Things in the universe ARE GETTING FURTHER APART. The INTERNAL SIZE of the universe is getting bigger, so your point is just pathetic ignorance.
"something spinning does not need to be spinning in relation to something else to be spinning." Yes, it absolutely does! Basic physics!
@shanedk Yes, yes, yes I know that we can measure that the universe is getting bigger. But it cannot be, according to your logic, because it is not in relation to anything to outside of the universe! Because of this, it cannot be getting bigger, when we KNOW it is.
Now, we would have ways to test if the "period" was spinning [if we were there], while it is not spinning in relation to anything outside of the universe.
Funny how you ignore my analogy of the spinning top aswell...
@jesse8857 "But it cannot be, according to your logic, because it is not in relation to anything to outside of the universe!"
Outside is IRRELEVANT in this case!!! The universe CAN AND IS getting bigger in relation to itself. It CANNOT be spinning because THEN it needs an outside to compare it to! Because otherwise the whole universe would be spinning together!
Why don't you get it? Does creationism disease the mind THIS much???
@shanedk "The universe CAN AND IS getting bigger in relation to itself." in the same way, we would have ways to test if the period was spinning without going 'outside' the universe.
"Oh, and I ignore it because the spinning top EXISTS INSIDE SPACE-TIME. The universe IS space-time!"
no, it does not exist inside space and time. I said get rid of EVERYTHING outside the top. it may LOOK like it stops spinning if we do this, but it doesn't stop altogether.
Check out my video response. Now Shane, if there is anything wrong in there, I'll change it - but don't attack me and call me a LIAR and all that. I believe it is all correct however.
@jesse8857 "Adding comments has been disabled for this video."
You're a FUCKING COWARD. And a typical creationist.
And one only needs to watch a few seconds to see what a LIAR you are--no, Kent is NOT TALKING ABOUT THE UNIVERSE, because he's using it to debunk LOCAL EFFECTS like evolution!
@shanedk wow here we go again with Shane the LIAR shouter. Do me a favour, watch Hovind's videos will you? I watched every one at least 3 times, so I know. Hovind is using the First Law to debunk the big bang-not evolution.
I disable comments because of attacking evolutionists like you.
@jesse8857 I've not only watch them, I've debunked them. Check out my other videos.
"Hovind is using the First Law to debunk the big bang"
The first law DOES NOT APPLY TO THE BIG BANG. I really wonder why you creationists a) think it does and b) completely IGNORE those of us who know what we're talking about when we try to explain otherwise!
And he HAS used it to debunk evolution, too.
No, ANYONE who disables comments is a FUCKING COWARD.
@jesse8857 Hey, LIAR, if you're going to give your lame-ass excuse for blocking comments and tell people to post video responses as well, you should NOT FUCKING BLOCK VIDEO RESPONSES TOO!!!
@jesse8857 Then how come it told me couldn't when I clicked on the option? YOU ARE A LIAR.
The rest of your video was EVERY BIT AS MUCH the lie as the one I pointed out--and anyone who's seen my other videos ripping apart Kent's lectures knows it! HE is a liar, YOU are a liar, ALL of you disgusting immoral worms are liars!
@shanedk um no. I know it's allowing video responses since I specifically made sure that was possible!
No it wasn't. If you didn't notice, you claimed Kent said stuff "quotes" are scientifically incorrect. I then put excerpts of Kent's 2007 seminar and his much more scientific college courses in there to show he knows what he's talking about. You can't simply look at his 1993 seminars and claim he lies.
All you can do is shout LIAR LIAR to drown out the facts staring you in the face.
@jesse8857 "I then put excerpts of Kent's 2007 seminar and his much more scientific college courses in there to show he knows what he's talking about."
Except you DIDN'T. NOTHING he said is scientifically accurate, and you did NOTHING to show that it was.
I'm calling you a liar because YOU ARE LYING. DEAL with it.
@shanedk I was going by jesse8857's statement which referenced his "much more scientific college courses". Either way, it doesn't bode well if he made them as late as 2007.
@jesse8857 Like your LIE about the second law--no he is NOT merely stating it simply for his audience; his ENTIRE POINT is based ENTIRELY on this dumbed-down AND INACCURATE version! As I showed quite clearly in my video, NOT everything is increasing in entropy. YOU ARE A LIAR.
@shanedk Isaac Asimov should know what it means since he wrote a book on the subject.
You've got to understand, if Hovind comes into a church saying that "the net entropy of the universe must increase," who's going to know what he's saying? The reason Hovind says "EVERYTHING tends toward disorder" is because he knows that adding energy cannot overcome the 2nd law unless there's a mechanism to harness the energy - chlorophyll being the example. In fact, energy is destructive.
@jesse8857 But again, it's NOT everything that's tending towards disorder! And if you look at universal expansion, you learn that the POTENTIAL for entropy is increasing at a GREATER RATE than the entropy itself! Meaning that we actually have a GREATER amount of order (if you want to call it that, it's not the best term for a lack of entropy) throughout the universe. And that will happen until those two curves meet.
@jesse8857 And the next one: he's talking about the "Nebular Hypothesis theory of the Big Bang"??? Do you even know what you're talking about? The Nebular Hypothesis is about the CREATION OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM, NOT the Big Bang and the creation of the Universe!
You LIE, and you support your lies with OTHER LIES.
@shanedk The modern nebular hypothesis is about the solar system. watch his seminar will you? there are 50 different hypothesis of the big bang - one of which was called the nebular hypothesis.
@jesse8857 "The modern nebular hypothesis is about the solar system." Uh, LIAR, I was the one that told YOU that!
"watch his seminar will you?" I have! HE WAS TALKING ABOUT THE BIG BANG!!! NOT the creation of the solar system! As I just told you!!!
"there are 50 different hypothesis of the big bang - one of which was called the nebular hypothesis." Well, make up your mind--is the nebular hypothesis about the creation of the solar system or the Big Bang?
Respond to this video... "Uh, LIAR, I was the one that told YOU that!" I know what the nebular hypothesis is!
So which seminar was that? was it one from 20 years ago?
Hovind includes it with the theories of the big bang. Either way, if it is about the solar system [doubtful] or the big bang, your quote from Hovind is WELL out of date. He does not say anything of the kind. So I win either way.
@jesse8857 "I know what the nebular hypothesis is!" You can't even make up your mind if it's about the formation of the solar system or the Big Bang!
"Hovind includes it with the theories of the big bang." And that is WRONG. It has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the Big Bang. The Big Bang had been over for 9 BILLION YEARS before that happened!
@shanedk There used to be a theory of the big bang back in the 1930s I believe, called the nebular hypothesis. correct me if I am wrong though. However, if I am wrong in saying Hovind means the big bang when he says nebular hypothesis, it would matter so much because you are still wrong when you cite Hovind's "quote".
@jesse8857 You ARE wrong. The Big Bang theory is a consequence of General Relativity. The nebular hypothesis was ALWAYS about the solar system.
And Hovind IS trying to talk about the Big Bang; that was my point! The Big Bang is the FORMATION OF THE UNIVERSE--what is it spinning in relation to?
@jesse8857 And your next LIE: "Because the 'singularity' contained ALL THE MATTER IN THE UNIVERSE, gravity would have been so strong it would bind everything together. Thus, the outer part is connected to the inner part by the immense gravity, meaning it spun faster."
