@pickle808 There is no evidence that the universe ever did not exist. And if it did not exist, there are several theories to how this happened. We have observed the spontaneous creation of particles due to the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics. The odds of this happening for something as massive as the universe are extremely low, but as there would be an infinite amount of time all probabilities automatically become 1, therefore necessitating the creation of the universe.
The kid doing the commentary in this video is annoying as piss. He's so arrogant and didn't do anything but ramble on with his petty insults towards Kent Hovind. Big Bang is a joke.
Hovind mind is small. He arrogantly mocks attempts by science to understand the world by evaluating the evidence .... yet he willingly believes in the "hocus pocus" of creationism without question .....????
What I see a lot of folks doing in this is missing the most obvious bit of it entirely. You don't have to go through all of the scientific theories to debunk his claim when a simple matter of semantics will do the job in far less time. Hovind cannot promote both the 1st Law of Thermodynamics and Creationism at the same time. If matter cannot be created, as he says, then it cannot have a creator. Period. Simple semantics.
@swordnquil I think you're missing a fundamental point in your response. Lets say that there is a God (sounds like you don't believe so). Now if there is a God, then He must be superior to everything that He creates, or else He is not God. Therefore, if He created a universe, then He also created the Laws that govern this Universe. Again, this would make Him superior to the Laws that govern nature. Thus you are essentially saying that the creator MUST be governed by His creation.
@pickle808 And the fundamental point *you're* missing in your zeal is that I am talking about *semantics*. If energy cannot be CREATED, it cannot have a CREATOR. I don't care what that creator is or where it lives. If something cannot be created, it cannot, therefore, have someone or something that CREATED it.
If something CREATED energy, then it CAN be CREATED.
See how simple that is when you stick to the real topic of my post? Semantics? NOT theology?
If you all had any sense you would see that all evidence given is cited, and based on Einstein's theory of relativity the 1st law of thermodynamics does apply to matter. But I know based on the posts here dont intend to discern truth by research but will blindly follow the easy path of ignorance. If not chk out CARM dare to question yourself, I do. Romans 1
Ok religious people here the laughter at 7:13? You know how funny that is right? Thats how we think of you guys when you go on and on about your invisible friend in the sky.
@Samuelwhatshisface no, hovind doesnt really beleive this shit, hes been told many times that what he says is wrong, not that the theories are right (they are) but hes been told that the way he explains them is wrong. basicaly hes a fucking liar like most creationists
@seethelightofgod why you waiting for scientist to create life? bigbang, evolution and global warming are not hoaxes, but please explain to me what you think each of these theories say. oh yeh, stop talking shit about science you ingrate, the computer your on with the electricity your using in the house all were made by using SCIENCE. science, it works bitch
10:31 - he of course forgets to mention that on top of being an astronomer and prof. of physics, Lemaitre was a catholic priest...proving that you can be a person of faith and a man of science, and not a charlatan in all senses of the word. Honestly, who goes and listens to that guy ? These videos scare me.
people like this dont ever struggle in their life or go to school and make money by jus talkin bullshit...i wonder how rich this guy is...wasnt there somthin in the bible sayin its impossible for a rich man to go to heaven...so if there is a heaven this guys goin to hell
I have to announce, in Traditional Latin; V's are pronounced as W's, in church Latin, or the Latin used by the Catholic church, V's are pronounced the same as in English.... even though I feel like a dick for explaining that...
I know dumpling. I was parodying creationists. I even added (I think) atheists say. As we all know; atheists don't make any assertions about anything. I was highlighting the fact that people who believe in the christian god are numb to the possibility that he doesn't exist, which leads them to use him to explain natural phenomenon. They are taught that matter has not been observed to be created or destroyed, and use god to explain its creation, forgetting that god doesn't exist.
The major leaders of Christian or Creation apologetics basically agree with what Hovind is saying. He is not the ONLY one who says what he says most of the other creation scientists have done the same research he has done, so would you PLEASE stop calling it "Hovindism", because he is not starting an abusive cult like Islam or Communism, but he's only trying to win your heart to the Lord.
Oh no~! The leaders of ignorance and stupidity agree with Hovind~! We must convert right away~! Psshh, if he is trying to convert people to religion in general, it's abusive. It's common sense that he isn't the ONLY one saying this stuff, he just seems to quack the loudest. Kind of like the banana man.
Hovind is an embarrassment to creationists, and their standards really aren't very high. You can find many of his arguments listed on Christian apologetics websites under "stupid arguments which were debunked long ago and will make you look stupid and get you laughed at if you mention them among educated and/or intelligent people". Or something to that effect.
I need my heart for pumping, your Lord can have it when I'm dead.
And as for abusive cults, ask the Jews or the Gnostics or the Cathars or the falsely accused witches what they think of Christianity. Well, you can ask the Jews anyway, the Christers haven't killed all of them yet. Watch Jesus Camp to see how some of them are raising the next generation of holy warriors. Many of us have had it with religious dishonesty and manipulation.
Good to know that Hovand has the same scientific knowledge and critical thinking abilitys that L. Ron Hubbard possessed. At least Hubbard was smart enough to take to high seas to stay out of jail.
That is the standard response I get when I ask "What is the evidence for evolution?".
It makes me think, that the evidence is so weak that they are too scared to state it.
For your information. There are 600 scientists who have signed a public document expressing doubt about the theory of evolution. Over 50% of the American public have not confidence in it.
Actually, the list to which you are referring simply was a declaration that these scientists remain SKEPTICAL about the theory of natural selection through random mutation. ANY scientist remains skeptical of ANY theory; else it would become dogma. A survey of these scientists reveals that most of them are not even biologists (some of them not even scientists), and MOST of them (including ALL of those that actually ARE biologists) completely accept that evolution happens.
For your information, there are 4 times as many historians who doubt the holocaust as scientists who doubt evolution. It is true that more than half of the US population does not believe in it, but then I have yet to meet a person who doubts evolution and still thoroughly understands it. The evidence is plentiful. All you need do is look for it.
"he evidence is plentiful. All you need do is look for it." This is definitely NOT true. If there is so much evidence. Where is it and what is it?. I am continually being told that the evidence is overwhelming but when I ask. What is the evidence to prove Darwinian evolution beyond reasonable doubt. All I get is a string of nonesensical, scientific sounding words which prove only that there must NOT be any real evidence, otherwise they would give it.
Some of the evidence is indeed technical, which is why I think some people have a hard time grasping it. Also, a vast majority of it is simply shrugged off because people fail to grasp its significance. Nonetheless, I will list a few examples. Our fossil record is so complete that we have literally thousands of examples of transitional forms, and can paint a very thorough picture of exactly how a large portion of species evolved, with very little imagination needed.
DNA testing of currently living species proves common descent, and can be used to map a phylogenetic tree that EXACTLY matches what the fossil record says.
We actually see evolution happening, both micro and macro. We have SEEN speciation events. We have SEEN how species adapt to their environments, and I'm not just talking about microorganisms.
Vestigial organs present a very strong case for evolution. This is when an organ that was previously used by a species' ancestor is not longer used, and tends to go away over time. We see this in all stages. It is the reason we humans still have genes for making tails, chicken for making teeth, and so on.
One great example of the early stages of this can be seen in the wings of the flightless cormorant, found on the Galapagos Islands. Other species of cormorant that are found in other parts of the world fly, and use the instinctive behavior of drying off their wings in the wind. The flightless species, which evolved rapidly and separately, no longer can fly (their wings are now too small), yet still exhibit this same behavior. I could look up many, many more examples, but I don't have time.
My guess is you probably will dismiss everything I've said, because you won't really take the time to think of the significance of this evidence. I encourage you to do some serious studying on your own and discover what scientists ACTUALLY know...it's a lot more than you think.
All vestigial organs are observed. We know they are vestigial because, for one, they serve no apparent purpose. Also, we can see the same organs functioning in closely related species, as well as a progression from functioning organs to non-functioning vestigial organs in the fossil record.
Our tail "bone' is actually the remnant of a vestigial organ. We still have the genes for making tails. Wisdom teeth are another example in humans. However, far more examples exist in other species. I gave the example of the wings of the flightless cormorant. Another example would be the eyes some species of cave-dwelling salamanders have, even though they are completely blind.
Your assertion that the tailbone (coccyx) is vestigial (ie serving no purpose) is quite incorret. Go to Wikipedia and see what is says under "Function". Among other things it states "it is an important attachment for various muscles, tendons and ligaments"
Please, lets talk science not evolutionary fairytales.
You're asking how we know what the original function of a tail was? Or the vestigial wings of the flightless cormorant?
I have presented quite a bit of evidence, but you have either chosen to ignore it or simply don't understand it. Let me ask you this: what evidence WOULD it take to convince you? Is that even conceivable? If the answer is no, then I'm simply wasting my time.
The difference between science (including evolution) and religion is that all science is based on evidence. Evolution is not a dogmatic belief. It would be incredibly easy to disprove it, yet no such proof has yet surfaced. If it did, however, evolution would be abandoned overnight, provided a new, better theory could replace it. However, even if evolution WERE proved wrong, it would not prove Creation correct...by any means.
Evolution...as with any science...takes absolutely no faith to accept. I myself accept it because I have seen the evidence for it and understand its implications. Show me a SINGLE FOSSIL that was discovered out of place (such as the proverbial pre-Cambrian bunny) and evolution would fall apart (provided the fossil was legit and could be shown to not be a hoax).
I must say I find it amusing that Creationists constantly try to discredit Evolution by claiming that it is a 'religion', yet in the same breath claim that faith is a virtue when applied to their own beliefs. Essentially, they are trying to bring science down to the level of religion, and simultaneously trumping their own version of religion up to be absolute truth. Hypocritical?
Try the local natural history museum :) The truth is, every fossil is a transitional form. Evolution is not a stair-step, but a gentle slope. The more fossils we find, the harder it becomes to tell how to categorize them, because the "gaps" become nonexistent. This is nearly true for the evolution from our last common ancestor with apes and modern humans.
If you want specific, spectacular examples, look up Tiktaalik and Microraptor.
"The truth is, every fossil is a transitional form" With all due respect. What you are asserting is NOT science but wishful thinking. Darwins assertion is that all living things are related, hence there should be thousands of transitional forms linking all the different animals. Darwin himself stated that without transitional forms his theory would crumble.
The only conclusion we can draw from one fossil is that the animal died. This does NOT prove evolution
Every fossil is a transitional form because life is constantly evolving. Every stage in evolution is a fully functional organism. Did you even look up the two examples I gave you? Since you seem to be fond of Wikipedia, look up "List of transitional fossils". If fossils won't convince you, what will? What else are you expecting?
I take it from your statement about "one fossil" that you assume we only have one example of archaeopteryx, tiktaalik, microraptor, and so on. This would be blatantly incorrect. We currently have over 10 individuals of tiktaalik, and 11 examples of archaeopterix (several complete with fossilized impressions of feathers). I couldn't find any documentation as to how many specimens of microraptor have been found, but all sources alluded to quite a few.