COME ON--we've known this was bullshit since Kepler! The gravitational equations DO NOT WORK THAT WAY. Why isn't Neptune going around the sun faster than the Earth? Huh?
@shanedk Because it is so far away compared to earth. Simply put, neptune does not receive as much gravity as earth does, therefore, spins slower. The period of matter the "exploded" was only the size of a dot. therefore, gravity would have been immense.
@shanedk Gravity from the sun is much weaker at neptune thanks to the inverse square law. therefore, it will be left behind in the spinning. With the big bang "period", the gravity would have been absolutely immense [because it contained all the matter in the universe] therefore, the period would essentially act as one. this is very different from the neptune analogy.
@jesse8857 Well? Shall I go on? Are you EVER going to respond to your horrendous LIES? Or are you just going to hide away on your bullshit little channel and stop anyone and everyone to comment on your hideous stupidity?
@jesse8857 Since you're too much of a COWARD to turn on comments on your video, are you going to respond to the criticisms of your LYING video that I posted here? Huh? Or are you just going to keep running and hiding from your own dishonesty?
"Or are you just going to keep running and hiding from your own dishonesty?" No I'm not bothered talking to people who can't talk properly and continuously shout LIAR LIAR LIAR.
I told you before, I'm not coming back to this channel. That's it.
2:24 what so nothing exploded, wow I never knew there could be so much jargon about nothing exploding and even in your correction of number 3 you still shoot yourself in the foot
@petertrast It's not anger, it's indignation, which is how honest people react when others lie to them. Of course, as a creationist, I wouldn't expect you to understand how honest people react...
Lie #19 "Jumps take millions of years"??? And yet, no transitional fossils, no proof that it happened. Again, pure speculation requiring faith in the religion of evolution.
@shanedk Lucy proves how much structure is made from so little material. her skull is 90% made up. I would like to see evidence. Not bits of fragments that clearly can be interpreted many ways. Australopithicus afarensis for those of you who do not know Lucy...
@shanedk Lots?? Please cite the evidence, I would like to see them. Really. I would. And I would like to know what percentage of the skulls were found and were "extrapolated".
@shanedk In part 2 of this, you said Darwin meant species when he said races [if I understand correctly]. Is there any evidence of this, or references?
@shanedk so let's have a listen to the title of his book then... "On the Origin of Species ... by the Preservation of Favored Species in the Struggle for life." This does not make sense. Does it?
@shanedk Well, it means if we preserve the best [favored] species, new species comes about. Doesn't make sense to me... But please, I'd like to get a reference for this. Do you have one?
@jesse8857 Um, no, it doesn't. It means that if a better species comes along, it's favored over the older species. What do you mean, reference? JUST READ THE BOOK! You clearly don't understand how evolution works. Educate yourself!
@shanedk I have never heard someone say such a thing. I searched it up on the internet and found nothing. I have the right to be skeptical... If I remember correctly, you said in the vid that Darwin said "the most weighty of all the arguments against races being distinct species is that they graduate into each other..." Please comment on it?
Now tell me, I'd really like to know where you got the Hovind quotes from? What year of seminar did you watch?
@jesse8857 "I have never heard someone say such a thing." Then you don't know the first fucking thing about how evolution works.
"I have the right to be skeptical." You don't have the right to refuse to learn and continue to say wrong things.
Your other quote from Darwin is the Descent of Man, NOT Origin of Species, and there he WAS talking about the races of man. Dishonest bait-and-switch (just like a creationist).
@shanedk No need to get all attacking now! When I said I never heard someone say such a thing, I meant I've never heard someone say how race means species. The supposed same meaning of race and species has absolutely nothing to do with how evolution "works".
So when Hovind gives quotes from Descent of Man about racism, does he mean racism or not??
Lie #14 - And what is your source for the assertion that this view existed "at least a century before Darwin"? We are supposed to take YOUR word as you accuse the "stupid" Christians of doing with Hovind??
Lie #14 - He did not say "everybody", he said almost. Do you fail to understand the distinction? If there were "some" scholars who believed otherwise, but the vast majority held the "Christian" view, his statement of "almost everybody" is not a LIE, but MAYBE an exaggeration I will grant. Still, not a LIE as you claim.
@petertrast My book goes into this in detail. There was not IN ANY WAY a scientific consensus for a 6,000 year Earth in the century prior to Darwin. IT IS A LIE.
Lie #13 - cont - "Die Explosionschemie der Bombardierkafer (Coleoptera, Carabidae)," Zeitschrift fur Naturforschung, Vol. 23 (1968), pp. 1213-1218. The purpose of this article is to study the nature of the catalysts that make the otherwise inert hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone explode. German entomologist, expert on the beetle. So Hovind did not explain (or understand) the whole process. But a German bug expert basically backs up the concept
Lie #13 - cont - "During the "pop," the contents of the paired pygidial defense bladders of the bombardier beetle (hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone) are squeezed in small portions into chitinous chambers, and there they are explosively transformed into oxygen, quinone, and water. This explosion-chamber reaction is catalyzed by enzymes, which are emptied as a dark brown 40-60% albumin solution out of one-celled annex-glands into the front chamber." So it is MORE complex and DOES explode.
@petertrast DIRECT QUOTE FROM THE VIDEO: "No, they don't. Mix these two chemicals together, and nothing happens." It's the SCIENTISTS that say you need a catalyst! HOVIND said that they explode without one! YOU LIAR!!!
@shanedk Angrily shouting names just continues to prove how weak your position is. But I expect that from those who are caught in the act of misleading. Funny how you fail to respond concerning the USGS document. Carbon-14 dating has been proven over and over again to be severely flawed, yet evolution religionists continue to claim otherwise and just shout liar over and over or ignore the evidence.
@petertrast "Angrily shouting names just continues to prove how weak your position is"
Typical bullshit response from a proven LIAR. That's what they ALL say: no "You're wrong and here's why." You were caught in a LIE, so your ONLY option is to try to impugn my character. Desperate and pathetic.
"Carbon-14 dating has been proven over and over again to be severely flawed"
Lie #13 - So you lie by OMISSION. It is well documented and you are correct that the first 2 chemicals do not explode by mixing BUT by the introduction of catalysts. (cont)
@petertrast No one said they didn't have a catalyst, LIAR! In fact, HOVIND is the one saying that they explode without one!!! Dawkins himself mixed the two together and there was NO REACTION--see his Growing Up In The Universe lectures. SCIENTISTS say you need a catalyst! HOVIND says you need an INHIBITOR!!!
So you have just MASSIVELY LIED about who says what, attributing Hovind's claim to the scientists and vice-versa! Did you REALLY think you could get away with that crap?
@shanedk 1st you say "Go watch the Growing Up In The Universe lectures where Richard Dawkins mixes the two chemicals together in front of a live audience and shows CLEARLY that they DO react" then you say "No one said they didn't have a catalyst, LIAR! In fact, HOVIND is the one saying that they explode without one!!! Dawkins himself mixed the two together and there was NO REACTION". You are obviously crazy to contradict yourself so blatantly. Checkmate. Goodbye. Good luck. I will pray for you.
@petertrast What the fuck are you blathering about?
So now you're making up lies about what I said! In the GUitU lecture, Dawkins mixes the two chemicals together and NOTHING HAPPENS. He then puts the peroxide IN A CATALYST and that DOES react! COMPLETELY in contradiction with what Hovind says.
You have NO response to that WHATSOEVER, so your only recourse is to LIE. Pathetic.
Lie #12 - Brachinus explodens ( why name it that?) ejects a boiling hot mixture for defense, 100 degrees C reported by the BBC. Maybe it's not fire but or plastique but it works. The "scientists" who named it, no doubt evolutionists, are partly to blame.
Lie#8 - "Creationists are stupid and too easily duped to check sources". Checked. And found you were right about the mammoth but failed to report the Ovibos on page 30 or 34 depending on the page numbering. You were sloppy to miss this, or should I say "too stupid and too easily duped".
@petertrast You've already been corrected on this, LIAR. The document CLEARLY says they're two different specimens! You're making the SAME LIE AS HOVIND!!!
@shanedk So again you just continue to shout liar. Obviously I may have to disengage you after I quite correctly specified the document and page number and text that proves the same animal was dated with 2 different ages. Did you even look at the document to see what I was pointing out or are you referencing a different document? I have not even written a book and I do not engage like this regularly, yet I find falsehood in your post easily and you ignore it. Wish I knew why. Oh yeah, religion.
@petertrast Yes, I pointed out what you did, LIAR! Conflating the term "same animal" (species) with "same specimen" (individual). You're trying to make it look like the EXACT SAME SPECIMEN--the EXACT SAME INDIVIDUAL gave two different dates. EXACTLY the same lie that Hovind told about the mammoths!
Lie #3 - 13 billion years ago you say?? Well, the "old theory was that the universe was only 4 or 5 billion years old until the Hubble could see 12 billion light years, so the age of the universe got revised up to 14 billion since we could not see that far to prove the theory wrong and no doubt the liars -- erm, astrophysicists -- will update next time Hubble gets LASIK surgery. So it's just a guess, even Hawking says as much.
Lie#10 - Google african pterodactyl and you will find numerous websites talking about reported sightings. HE did not make it up, he just passed on what he read. Now, granted, I have not seen or heard of proof. But calling him a liar is dishonest. Naive and gullible, maybe. But a liar? Only if he knew for a fact that it was NOT true which anyone with logic knows is impossible since you cannot prove a negative. 2 out of 40 you are wrong and I am just picking the ones EASY to research.
Lie #8 - So you you are right about the mammoth BUT then you omit or fail to research and see that the "hair from the hind limb" of an "Ovibos" SI-454 was dated at 17,1210 +/- 500 years and the "Muscle from scalp Ovibus (same animal as SI-454)" was dated 24,140 +/- 2200 years old in that document, page 34, so YOUR credibility is null. Are you lying by omission or a bad researcher? Either way, YOU can't be trusted. Only 1 checked so far. 39 to go.
@shanedk Easy to call me a liar rather than read the document. i will try to post a link without the right format so I can get it posted since youtube blocks links. If you are smart enough to put it together, you will see I am right 3w dggs.alaska.gov webpubs usgs p text p0862.PDF If you can post a link to the doc you are talking about, we will see who is lying. It actually says "same animal". Anyone reading this who wants to know the truth send me a personal message, I will send you the link
@petertrast and stop displaying the same intellectual laziness as the idiot who posted this video. I am just getting started going through the "LIES" to expose the dishonesty of the video poster. I agree that Hovind misquoted the physics laws. But you need to make sure you are RIGHT when making assertions that someone is a liar or you end up looking like a moron yourself. I was talking about the Ovibos NOT the mammoth, same site, same collector and date, same reference, SAME ANIMAL it states.
@petertrast "Easy to call me a liar rather than read the document."
I HAVE read the document! I still have it on my computer. They are TWO DIFFERENT SPECIMENS!!! It says that CLEARLY!!!
"It actually says "same animal"." Oh, YOU FUCKING LIAR!!! You KNOW there's a difference between the same "animal" and the same "specimen"! Two different dogs are still the same animal!
@shanedk I don't know any such thing. If you could stop shouting and just reason we might get somewhere. I now prove to you my honesty. Is it not possible to have 2 specimens from the same animal?? I would expect to see same species if that was what he meant. Same animal indicates to me the 2 different specimens came from the "same animal". The meaning appears plain. So you mean to say that the scientist was referring to 2 completely different animals of the same species? Not very plain.
@shanedk so use the letter w 3 times in front of this link I sent dggs.alaska.gov/webpubs/usgs/p/text/p0862.PDF to get the document, page 34 of the pdf, or if you are too stupid, the page that has the number 30 on it. I said page 34 because it is the 34th page of the pdf file but it says 30 at the top. Clear enough or do you need someone to read it to you? If you want to call me a liar, learn how to read a page number in more than one place and work without someone holding your hand
I wish Hovind would shut up and focus of the spiritual side of faith, because his so called false science garbage in believe the earth is only 6000 years is an embarressment to us other Christians. I as a Christian would feel like telling that idiot to stop because I can't stand him.He and others that think the world is 6000 years old bring Christianity a bad name. Focus on the spiritual part of Christianity and Jesus as opposed to your bullshit science attempt.
xhemexx 1 week ago
Username coonkiller?... Uh-huh....
June28July 1 month ago
Comment removed
micometer 1 month ago
@micometer
Stephen Hawking disagrees with you.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun Link that sauce, please. I am interested.
Last I knew we can only determine up to a fraction (of a fraction) of a second after the big bang. Even then it does indicate that all matter, energy, time, space expanded from the single point. In that way, yeah I agree that everything started then. However there is no real way to do anything other than speculate pre-big bang. While I dont argue for causality (as pre-big bang may have always existed) its possible to say time not matter started.
micometer 1 month ago
Comment removed
rkyeun 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@micometer
/watch?v=h88fHOaFGi0
/watch?v=K47dZXVTGwA
/watch?v=kB1Lx8Lj7fE
You can't speculate a "before time". "Before" IS a time. Without a time, there's not even a "before" for there to be a nothing in. It's not even empty or small, it's just entirely nonsense. There is no point on Earth south of the south pole either.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun I didn't watch the vids but I did find the full transcript of the talk (much quicker to read).
I see how Hawking puts the idea forth but I still am having a hard time getting my head around it. Even as an Earth Scientist I find this beyond me; I'd have to do more digging to further my understanding.
However, from what I did understand your point is correct. There is a relative "start" of time-space and I concede the point.
micometer 1 month ago
There are two kinds of known singularity, and at each causality bites it in a different way. At short distance from a black hole, the distortion of space and time forms an event horizon, an end to the universe. At the event horizon, causes vanish into the singularity and have no further effects. The other end is a white hole, and rather than an event horizon it has a big bang, from which effects emerge with no prior cause.
Time started with time already started. Hm, is that tautology?
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun Lol, yes, I said the same thing in the last two sentences. I didn't say "time started with time already started" however, that would have been redundantly redundant.
This is definitely a subject which I have no formal training in though the concept of a white hole is intriguing.