I took your advice and went to Wikipedia. It was interesting - but the question is: Does it contain adequate scientific information for prove that core tennant of Darwinian evolution that ALL living things had a common ancestor?. That from simplicity we progressed tocomplexity WITHOUT any external intervention.
That a complex design was produced WITHOUT a designer.
All I saw was many artists impressions. I did not see any proof.
Positive proof does not exist in science. However the fossil record we do have is so complete that we can literally trace the lineage of most living beings by fossils alone. We can confirm this lineage through DNA (using the same process as paternity testing). Basically, we have a nearly complete record of evolution all the way back to the Cambrian explosion, and even have some trilobite fossils that are older than that. Common ancestry is as obvious as the fact that we orbit the sun.
As for whether or not external intervention was needed for the process itself, that's where the THEORY of evolution comes in. The theory itself is a work in progress (nearly all theories are) but our current model is incredibly complete, and has been verified time and again through independent fields of biology. That is, I suppose you could insist that God had a hand in the mutations or environmental pressures that influenced evolution, but there is no NEED for that hypothesis.
I should probably also clarify what I meant by a "work in progress". In science, when new data presents itself, we often find ourselves modifying scientific theories to fit the new data. This is how science works. For instance, a current (legitimate) debate over evolution theory involves the process of punctuated equilibrium. This has to do with the rapid evolution of species at certain points in history, in contrast with the generally slow, steady pace we normally see.
It would be folly to assume, however, that debates over the THEORY of evolution in any way affect the FACT of evolution, which is not in debate whatsoever. The things scientists are debating, and will likely continue debating as long as new evidence shows up, are the minute details in how the process works. Once again, this is science in action. It does not claim to get everything right from the beginning (unlike religion).
There is considerable debate about the theory of evolution because the scientific evidence supporting it is woefully short.
Evolution is a religion/belief system in the guise of science. People believe it not because their is "mountains of evidence" but because they want to be free of accountability to the Creator. What they don't realise is that the Creator loves them and wants the best for them. We are NOT animals, but precious children of the Living God.
I'm afraid you are absolutely wrong about there being a "debate" due to "lack of evidence". The only arena in which a debate exists is in the largely uneducated American public. Scientists do not debate evolution at all. I hate to break it to ya, but we absolutely ARE animals, by every definition of the word. You might not want to accept the truth as it is, but the facts remain regardless.
I've already given thoet58 plenty of evidence that any decently educated person should be able to digest. He's too deluded to see what's right in front of him. I don't think any amount of evidence will convince him at this point.
Its in you, you're clearly beyond stupid, therefore you will do something idiotic, die and avoid passing on your stupidity to another generation. Where the intelligent folks, the fittest ones, will laugh at you, forget you and go on to reproduce.
Actually all organisms are 'animals,' We just have civilization which separates us from what humans consider 'animal.'
When someone says animal to describe an organism separate from humans, they mean a creature that does not live in civilization, where its 'everyman for himself.'
The scientific method asserts that unless their is convincing evidence supporting a theory - it is NOT accepted as a fact.
We do NOT have convincing evidence to support Darwinian evolution (mostly artisit impressions) yet you are happy to call it a fact. This is NOT reasonable, definitely not scientific.
A scientific theory...which evolution is...is BASED on facts. The theory of evolution explains HOW things evolve. THAT they evolve is an observed fact. You are simply refusing to acknowledge the "mountains of evidence" (as you call it) that we have. You are blinded by your faith...it is really as simple as that. As such, nothing I can say will convince you. You are beyond reasoning with. Therefore, I must end this pointless "debate", as it will get nowhere.
"THAT they evolve is an observed fact" This is a statement of blind faith rather than scientific fact. What is observed is the world around us. How it got here is conjecture.
The Bible says: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.." Genesis 1:1. ie A creator to explain a creation.
Evolutions assert that the design we observe made itself.
What do you think requires a higher level of faith?
Why do the ignorant always post this? Sigh, evidence for evolution is overwhelming to the scientific community, the only people who maintain this view are people unversed in science and the burden of proof therein.
how ''could it be the expansion of space-time that lead to the formation of light elements which in turn would condense and collapse under gravity to form stars that would form the heavy elements which would be scattered by supernovae and would condense and collapse in a protostars accretion disc under gravity to form planetesimals and eventually planets'' be logical if none of that existed?
I know why some religious groups are so opposed to the idea of global warming(or climate change, whatever you want to call it). Many of them interpret such a rise in temperature to be a sign of the apocalypse. Now I would think that would make them happy as that would mean that they would get to see their god soon.
Everything that he says infuriates me to no end. Such dishonesty is horrid. His crass and inexcusable ignorance of even the most basic scientific understanding is just plain insulting as a fellow human being.
Far more depressing than one man's ignorance is the fact that he is allowed (and made money by) spreading it around to impressionable folks with a lot of faith and very little IQs. I suppose there's not much to be done about being allowed to gull ignorant people (besides educating them) but do they have to pay him for it?
most derogatory term available - a Hovind ? it isn`t just ignorance. It is wilful deception (which he was convicted of)
Are there any creationist speakers out there who are honest? They all seem to practice duplicity and cheap strawmen arguments. Great video Mr Extant. I have no great expectation that you will change anyones mind tho.
Yeah, I remember learning that in latin. It still feels weird to say "wesuwius mons" (mount vesuvius).
Of course, it makes one of my favorite terms, and the slogan of the high school latin club at the time, more obvious in meaning.