Thanks for the chat at any rate.
micometer 1 month ago
@micometer
No problem. :)
You said you had a bit of trouble understanding it, so I thought I'd rephrase it a few different ways and offer some explanation.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun Oh, another mistake on my part; you were saying that "time started with time started." Sheesh, I am not comprehending tonight. I think I'll go back to the rocks where I'm actually informed. *walks off dejected before laughing heartily*
micometer 1 month ago
There's only 40???
davidthmovies 1 month ago
@davidthmovies No, I just stopped at 40.
shanedk 1 month ago
@davidthmovies
There's no sense in trying to count ALL Hovind's lies until after he's dead. Practically every other word counts as its own lie. He can tell more lies than he does sentences. It's really quite amazing. That's why the SI unit of deception is the Hovind, which corresponds to one lie or logical fallacy per second.
rkyeun 1 month ago
lie number 41 -
"I paid all my taxes"
Debunked - go to jail and don't drop the soap.
PRJking 2 months ago
@WhenDreamsTouchFire Ensatina salamanders.
shanedk 3 months ago
@WhenDreamsTouchFire Larus Gulls.
johnrainrules 3 months ago
@WhenDreamsTouchFire
johnrainrules 3 months ago
@WhenDreamsTouchFire Yet according to your own definition of kinds we've seen Ring species that show one kind turning into another.
johnrainrules 3 months ago
@WhenDreamsTouchFire "there is no way to prove it is all i'm saying"
IT'S...BEEN...OBSERVED!!!
shanedk 3 months ago
@shanedk What's hilarious is that he thinks that there is no way to prove the unifying theory of biology, but believes that there is a conspiracy by the Freemasons to kill most of the population of the Earth with no evidence.
johnrainrules 3 months ago
@johnrainrules If he were sane, he wouldn't be a creationist.
shanedk 3 months ago
@shanedk It's almost like they have to believe everything is a conspiracy, including the formation of the planets, weather patterns,and the fall TV line up.
johnrainrules 3 months ago
@WhenDreamsTouchFire So in ring species the middle species are of the same kind as both end species, but the end species are not the same kind as each other?
johnrainrules 3 months ago
@WhenDreamsTouchFire What about ring species? Also give us a precise definition of kind.
johnrainrules 3 months ago
@WhenDreamsTouchFire Yes, we've seen the transitions of MAJOR shifts, from fish to land tetrapod, even from single- to multi-celled!
And you need to watch my video "Fuzzy logic and the definition of species."
shanedk 3 months ago
@WhenDreamsTouchFire "this idea that animals can simply mate over and over for millions of years and over time develop new species (aka kinds), is just preposterous."
We've SEEN IT HAPPEN!!! Speciation has been observed NUMEROUS times!!! You're arguing with OBSERVED FACT!!!
shanedk 3 months ago
@WhenDreamsTouchFire No, they are INTERMEDIATE FORMS which DO exist despite LYING CREATIONISTS LIKE YOU saying it's impossible!
shanedk 3 months ago
@WhenDreamsTouchFire Oh, and it's interesting that you didn't quote this bit from the Wikipedia page: "Contrary to the creationist views, all necessary intermediate stages have been found in extant beetles within or closely related to the bombardier beetle family, with each intermediate giving a definite advantage to the organism."
shanedk 3 months ago
@shanedk Probably because he never read it. Creationists never read the articles they quote, they read the quote mined version on creationist websites.
johnrainrules 3 months ago
@WhenDreamsTouchFire No, only ONE: a catlyst, and Dawkins DID show them what happens with the catalyst.
"that i know for a fact he did not use."
Then--as I just showed--you're a FUCKING LIAR and are in violation of Rule #5. First warning.
"Tell me why he is in prison? no good reason."
No, FRAUD.
shanedk 3 months ago
@WhenDreamsTouchFire "When combined, the reactants undergo a violent exothermic chemical reaction,"
NO...THEY...DO...NOT. Richard Dawkins mixed these two chemicals together in front of a large audience of students and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING HAPPENED.
shanedk 3 months ago
In all fairness, Hovind didn't say that James Hutton was the first to propose an ancient earth but one of the first, and he is absolutely correct in that. Not sticking up for the extremely thick Kent Hovind, I just felt I had to champion James Hutton who, like myself, was an Edinburgh lad. :)
ThomasTrue 4 months ago
Can you please explain the issue of irreducible complexity?
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. - Charles Darwin
jaded423 6 months ago
@jaded423 See "Genetic variability, twin hybrids and constant hybrids, in a case of balanced lethal factors." Genetics 3:422-499. Evolution PREDICTS irreducibly complex structures. They CAN evolve from numerous, successive slight modifications.
shanedk 6 months ago
@jaded423 I think the issue is that Michael Behe, a biochemist (i.e. not an evolutionary biologist) wrote a definition of intelligent design that set unreasonable standards on what constitutes "numerous, successive slight modifications". He says that if a structure, by the removal of one part, would cease its current function, then it is irreducibly complex. That is ridiculous because "part" is very vague. It does little to damage evolution. It is based on ignorance of the individual processes.
MunkyDrag0n 5 months ago
[as well as control of] defecation, and the expulsion of the fetus during labor. For these important reasons, the coccyx can never be classified as a rudimentary or vestigial rudiment of our ancestors.
jaded423 6 months ago
Comment removed
jaded423 6 months ago
"The posterior surfaces [of the coccyx] serve as attachments for the gluteus maximus muscle and the sphincter and externus muscles. The gluteus maximus muscle is essential for defecation and labor during childbirth. The sphincter ani externus muscle is needed to keep the anal canal and orifice closed. These are obviously very important functions. The interior surfaces of the coccygeal vertebrae also serve as important attachments for muscles that aid in the containment of feces within the rectum
jaded423 6 months ago
@jaded423 Bullshit. Just because the coccyx is USED for that doesn't mean it's NECESSARY for that. Why couldn't they just connect to the sacrum?
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk Just because something has a minor role in the body doesnt mean it shouldnt be there. Not everything plays a huge role, you can have four of your toes removed and walk fairly normal, if you remove your pinky toe, the smallest one, you have balance issues.
jaded423 6 months ago
I would agree with you if it had NO use at all, then why would it be there, but because it has some use, then it has a purpose.
jaded423 6 months ago
@jaded423 Except that evolution is great at co-opting purposes. This has been observed, too.
shanedk 6 months ago
@MatawanBullShark "PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACTS" I would settle for one, any one who says it takes millions of years can only start or see the end of an experiment. If you cant be at both ends, you cant be sure the experiment went according to plan.
jaded423 6 months ago
@jaded423 "I would settle for one"
I've got a book full of them. So do Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne.
And you CAN be at both ends. There are LOTS of species with short generation times where this can be observed.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk are you talking about micro evolution (aka variances within the same species) or macro evolution (changes from one species to another)?
jaded423 6 months ago
@jaded423 Speciation has been observed NUMEROUS times, both in the lab and in the wild.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk please give me one example of one species coming from another, find one, I will read about it, and apologize for spreading inaccurate information.
jaded423 6 months ago
@jaded423 Nereis acuminata is one example. Ask for others and I'll provide. Or you can just look it up yourself; it's not like the information's not all over the place!
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk I can find a multitude of examples of minor changes within a species. I was asking for One instance of inter-special evolution. One fossil link between two species, or one species that is alive that is a link between two others. I cannot find an occurrence of either.
jaded423 6 months ago
@jaded423 It's called "speciation." There's no such thing as "inter-special evolution."
"One fossil link between two species, or one species that is alive that is a link between two others."
That would FALSIFY evolution! Don't you get it?
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk What? Proof of evolution would falsify evolution?
jaded423 6 months ago
@jaded423 You are demanding "proof" for something other than evolution! And the proof you're asking for would falsify the REAL theory of evolution. Just like Kirk Cameron and his "crocoduck."
Typical creationist tactic. I might have known you'd resort to it. Nothing but a bunch of liars...
shanedk 6 months ago
@Megaritz God doesnt send people to hell for not believing in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. He sends them there for sinning. Jesus came and died to pay for your sins. Just like a man on death row. If the governor call and grants mercy on that man, he gets to live, but it isnt that the governor didnt call that got him on death row.
jaded423 6 months ago
Comment removed
jaded423 6 months ago
Comment removed
jaded423 6 months ago
In any way I just don't like to see people not only lied to but also sent to hell for believing lies of this world, just read the bible I promise you'll line it if you just give it the same chance you gave evolution
davidisstreet 7 months ago
@davidisstreet "In any way I just don't like to see people not only lied to but also sent to hell for believing lies of this world, just read the bible I promise you'll line it if you just give it the same chance you gave evolution"
Idol threats from a theist, here's my shocked face :D
Why don't YOU put down the frickin bible and try to UNDERSTAND evolution??? Evolution is a NAME for a PROCESS....
TacoBurgher327 7 months ago
@davidisstreet But you know what those fossils DO prove: that the transitional species creationists constantly claim are imposssible without a doubt existed!!!!
"because the have been bombarded with evolutionary theory since childhood" - Oh yeah.........curse those evil teachers for exposing the malleable minds of innocent children to all those......PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACTS. How awful.......
MatawanBullShark 7 months ago
@davidisstreet Why would God let people be sent people to an eternal Hell just for believing lies? Surely those people were victims and would not deserve such a fate?
Megaritz 7 months ago
Fail to remotely comprehend even the most minute point in regaurds to actually understanding the truth here. The information that he has been lieing about is no different than evolutionists lieing about their published information. And the creationists who believe in evolution only believe that because they have been bombbarded with the evolutionary theory since they were small children so they have just become another victim to the evolutionary religion. And I'm not trying to slander you in
davidisstreet 7 months ago
@davidisstreet "The information that he has been lieing about is no different than evolutionists lieing about their published information. "
Which lies again?? Those peer reviewed, testable studies that YOU can test?? Oh, ok then.....
Why don't YOU test evolution, if you have a problem with it, or think people are "lying" to you?
TacoBurgher327 7 months ago
@davidisstreet "And the creationists who believe in evolution only believe that because they have been bombbarded with the evolutionary theory since they were small children "
Ya, i'm sure the MANY theists who are scientists simply "believe" evolution because they were taught it. TESTING couldn't have anything to do with it, right? That would just be silly......
TacoBurgher327 7 months ago
You're missing the whole point behind his video's, we want to get lies out of the text books, you can't prove for 1 that fossils ever even had a baby, (there's where it becomes a religion) because it's no longer science but a belief in something that you cannot test the scientific method on. But despite it not being able to be proved these supposed facts are hardwired into our kids from the moment they enter public school. You're so quick to pull the trigger and to pont out minor flaws that you
davidisstreet 7 months ago
but hovind does not talk about stars! He is talking about the period of everything that exploded in the big bang. (Im commenting from my phone so i cant post comment responses)
jesse8857 7 months ago
@jesse8857 More bullshit handwaving. What's it's supposed to be spinning in relation to? Why will you not answer this question?
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk According to our logic, the universe cannot be expanding from the big bang since there is nothing for it to be expanding in relation to.
Look, if there is a spinning top, and we destroy everything but the spinning top, will it stop spinning?
jesse8857 7 months ago
@jesse8857 No, you're thinking about the Big Bang wrong. The Big Bang is NOT the expansion of matter and energy into an existing space; it's the expansion of space-time itself. It's expanding in relation to itself, because it now takes longer to go across the universe than it did before. But it CAN'T be spinning because THERE'S NOTHING FOR IT TI BE SPINNING IN RELATION TO!!!
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk How said that I said the big bang was an expansion of matter? Space(time) itself cannot be expanding for there is nothing for it to be expanding in relation to!!!!!
jesse8857 7 months ago
@jesse8857 That's complete nonsense! Do you even understand the concept? Space is expanding because the distance between point A and point B is getting bigger. There does NOT need to be an external space for it to expand into BECAUSE IT MAKES ITS OWN SPACE!!!
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk my point was, how can the universe be getting bigger when there is nothing in relation it can be getting bigger to? we can observe it is getting bigger inside the universe, but that doesn't help your case.
something spinning does not need to be spinning in relation to something else to be spinning. if we destroy everything but a spinning top, will it stop spinning? I'd be interested in you're reply
jesse8857 7 months ago
@jesse8857 Things in the universe ARE GETTING FURTHER APART. The INTERNAL SIZE of the universe is getting bigger, so your point is just pathetic ignorance.
"something spinning does not need to be spinning in relation to something else to be spinning." Yes, it absolutely does! Basic physics!
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk Yes, yes, yes I know that we can measure that the universe is getting bigger. But it cannot be, according to your logic, because it is not in relation to anything to outside of the universe! Because of this, it cannot be getting bigger, when we KNOW it is.
Now, we would have ways to test if the "period" was spinning [if we were there], while it is not spinning in relation to anything outside of the universe.
Funny how you ignore my analogy of the spinning top aswell...
jesse8857 7 months ago
@jesse8857 "But it cannot be, according to your logic, because it is not in relation to anything to outside of the universe!"
Outside is IRRELEVANT in this case!!! The universe CAN AND IS getting bigger in relation to itself. It CANNOT be spinning because THEN it needs an outside to compare it to! Because otherwise the whole universe would be spinning together!
Why don't you get it? Does creationism disease the mind THIS much???
shanedk 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shanedk "The universe CAN AND IS getting bigger in relation to itself." in the same way, we would have ways to test if the period was spinning without going 'outside' the universe.
"Oh, and I ignore it because the spinning top EXISTS INSIDE SPACE-TIME. The universe IS space-time!"
no, it does not exist inside space and time. I said get rid of EVERYTHING outside the top. it may LOOK like it stops spinning if we do this, but it doesn't stop altogether.
jesse8857 7 months ago
@jesse8857 Oh, and I ignore it because the spinning top EXISTS INSIDE SPACE-TIME. The universe IS space-time!
shanedk 7 months ago
Talk smack all you want, but Kent Hovind will live eternally in Heaven with Jesus the Creator....
Can you say the same?
Laylow4now 8 months ago
@Laylow4now Really? I thought unrepentant liars couldn't be saved.
shanedk 8 months ago
Check out my video response. Now Shane, if there is anything wrong in there, I'll change it - but don't attack me and call me a LIAR and all that. I believe it is all correct however.
jesse8857 8 months ago
@jesse8857 "Adding comments has been disabled for this video."
You're a FUCKING COWARD. And a typical creationist.
And one only needs to watch a few seconds to see what a LIAR you are--no, Kent is NOT TALKING ABOUT THE UNIVERSE, because he's using it to debunk LOCAL EFFECTS like evolution!
ALL CREATIONISTS ARE LIARS.