"Vinum Bibimus" (We drink wine). Yes, that was our slogan. The teacher wasn't very happy, but, due to a technicality involving foreign languages in school rules, we got to keep it.
The "Berkley course in physics " was published in Romania in the communist era...I know this because it is still widely recommended to students who begin the study of physics . So yes, most people have heard of the renowned university and yes most people know they are not a bible college. Just not those people there...
There is a major flaw in your description of weight in this video. Weight is gravity times mass. Without mass, you cannot have weight, therefore the question of where does all mass come from begs to be questioned. As far as e=mc2 goes, mass and energy, not light, are interchangeable. And if you suggest that mass comes from energy, where did all of that energy come from? And what is expansion of space, if not expansion of mass? Expansion of nothingness?
The Standard Model predicts that a particle called the Higgs Boson is responsible for mass. Elementary particles traveling through the Higgs field experience drag similar to a ball traveling through the air. But rather than lose energy and slow down their kinetic energy is converted into mass.
"where did energy come from"
The energy was always there. Prior to the Higgs field forming, 10^-9 seconds into the Big Bang, all particles were traveling at the speed of light.
Here in lies the first flaw of this video. Hovind states that either the world is either made or it made itself. We can keep going backwards: Where did the Higgs Boson particle come from? Has anyone seen this particle outside of a model? You state that energy has always been here. If that is the case, why would it all of a sudden change course, and turn into mass? If it's the Higgs field, why wasn't the Higgs field prior to the Big Bang? Once again, where did it come from?
"Has anyone seen (the Higgs) particle outside of a model?"
Not yet. But physicists need enormous energies to release it, and that's one of the reasons why the $8 billion dollar Hadron Collider was built. The Higgs is the only fundamental particle actually predicted by the Standard Model that has yet to be experimentally observed. They experienced a malfunction last September when it was first turned on, but I believe they're scheduled to go online again a month or two.
So the fact that it has as yet to be experimentally verified, means that according to antireligion science definitions, the Higgs model cannot be considered a valid scientific explanation. It may fit the relm as best possible guess, but not science as verified data. In reality, science is defined as the search for knowledge. So if that knowledge is acquired experimentally, through eye witness accounts, logical analysis, or religion, it is all science.
The Higgs model is a scientific explanation. It's a logical inference based on all the other particles and forces we know exist and have experimentally confirmed. It's a direct prediction of the Standard Model of physics. If the model is correct the Higgs is there. If the model is incorrect then the model will need to be changed if it can be. Otherwise we'll have to go in search of a new model. That's how science works.
The Higgs model is a scientific explanation. Its a logical inference based on all other particles and forces we know exist and have experimentally confirmed. Its a direct prediction of the Standard Model of physics. If the model is correct the Higgs is there. If not then the model will need to be changed if it can be. Otherwise well have to go in search of a new model. Thats how science works. Observation, prediction, modification. Not guesswork.
It is no more a scientific explanation, than God created the world. It is just a model, an educated guess (the definition of logical inference). You can play word games all you want. Until it has been experimentally verified, you CANNOT claim more than that. And as you have admitted, it could be the wrong model. Therefore, you are no more right in saying that the Higgs model is the start of the universe, than I can say that God created it.
Knowledge is knowledge no matter how you slice it. So I did not loosely define science.
"It's an explanation based on evidence, experiment"
What evidence? What experiment? I keep asking for this information, and you have yet to provide it. So what if they are trying to produce it with the collider. It HAS not yet been proven. Therefore it is a GUESS.
"What evidence? What experiment? I keep asking for this information, and you have yet to provide it."
Most of the experiments are done in particle accelerators. Every accelerator has contributed to some degree. CERN's Large Hadron Collider has already been mentioned, though here's their website..
public . web . cern . ch
"It HAS not yet been proven. Therefore it is a GUESS."
Yes, a highly educated guess based on evidence and sound argument. Not a blind guess like "Godunit"
But a guess nonetheless. My belief in God is not blind. We see the same data and derive at two completely different interpretations. Yours is "I don't know." Mine is God created the world. Now I know that you won't believe me, but I actually talk with God, so I prefer to put my faith in him, and not someone's guess that is possibly wrong.
"Most of the experiments are done in particle accelerators."
So you misstated before that the Higgs particle has not been proven yet?
Again loose definitions of terms will not save you here. An educated guess is not any old guess. A logical inference is not blind speculation. They are led by evidence.
"We see the same data and derive at two completely different interpretations. Yours is "I don't kno
He probably enjoys telling Bubba, his cell mate, about creationism.
someonenobodycares 1 week ago in playlist Uploaded videos
I for one welcome our red herring overlords
laserindie 6 months ago
How many packs of cigarettes do you think i'd need to send out to severely harshen Mr. Hovind's treatment in prison?
PixelSlayer247 11 months ago 4
and i always thought that the first law is
"you do NOT talk about thermodynamics"
BTW: where did the chemical potential head to?
nublered 1 year ago
just explain to me this one concept. How does something come out of nothing? All anti-creationists seem to dance around this fundamental question.
pickle808 1 year ago
@pickle808 There is no evidence that the universe ever did not exist. And if it did not exist, there are several theories to how this happened. We have observed the spontaneous creation of particles due to the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics. The odds of this happening for something as massive as the universe are extremely low, but as there would be an infinite amount of time all probabilities automatically become 1, therefore necessitating the creation of the universe.
samweiss4 4 months ago
i don't think hovind really believes what he is saying. its just a con scheme.
playadominical 1 year ago
The kid doing the commentary in this video is annoying as piss. He's so arrogant and didn't do anything but ramble on with his petty insults towards Kent Hovind. Big Bang is a joke.
guitardrummer321 1 year ago
0:55 Biggest self-ownage I have ever seen. If you don't know why, look up "Creation Ex Nihlo".