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk wow here we go again with Shane the LIAR shouter. Do me a favour, watch Hovind's videos will you? I watched every one at least 3 times, so I know. Hovind is using the First Law to debunk the big bang-not evolution.
I disable comments because of attacking evolutionists like you.
jesse8857 8 months ago
@jesse8857 I've not only watch them, I've debunked them. Check out my other videos.
"Hovind is using the First Law to debunk the big bang"
The first law DOES NOT APPLY TO THE BIG BANG. I really wonder why you creationists a) think it does and b) completely IGNORE those of us who know what we're talking about when we try to explain otherwise!
And he HAS used it to debunk evolution, too.
No, ANYONE who disables comments is a FUCKING COWARD.
shanedk 8 months ago
@jesse8857 Hey, LIAR, if you're going to give your lame-ass excuse for blocking comments and tell people to post video responses as well, you should NOT FUCKING BLOCK VIDEO RESPONSES TOO!!!
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk Um blocking video responses? No I did not!
The only thing you can come up with is the first law. All the other stuff is debunked by Hovind's OWN WORDS.
By shane. I'm not coming back to this channel. Perhaps.
jesse8857 8 months ago
@jesse8857 Then how come it told me couldn't when I clicked on the option? YOU ARE A LIAR.
The rest of your video was EVERY BIT AS MUCH the lie as the one I pointed out--and anyone who's seen my other videos ripping apart Kent's lectures knows it! HE is a liar, YOU are a liar, ALL of you disgusting immoral worms are liars!
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk um no. I know it's allowing video responses since I specifically made sure that was possible!
No it wasn't. If you didn't notice, you claimed Kent said stuff "quotes" are scientifically incorrect. I then put excerpts of Kent's 2007 seminar and his much more scientific college courses in there to show he knows what he's talking about. You can't simply look at his 1993 seminars and claim he lies.
All you can do is shout LIAR LIAR to drown out the facts staring you in the face.
jesse8857 8 months ago
@jesse8857 "I then put excerpts of Kent's 2007 seminar and his much more scientific college courses in there to show he knows what he's talking about."
Except you DIDN'T. NOTHING he said is scientifically accurate, and you did NOTHING to show that it was.
I'm calling you a liar because YOU ARE LYING. DEAL with it.
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk Someone actually gave that nut a job, much less let him teach a college class?
...Excuse me. I need to go throw up.
Virgil0211 8 months ago
@Virgil0211 Kent Hovind never taught a college course in his life.
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk I was going by jesse8857's statement which referenced his "much more scientific college courses". Either way, it doesn't bode well if he made them as late as 2007.
Virgil0211 8 months ago
@Virgil0211 He CAN'T have made them in 2007 because he was in Federal prison at the time (and still is).
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk Huh... False alarm, then. Guess I can save going mad for next week. =P
Virgil0211 8 months ago
@shanedk on the contrary, CSE 101, 102, 103, 104, 201.
jesse8857 7 months ago
@jesse8857 Like your LIE about the second law--no he is NOT merely stating it simply for his audience; his ENTIRE POINT is based ENTIRELY on this dumbed-down AND INACCURATE version! As I showed quite clearly in my video, NOT everything is increasing in entropy. YOU ARE A LIAR.
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk Do you want me to quote Isaac Asimov when he states it like Hovind does?
jesse8857 7 months ago
@jesse8857 I don't care if you've got Egyptian stone tablets that say it. It's WRONG!
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk Isaac Asimov should know what it means since he wrote a book on the subject.
You've got to understand, if Hovind comes into a church saying that "the net entropy of the universe must increase," who's going to know what he's saying? The reason Hovind says "EVERYTHING tends toward disorder" is because he knows that adding energy cannot overcome the 2nd law unless there's a mechanism to harness the energy - chlorophyll being the example. In fact, energy is destructive.
jesse8857 7 months ago
@jesse8857 But again, it's NOT everything that's tending towards disorder! And if you look at universal expansion, you learn that the POTENTIAL for entropy is increasing at a GREATER RATE than the entropy itself! Meaning that we actually have a GREATER amount of order (if you want to call it that, it's not the best term for a lack of entropy) throughout the universe. And that will happen until those two curves meet.
shanedk 7 months ago
@jesse8857 And the next one: he's talking about the "Nebular Hypothesis theory of the Big Bang"??? Do you even know what you're talking about? The Nebular Hypothesis is about the CREATION OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM, NOT the Big Bang and the creation of the Universe!
You LIE, and you support your lies with OTHER LIES.
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk The modern nebular hypothesis is about the solar system. watch his seminar will you? there are 50 different hypothesis of the big bang - one of which was called the nebular hypothesis.
jesse8857 7 months ago
@jesse8857 "The modern nebular hypothesis is about the solar system." Uh, LIAR, I was the one that told YOU that!
"watch his seminar will you?" I have! HE WAS TALKING ABOUT THE BIG BANG!!! NOT the creation of the solar system! As I just told you!!!
"there are 50 different hypothesis of the big bang - one of which was called the nebular hypothesis." Well, make up your mind--is the nebular hypothesis about the creation of the solar system or the Big Bang?
shanedk 7 months ago
Respond to this video...
jesse8857 7 months ago
Respond to this video... "Uh, LIAR, I was the one that told YOU that!" I know what the nebular hypothesis is!
So which seminar was that? was it one from 20 years ago?
Hovind includes it with the theories of the big bang. Either way, if it is about the solar system [doubtful] or the big bang, your quote from Hovind is WELL out of date. He does not say anything of the kind. So I win either way.
jesse8857 7 months ago
@jesse8857 "I know what the nebular hypothesis is!" You can't even make up your mind if it's about the formation of the solar system or the Big Bang!
"Hovind includes it with the theories of the big bang." And that is WRONG. It has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the Big Bang. The Big Bang had been over for 9 BILLION YEARS before that happened!
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk There used to be a theory of the big bang back in the 1930s I believe, called the nebular hypothesis. correct me if I am wrong though. However, if I am wrong in saying Hovind means the big bang when he says nebular hypothesis, it would matter so much because you are still wrong when you cite Hovind's "quote".
jesse8857 7 months ago
@jesse8857 You ARE wrong. The Big Bang theory is a consequence of General Relativity. The nebular hypothesis was ALWAYS about the solar system.
And Hovind IS trying to talk about the Big Bang; that was my point! The Big Bang is the FORMATION OF THE UNIVERSE--what is it spinning in relation to?
shanedk 7 months ago
@jesse8857 And your next LIE: "Because the 'singularity' contained ALL THE MATTER IN THE UNIVERSE, gravity would have been so strong it would bind everything together. Thus, the outer part is connected to the inner part by the immense gravity, meaning it spun faster."
COME ON--we've known this was bullshit since Kepler! The gravitational equations DO NOT WORK THAT WAY. Why isn't Neptune going around the sun faster than the Earth? Huh?
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk Because it is so far away compared to earth. Simply put, neptune does not receive as much gravity as earth does, therefore, spins slower. The period of matter the "exploded" was only the size of a dot. therefore, gravity would have been immense.
jesse8857 7 months ago
@jesse8857 "Simply put, neptune does not receive as much gravity as earth does, therefore, spins slower."
Sheesh...why do I even try???