N00bcrunch3r 1 year ago
Hovind mind is small. He arrogantly mocks attempts by science to understand the world by evaluating the evidence .... yet he willingly believes in the "hocus pocus" of creationism without question .....????
SearchBucket 1 year ago
What I see a lot of folks doing in this is missing the most obvious bit of it entirely. You don't have to go through all of the scientific theories to debunk his claim when a simple matter of semantics will do the job in far less time. Hovind cannot promote both the 1st Law of Thermodynamics and Creationism at the same time. If matter cannot be created, as he says, then it cannot have a creator. Period. Simple semantics.
swordnquil 1 year ago
@swordnquil I think you're missing a fundamental point in your response. Lets say that there is a God (sounds like you don't believe so). Now if there is a God, then He must be superior to everything that He creates, or else He is not God. Therefore, if He created a universe, then He also created the Laws that govern this Universe. Again, this would make Him superior to the Laws that govern nature. Thus you are essentially saying that the creator MUST be governed by His creation.
pickle808 1 year ago
@pickle808 And the fundamental point *you're* missing in your zeal is that I am talking about *semantics*. If energy cannot be CREATED, it cannot have a CREATOR. I don't care what that creator is or where it lives. If something cannot be created, it cannot, therefore, have someone or something that CREATED it.
If something CREATED energy, then it CAN be CREATED.
See how simple that is when you stick to the real topic of my post? Semantics? NOT theology?
swordnquil 1 year ago
Great videos, and I also like the song in the end of this video (WASP - Sleeping in the fire)
FatLingon 1 year ago
If you all had any sense you would see that all evidence given is cited, and based on Einstein's theory of relativity the 1st law of thermodynamics does apply to matter. But I know based on the posts here dont intend to discern truth by research but will blindly follow the easy path of ignorance. If not chk out CARM dare to question yourself, I do. Romans 1
ickian 1 year ago
Kovind is an arse (im british) but thermodynamic applies to all forms of energy, not just heat.
markgg1 1 year ago
Ok religious people here the laughter at 7:13? You know how funny that is right? Thats how we think of you guys when you go on and on about your invisible friend in the sky.
Crazydog7 1 year ago
Your mean.. Definitely right, but nobody should be allowed to pick on a man so naturally adept at failing! I'm so glad he's not making videos now...
Samuelwhatshisface 1 year ago
@Samuelwhatshisface no, hovind doesnt really beleive this shit, hes been told many times that what he says is wrong, not that the theories are right (they are) but hes been told that the way he explains them is wrong. basicaly hes a fucking liar like most creationists
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@patrickledford420 He is a good liar, kinda makes you wonder why he didn't just blag that courtcase
Samuelwhatshisface 1 year ago
The science is in on the hoaxes foisted on a gullible public by the scientists. First it was the Big Bang and evolution. Now global warming.
And I'm STILL waiting for the scientists to create life! What's the matter scientists, something wrong with the formula again???
seethelightofgod 1 year ago
@seethelightofgod
yay for miller type experiments and the first synthetic genome, inserted into a cell, and taking control!!
yay for science.
Strikesnake1994 1 year ago
@seethelightofgod why you waiting for scientist to create life? bigbang, evolution and global warming are not hoaxes, but please explain to me what you think each of these theories say. oh yeh, stop talking shit about science you ingrate, the computer your on with the electricity your using in the house all were made by using SCIENCE. science, it works bitch
patrickledford420 1 year ago
It just bugs that people 'paid' to see this clown.
Notnowredman 1 year ago
5:50
GET THE HELL ON WITH IT!!! Im guessing Hovind is just stalling the audience with false info and small trivia to think of a big lie.
The masses of the public will easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.
-Adolf Hitler(I think...maybe misquoted?)
DarkZerkerX 1 year ago
10:31 - he of course forgets to mention that on top of being an astronomer and prof. of physics, Lemaitre was a catholic priest...proving that you can be a person of faith and a man of science, and not a charlatan in all senses of the word. Honestly, who goes and listens to that guy ? These videos scare me.
davidvanelslande 1 year ago
people like this dont ever struggle in their life or go to school and make money by jus talkin bullshit...i wonder how rich this guy is...wasnt there somthin in the bible sayin its impossible for a rich man to go to heaven...so if there is a heaven this guys goin to hell
judacribz 1 year ago
@judacribz he probably doesnt really beleive it, he simply uses it as a scam because hes a lying sack of SHIT like peter popoff
patrickledford420 1 year ago
Hovind is funnier than virgin births.
HybridD91 2 years ago
That's called cheating, a lie, and a stupid husband.
G11EM2 1 year ago
hmmm, a period might be a full-stop to Americans but it commonly used as a euphemism to mean a woman's menstrual cycle in the UK:)
I bet Kent doesn't want to discuss how heavy some of those can be though...
DeeDemonwitch 2 years ago
matter can not be created or destroyed , and thats evidents for creationism>?
wowggscrub 2 years ago 2
I guess if you're an idiot with a big mouth, you have to play to your strengths.
tctheunbeliever 2 years ago
I have to announce, in Traditional Latin; V's are pronounced as W's, in church Latin, or the Latin used by the Catholic church, V's are pronounced the same as in English.... even though I feel like a dick for explaining that...
whothecaresagives 2 years ago
I don't understand how anyone can take Kent Hovind seriously.