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk Gravity from the sun is much weaker at neptune thanks to the inverse square law. therefore, it will be left behind in the spinning. With the big bang "period", the gravity would have been absolutely immense [because it contained all the matter in the universe] therefore, the period would essentially act as one. this is very different from the neptune analogy.
jesse8857 7 months ago
@jesse8857 What does gravity have to do with Neptune's spin?
Hovind says the stars further away from galactic center should be going around FASTER. Kepler says he's wrong. End of.
shanedk 7 months ago
@jesse8857 Well? Shall I go on? Are you EVER going to respond to your horrendous LIES? Or are you just going to hide away on your bullshit little channel and stop anyone and everyone to comment on your hideous stupidity?
shanedk 8 months ago
@jesse8857 Since you're too much of a COWARD to turn on comments on your video, are you going to respond to the criticisms of your LYING video that I posted here? Huh? Or are you just going to keep running and hiding from your own dishonesty?
shanedk 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shanedk Already have.
"Or are you just going to keep running and hiding from your own dishonesty?" No I'm not bothered talking to people who can't talk properly and continuously shout LIAR LIAR LIAR.
I told you before, I'm not coming back to this channel. That's it.
jesse8857 8 months ago
@shanedk sorry - didn't see your comments
jesse8857 7 months ago
Hovind is correct 19/19 times
spbrhs07 8 months ago
@spbrhs07 So you assert, but it's been PROVEN otherwise. Hovind is a LIAR.
shanedk 8 months ago
I'm a Old Earth Creationist, and this is a great video
Forallilovebook 8 months ago
Because you are saying that the 'dust' aka matter or concentrated energy was created which still contradicts the first law
stepharnos 8 months ago
2:24 what so nothing exploded, wow I never knew there could be so much jargon about nothing exploding and even in your correction of number 3 you still shoot yourself in the foot
stepharnos 8 months ago
Fucking creationists, how do they work?
vspqbd 9 months ago
@vspqbd Great argument for evolution. All I hear is anger, no proof, proving again and again that evolution is a religion, not science.
petertrast 9 months ago
@petertrast It's not anger, it's indignation, which is how honest people react when others lie to them. Of course, as a creationist, I wouldn't expect you to understand how honest people react...
shanedk 9 months ago
Lie #19 "Jumps take millions of years"??? And yet, no transitional fossils, no proof that it happened. Again, pure speculation requiring faith in the religion of evolution.
petertrast 9 months ago
@petertrast "And yet, no transitional fossils,"
There are THOUSANDS of transitional fossils. How long do you creationists think you're going to get away with this LIE?
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk Lucy proves how much structure is made from so little material. her skull is 90% made up. I would like to see evidence. Not bits of fragments that clearly can be interpreted many ways. Australopithicus afarensis for those of you who do not know Lucy...
petertrast 9 months ago
@petertrast "Her skull is 90% made up."
LIAR. We have LOTS of A. afarensis skulls.
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk Lots?? Please cite the evidence, I would like to see them. Really. I would. And I would like to know what percentage of the skulls were found and were "extrapolated".
petertrast 9 months ago
@petertrast Just do a search!
And 100% of them were found. Deal with it.
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk In part 2 of this, you said Darwin meant species when he said races [if I understand correctly]. Is there any evidence of this, or references?
jesse8857 8 months ago
@jesse8857 Just read it. It's as clear as it could possibly be.
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk I've searched it up and found nothing...? Also, read the title of his book - one part says species and then the other part says races...
jesse8857 8 months ago
@jesse8857 Yes, just as someone might say "sunset" and then turn around and say "twilight." So what?
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk so let's have a listen to the title of his book then... "On the Origin of Species ... by the Preservation of Favored Species in the Struggle for life." This does not make sense. Does it?
jesse8857 8 months ago
@jesse8857 Makes perfect sense to me! Why do you think it doesn't?
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk Well, it means if we preserve the best [favored] species, new species comes about. Doesn't make sense to me... But please, I'd like to get a reference for this. Do you have one?
jesse8857 8 months ago
@jesse8857 Um, no, it doesn't. It means that if a better species comes along, it's favored over the older species. What do you mean, reference? JUST READ THE BOOK! You clearly don't understand how evolution works. Educate yourself!
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk I have never heard someone say such a thing. I searched it up on the internet and found nothing. I have the right to be skeptical... If I remember correctly, you said in the vid that Darwin said "the most weighty of all the arguments against races being distinct species is that they graduate into each other..." Please comment on it?
Now tell me, I'd really like to know where you got the Hovind quotes from? What year of seminar did you watch?
jesse8857 8 months ago
@jesse8857 "I have never heard someone say such a thing." Then you don't know the first fucking thing about how evolution works.
"I have the right to be skeptical." You don't have the right to refuse to learn and continue to say wrong things.
Your other quote from Darwin is the Descent of Man, NOT Origin of Species, and there he WAS talking about the races of man. Dishonest bait-and-switch (just like a creationist).
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk No need to get all attacking now! When I said I never heard someone say such a thing, I meant I've never heard someone say how race means species. The supposed same meaning of race and species has absolutely nothing to do with how evolution "works".
So when Hovind gives quotes from Descent of Man about racism, does he mean racism or not??
jesse8857 8 months ago
Lie #14 - And what is your source for the assertion that this view existed "at least a century before Darwin"? We are supposed to take YOUR word as you accuse the "stupid" Christians of doing with Hovind??
petertrast 9 months ago
@petertrast Who do you think Lamarck was?
shanedk 9 months ago
Lie #14 - He did not say "everybody", he said almost. Do you fail to understand the distinction? If there were "some" scholars who believed otherwise, but the vast majority held the "Christian" view, his statement of "almost everybody" is not a LIE, but MAYBE an exaggeration I will grant. Still, not a LIE as you claim.
petertrast 9 months ago
@petertrast My book goes into this in detail. There was not IN ANY WAY a scientific consensus for a 6,000 year Earth in the century prior to Darwin. IT IS A LIE.
shanedk 9 months ago
Lie #13 - cont - "Die Explosionschemie der Bombardierkafer (Coleoptera, Carabidae)," Zeitschrift fur Naturforschung, Vol. 23 (1968), pp. 1213-1218. The purpose of this article is to study the nature of the catalysts that make the otherwise inert hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone explode. German entomologist, expert on the beetle. So Hovind did not explain (or understand) the whole process. But a German bug expert basically backs up the concept
petertrast 9 months ago
Lie #13 - cont - "During the "pop," the contents of the paired pygidial defense bladders of the bombardier beetle (hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone) are squeezed in small portions into chitinous chambers, and there they are explosively transformed into oxygen, quinone, and water. This explosion-chamber reaction is catalyzed by enzymes, which are emptied as a dark brown 40-60% albumin solution out of one-celled annex-glands into the front chamber." So it is MORE complex and DOES explode.
petertrast 9 months ago
@petertrast DIRECT QUOTE FROM THE VIDEO: "No, they don't. Mix these two chemicals together, and nothing happens." It's the SCIENTISTS that say you need a catalyst! HOVIND said that they explode without one! YOU LIAR!!!
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk Angrily shouting names just continues to prove how weak your position is. But I expect that from those who are caught in the act of misleading. Funny how you fail to respond concerning the USGS document. Carbon-14 dating has been proven over and over again to be severely flawed, yet evolution religionists continue to claim otherwise and just shout liar over and over or ignore the evidence.
petertrast 9 months ago
@petertrast "Angrily shouting names just continues to prove how weak your position is"
Typical bullshit response from a proven LIAR. That's what they ALL say: no "You're wrong and here's why." You were caught in a LIE, so your ONLY option is to try to impugn my character. Desperate and pathetic.