TaiFerret 2 years ago 10
Ignorant people don't know any better.
mrstone56 2 years ago 2
Matter can't be created or destroyed? So how did it get here? It can't have been created like (I think) atheists say!
It's more rational to believe God create......crea....cre.....fuck.....FUCK
salamirterra 2 years ago 21
@salamirterra atheists dont say that scientists say that.
judacribz 1 year ago
@judacribz
I know dumpling. I was parodying creationists. I even added (I think) atheists say. As we all know; atheists don't make any assertions about anything. I was highlighting the fact that people who believe in the christian god are numb to the possibility that he doesn't exist, which leads them to use him to explain natural phenomenon. They are taught that matter has not been observed to be created or destroyed, and use god to explain its creation, forgetting that god doesn't exist.
salamirterra 1 year ago
@judacribz
I know. It was a parody of how creationists think.
salamirterra 1 year ago
@salamirterra its not somthin atheists say, its a law of science
judacribz 1 year ago
@salamirterra noone knows the answer to that question. If you can figure it out you'll win yourself a noble prize.
mzyzer19 1 year ago
The major leaders of Christian or Creation apologetics basically agree with what Hovind is saying. He is not the ONLY one who says what he says most of the other creation scientists have done the same research he has done, so would you PLEASE stop calling it "Hovindism", because he is not starting an abusive cult like Islam or Communism, but he's only trying to win your heart to the Lord.
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
Oh no~! The leaders of ignorance and stupidity agree with Hovind~! We must convert right away~! Psshh, if he is trying to convert people to religion in general, it's abusive. It's common sense that he isn't the ONLY one saying this stuff, he just seems to quack the loudest. Kind of like the banana man.
di739 2 years ago
@Eye2EyeIIIV
Hovind is an embarrassment to creationists, and their standards really aren't very high. You can find many of his arguments listed on Christian apologetics websites under "stupid arguments which were debunked long ago and will make you look stupid and get you laughed at if you mention them among educated and/or intelligent people". Or something to that effect.
I need my heart for pumping, your Lord can have it when I'm dead.
Research? Weeeell, maybe. But it's not science.
tctheunbeliever 2 years ago
@Eye2EyeIIIV
And as for abusive cults, ask the Jews or the Gnostics or the Cathars or the falsely accused witches what they think of Christianity. Well, you can ask the Jews anyway, the Christers haven't killed all of them yet. Watch Jesus Camp to see how some of them are raising the next generation of holy warriors. Many of us have had it with religious dishonesty and manipulation.
tctheunbeliever 2 years ago
the narration is too slow
(meant to be helpful constructive criticism)
0nier0s 2 years ago
as carl sagan said " were made of star stuff"
wowggscrub 2 years ago
My comment on Hovind saying how the pre-big bang universe was shrunken.
L33T Hacks!1!!1!!12@32.
But seriously, please get Hovind a 3rd grade Science text book on evolution. PLEASE!!
DarkZerkerX 2 years ago
Good to know that Hovand has the same scientific knowledge and critical thinking abilitys that L. Ron Hubbard possessed. At least Hubbard was smart enough to take to high seas to stay out of jail.
energeticallybored 2 years ago
That is the standard response I get when I ask "What is the evidence for evolution?".
It makes me think, that the evidence is so weak that they are too scared to state it.
For your information. There are 600 scientists who have signed a public document expressing doubt about the theory of evolution. Over 50% of the American public have not confidence in it.
Are you a scientist or a philosopher?
theot58 2 years ago
Actually, the list to which you are referring simply was a declaration that these scientists remain SKEPTICAL about the theory of natural selection through random mutation. ANY scientist remains skeptical of ANY theory; else it would become dogma. A survey of these scientists reveals that most of them are not even biologists (some of them not even scientists), and MOST of them (including ALL of those that actually ARE biologists) completely accept that evolution happens.
burchdc 2 years ago
For your information, there are 4 times as many historians who doubt the holocaust as scientists who doubt evolution. It is true that more than half of the US population does not believe in it, but then I have yet to meet a person who doubts evolution and still thoroughly understands it. The evidence is plentiful. All you need do is look for it.
burchdc 2 years ago
"he evidence is plentiful. All you need do is look for it." This is definitely NOT true. If there is so much evidence. Where is it and what is it?. I am continually being told that the evidence is overwhelming but when I ask. What is the evidence to prove Darwinian evolution beyond reasonable doubt. All I get is a string of nonesensical, scientific sounding words which prove only that there must NOT be any real evidence, otherwise they would give it.
theot58 2 years ago
Some of the evidence is indeed technical, which is why I think some people have a hard time grasping it. Also, a vast majority of it is simply shrugged off because people fail to grasp its significance. Nonetheless, I will list a few examples. Our fossil record is so complete that we have literally thousands of examples of transitional forms, and can paint a very thorough picture of exactly how a large portion of species evolved, with very little imagination needed.
burchdc 2 years ago
DNA testing of currently living species proves common descent, and can be used to map a phylogenetic tree that EXACTLY matches what the fossil record says.