"Carbon-14 dating has been proven over and over again to be severely flawed"
You repeating the LIE does not make it true.
shanedk 9 months ago
Lie #13 - So you lie by OMISSION. It is well documented and you are correct that the first 2 chemicals do not explode by mixing BUT by the introduction of catalysts. (cont)
petertrast 9 months ago
@petertrast No one said they didn't have a catalyst, LIAR! In fact, HOVIND is the one saying that they explode without one!!! Dawkins himself mixed the two together and there was NO REACTION--see his Growing Up In The Universe lectures. SCIENTISTS say you need a catalyst! HOVIND says you need an INHIBITOR!!!
So you have just MASSIVELY LIED about who says what, attributing Hovind's claim to the scientists and vice-versa! Did you REALLY think you could get away with that crap?
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk 1st you say "Go watch the Growing Up In The Universe lectures where Richard Dawkins mixes the two chemicals together in front of a live audience and shows CLEARLY that they DO react" then you say "No one said they didn't have a catalyst, LIAR! In fact, HOVIND is the one saying that they explode without one!!! Dawkins himself mixed the two together and there was NO REACTION". You are obviously crazy to contradict yourself so blatantly. Checkmate. Goodbye. Good luck. I will pray for you.
petertrast 9 months ago
@petertrast What the fuck are you blathering about?
So now you're making up lies about what I said! In the GUitU lecture, Dawkins mixes the two chemicals together and NOTHING HAPPENS. He then puts the peroxide IN A CATALYST and that DOES react! COMPLETELY in contradiction with what Hovind says.
You have NO response to that WHATSOEVER, so your only recourse is to LIE. Pathetic.
shanedk 9 months ago
Lie #12 - Brachinus explodens ( why name it that?) ejects a boiling hot mixture for defense, 100 degrees C reported by the BBC. Maybe it's not fire but or plastique but it works. The "scientists" who named it, no doubt evolutionists, are partly to blame.
petertrast 9 months ago
Lie#8 - "Creationists are stupid and too easily duped to check sources". Checked. And found you were right about the mammoth but failed to report the Ovibos on page 30 or 34 depending on the page numbering. You were sloppy to miss this, or should I say "too stupid and too easily duped".
petertrast 9 months ago
@petertrast You've already been corrected on this, LIAR. The document CLEARLY says they're two different specimens! You're making the SAME LIE AS HOVIND!!!
ALL CREATIONISTS ARE LIARS.
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk So again you just continue to shout liar. Obviously I may have to disengage you after I quite correctly specified the document and page number and text that proves the same animal was dated with 2 different ages. Did you even look at the document to see what I was pointing out or are you referencing a different document? I have not even written a book and I do not engage like this regularly, yet I find falsehood in your post easily and you ignore it. Wish I knew why. Oh yeah, religion.
petertrast 9 months ago
@petertrast Yes, I pointed out what you did, LIAR! Conflating the term "same animal" (species) with "same specimen" (individual). You're trying to make it look like the EXACT SAME SPECIMEN--the EXACT SAME INDIVIDUAL gave two different dates. EXACTLY the same lie that Hovind told about the mammoths!
shanedk 9 months ago
Lie #3 - 13 billion years ago you say?? Well, the "old theory was that the universe was only 4 or 5 billion years old until the Hubble could see 12 billion light years, so the age of the universe got revised up to 14 billion since we could not see that far to prove the theory wrong and no doubt the liars -- erm, astrophysicists -- will update next time Hubble gets LASIK surgery. So it's just a guess, even Hawking says as much.
petertrast 9 months ago
@petertrast "old theory was that the universe was only 4 or 5 billion years old until the Hubble could see 12 billion light years"
LIE.
shanedk 9 months ago
Lie#10 - Google african pterodactyl and you will find numerous websites talking about reported sightings. HE did not make it up, he just passed on what he read. Now, granted, I have not seen or heard of proof. But calling him a liar is dishonest. Naive and gullible, maybe. But a liar? Only if he knew for a fact that it was NOT true which anyone with logic knows is impossible since you cannot prove a negative. 2 out of 40 you are wrong and I am just picking the ones EASY to research.
petertrast 9 months ago
@petertrast "Google african pterodactyl and you will find numerous websites talking about reported sightings."
I can do the same with Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster. So what?
shanedk 9 months ago
Lie #8 - So you you are right about the mammoth BUT then you omit or fail to research and see that the "hair from the hind limb" of an "Ovibos" SI-454 was dated at 17,1210 +/- 500 years and the "Muscle from scalp Ovibus (same animal as SI-454)" was dated 24,140 +/- 2200 years old in that document, page 34, so YOUR credibility is null. Are you lying by omission or a bad researcher? Either way, YOU can't be trusted. Only 1 checked so far. 39 to go.
petertrast 9 months ago
@petertrast You are a LIAR. The document says NO SUCH THING. Those are two different specimens--AGAIN!
You fucking creationists just don't know when to stop lying, do you?
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk Easy to call me a liar rather than read the document. i will try to post a link without the right format so I can get it posted since youtube blocks links. If you are smart enough to put it together, you will see I am right 3w dggs.alaska.gov webpubs usgs p text p0862.PDF If you can post a link to the doc you are talking about, we will see who is lying. It actually says "same animal". Anyone reading this who wants to know the truth send me a personal message, I will send you the link
petertrast 9 months ago
@petertrast and stop displaying the same intellectual laziness as the idiot who posted this video. I am just getting started going through the "LIES" to expose the dishonesty of the video poster. I agree that Hovind misquoted the physics laws. But you need to make sure you are RIGHT when making assertions that someone is a liar or you end up looking like a moron yourself. I was talking about the Ovibos NOT the mammoth, same site, same collector and date, same reference, SAME ANIMAL it states.
petertrast 9 months ago
@petertrast I AM the video poster. And YOU ARE A LIAR.
shanedk 9 months ago
@petertrast "Easy to call me a liar rather than read the document."
I HAVE read the document! I still have it on my computer. They are TWO DIFFERENT SPECIMENS!!! It says that CLEARLY!!!
"It actually says "same animal"." Oh, YOU FUCKING LIAR!!! You KNOW there's a difference between the same "animal" and the same "specimen"! Two different dogs are still the same animal!
LIAR.
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk I don't know any such thing. If you could stop shouting and just reason we might get somewhere. I now prove to you my honesty. Is it not possible to have 2 specimens from the same animal?? I would expect to see same species if that was what he meant. Same animal indicates to me the 2 different specimens came from the "same animal". The meaning appears plain. So you mean to say that the scientist was referring to 2 completely different animals of the same species? Not very plain.
petertrast 9 months ago
@shanedk so use the letter w 3 times in front of this link I sent dggs.alaska.gov/webpubs/usgs/p/text/p0862.PDF to get the document, page 34 of the pdf, or if you are too stupid, the page that has the number 30 on it. I said page 34 because it is the 34th page of the pdf file but it says 30 at the top. Clear enough or do you need someone to read it to you? If you want to call me a liar, learn how to read a page number in more than one place and work without someone holding your hand
petertrast 9 months ago