We actually see evolution happening, both micro and macro. We have SEEN speciation events. We have SEEN how species adapt to their environments, and I'm not just talking about microorganisms.
burchdc 2 years ago
Vestigial organs present a very strong case for evolution. This is when an organ that was previously used by a species' ancestor is not longer used, and tends to go away over time. We see this in all stages. It is the reason we humans still have genes for making tails, chicken for making teeth, and so on.
burchdc 2 years ago
One great example of the early stages of this can be seen in the wings of the flightless cormorant, found on the Galapagos Islands. Other species of cormorant that are found in other parts of the world fly, and use the instinctive behavior of drying off their wings in the wind. The flightless species, which evolved rapidly and separately, no longer can fly (their wings are now too small), yet still exhibit this same behavior. I could look up many, many more examples, but I don't have time.
burchdc 2 years ago
My guess is you probably will dismiss everything I've said, because you won't really take the time to think of the significance of this evidence. I encourage you to do some serious studying on your own and discover what scientists ACTUALLY know...it's a lot more than you think.
burchdc 2 years ago
Can you please distinguish between what is observed and what is assumed/inferred.
Sometimes we are too quick to come up with convenient but imaginary conclusions.
theot58 2 years ago
All vestigial organs are observed. We know they are vestigial because, for one, they serve no apparent purpose. Also, we can see the same organs functioning in closely related species, as well as a progression from functioning organs to non-functioning vestigial organs in the fossil record.
burchdc 2 years ago
If you want further proof please look up endogenous retroviruses and human chromosome 2. I need to get some sleep...long drive tomorrow :)
burchdc 2 years ago
Can you please advise what Vestigial organs you are referring to.
Are you referring to the tail bone or something else.
theot58 2 years ago
Our tail "bone' is actually the remnant of a vestigial organ. We still have the genes for making tails. Wisdom teeth are another example in humans. However, far more examples exist in other species. I gave the example of the wings of the flightless cormorant. Another example would be the eyes some species of cave-dwelling salamanders have, even though they are completely blind.
burchdc 2 years ago
Your assertion that the tailbone (coccyx) is vestigial (ie serving no purpose) is quite incorret. Go to Wikipedia and see what is says under "Function". Among other things it states "it is an important attachment for various muscles, tendons and ligaments"
Please, lets talk science not evolutionary fairytales.
theot58 2 years ago
Please look up "Human vestigiality" in Wikipedia. The tail bone is listed, as well as many other examples.
It is considered vestigial because it has lost its ORIGINAL function. The fact that it now plays a different role is classic evolution at work.
burchdc 2 years ago
How can you - or anyone else state with any confidence what "the original function" was?
I have been ridiculed for believing in the God of the Bible. But it seems to me that it requires more faith to believe in Evolution.
Making up wild assertions without convincing evidence is not science but a belief system - a religion. Which is what Evolution is.
theot58 2 years ago
You're asking how we know what the original function of a tail was? Or the vestigial wings of the flightless cormorant?
I have presented quite a bit of evidence, but you have either chosen to ignore it or simply don't understand it. Let me ask you this: what evidence WOULD it take to convince you? Is that even conceivable? If the answer is no, then I'm simply wasting my time.
burchdc 2 years ago
The difference between science (including evolution) and religion is that all science is based on evidence. Evolution is not a dogmatic belief. It would be incredibly easy to disprove it, yet no such proof has yet surfaced. If it did, however, evolution would be abandoned overnight, provided a new, better theory could replace it. However, even if evolution WERE proved wrong, it would not prove Creation correct...by any means.
burchdc 2 years ago
Evolution...as with any science...takes absolutely no faith to accept. I myself accept it because I have seen the evidence for it and understand its implications. Show me a SINGLE FOSSIL that was discovered out of place (such as the proverbial pre-Cambrian bunny) and evolution would fall apart (provided the fossil was legit and could be shown to not be a hoax).
burchdc 2 years ago
I must say I find it amusing that Creationists constantly try to discredit Evolution by claiming that it is a 'religion', yet in the same breath claim that faith is a virtue when applied to their own beliefs. Essentially, they are trying to bring science down to the level of religion, and simultaneously trumping their own version of religion up to be absolute truth. Hypocritical?
burchdc 2 years ago
I would love to see "thousands of examples of transitional forms". Can you please tell me where I can see them.
I have evolutionists saying there are NO examples of transitional fossils but you say there are "thousands". Please tell me where I can see theem
theot58 2 years ago
Try the local natural history museum :) The truth is, every fossil is a transitional form. Evolution is not a stair-step, but a gentle slope. The more fossils we find, the harder it becomes to tell how to categorize them, because the "gaps" become nonexistent. This is nearly true for the evolution from our last common ancestor with apes and modern humans.
If you want specific, spectacular examples, look up Tiktaalik and Microraptor.
burchdc 2 years ago
"The truth is, every fossil is a transitional form" With all due respect. What you are asserting is NOT science but wishful thinking. Darwins assertion is that all living things are related, hence there should be thousands of transitional forms linking all the different animals. Darwin himself stated that without transitional forms his theory would crumble.
The only conclusion we can draw from one fossil is that the animal died. This does NOT prove evolution
theot58 2 years ago
Every fossil is a transitional form because life is constantly evolving. Every stage in evolution is a fully functional organism. Did you even look up the two examples I gave you? Since you seem to be fond of Wikipedia, look up "List of transitional fossils". If fossils won't convince you, what will? What else are you expecting?
burchdc 2 years ago
I take it from your statement about "one fossil" that you assume we only have one example of archaeopteryx, tiktaalik, microraptor, and so on. This would be blatantly incorrect. We currently have over 10 individuals of tiktaalik, and 11 examples of archaeopterix (several complete with fossilized impressions of feathers). I couldn't find any documentation as to how many specimens of microraptor have been found, but all sources alluded to quite a few.
burchdc 2 years ago
I took your advice and went to Wikipedia. It was interesting - but the question is: Does it contain adequate scientific information for prove that core tennant of Darwinian evolution that ALL living things had a common ancestor?. That from simplicity we progressed tocomplexity WITHOUT any external intervention.
That a complex design was produced WITHOUT a designer.
All I saw was many artists impressions. I did not see any proof.
theot58 2 years ago
Positive proof does not exist in science. However the fossil record we do have is so complete that we can literally trace the lineage of most living beings by fossils alone. We can confirm this lineage through DNA (using the same process as paternity testing). Basically, we have a nearly complete record of evolution all the way back to the Cambrian explosion, and even have some trilobite fossils that are older than that. Common ancestry is as obvious as the fact that we orbit the sun.
burchdc 2 years ago
As for whether or not external intervention was needed for the process itself, that's where the THEORY of evolution comes in. The theory itself is a work in progress (nearly all theories are) but our current model is incredibly complete, and has been verified time and again through independent fields of biology. That is, I suppose you could insist that God had a hand in the mutations or environmental pressures that influenced evolution, but there is no NEED for that hypothesis.
burchdc 2 years ago
I should probably also clarify what I meant by a "work in progress". In science, when new data presents itself, we often find ourselves modifying scientific theories to fit the new data. This is how science works. For instance, a current (legitimate) debate over evolution theory involves the process of punctuated equilibrium. This has to do with the rapid evolution of species at certain points in history, in contrast with the generally slow, steady pace we normally see.
burchdc 2 years ago
It would be folly to assume, however, that debates over the THEORY of evolution in any way affect the FACT of evolution, which is not in debate whatsoever. The things scientists are debating, and will likely continue debating as long as new evidence shows up, are the minute details in how the process works. Once again, this is science in action. It does not claim to get everything right from the beginning (unlike religion).
burchdc 2 years ago
There is considerable debate about the theory of evolution because the scientific evidence supporting it is woefully short.
Evolution is a religion/belief system in the guise of science. People believe it not because their is "mountains of evidence" but because they want to be free of accountability to the Creator. What they don't realise is that the Creator loves them and wants the best for them. We are NOT animals, but precious children of the Living God.
theot58 2 years ago
I'm afraid you are absolutely wrong about there being a "debate" due to "lack of evidence". The only arena in which a debate exists is in the largely uneducated American public. Scientists do not debate evolution at all. I hate to break it to ya, but we absolutely ARE animals, by every definition of the word. You might not want to accept the truth as it is, but the facts remain regardless.
burchdc 2 years ago
"There is considerable debate about the theory of evolution because the scientific evidence supporting it is woefully short."
YOU MEAN YOU HAVEN'T READ ANY BIOLOGY BOOK RECENTLY?
nightoftherobots 2 years ago
I did Biolgy in year 11 and have read many books. I have also taught at the year 11 and 12 level.
But let me explain something to you. JUST BECAUSE SOME THING IS IN A BOOK - DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE.
Again I assert. What and where is the conving evidence to proove Darwinian evolution?
theot58 2 years ago
"JUST BECAUSE SOME THING IS IN A BOOK - DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE."
Correct. But science textbooks used in accredited Universities are reliable.
"What and where is the conving evidence to proove Darwinian evolution?"
Follow these steps:
1) Go to jstor(dot)org. it is a peer-reviewed compilation of scholarly works.
2) type in the keywords 'evolution' and 'biology'.
3) read everything you find.
nightoftherobots 2 years ago 2
@nightoftherobots
I've already given thoet58 plenty of evidence that any decently educated person should be able to digest. He's too deluded to see what's right in front of him. I don't think any amount of evidence will convince him at this point.
burchdc 2 years ago 2
"JUST BECAUSE SOME THING IS IN A BOOK - DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE."
Funny you should say something like that since the creation account is in a book as well.
nightoftherobots 2 years ago 2
Oh, and btw, there is no 'debate' within the scientific community on the validity of evolutionary theory
nightoftherobots 2 years ago
The difference is that with new found evidence, it also changes the text book.. Unlike your holy book.
MusicHypno 2 years ago
Its in you, you're clearly beyond stupid, therefore you will do something idiotic, die and avoid passing on your stupidity to another generation. Where the intelligent folks, the fittest ones, will laugh at you, forget you and go on to reproduce.
FordPrefect23 2 years ago
Considerable debate? Silly. My accountability to a creator has nothing to do with the changing alleles in population.
sherlockmethod 2 years ago
Actually all organisms are 'animals,' We just have civilization which separates us from what humans consider 'animal.'
When someone says animal to describe an organism separate from humans, they mean a creature that does not live in civilization, where its 'everyman for himself.'
But yeah, G-d does love us.
Blitzaking 2 years ago
well ants live in "civilzations" so do bees do we call them human???
ghandi8749 2 years ago
YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY DREAMING.
The scientific method asserts that unless their is convincing evidence supporting a theory - it is NOT accepted as a fact.
We do NOT have convincing evidence to support Darwinian evolution (mostly artisit impressions) yet you are happy to call it a fact. This is NOT reasonable, definitely not scientific.
theot58 2 years ago
A scientific theory...which evolution is...is BASED on facts. The theory of evolution explains HOW things evolve. THAT they evolve is an observed fact. You are simply refusing to acknowledge the "mountains of evidence" (as you call it) that we have. You are blinded by your faith...it is really as simple as that. As such, nothing I can say will convince you. You are beyond reasoning with. Therefore, I must end this pointless "debate", as it will get nowhere.
burchdc 2 years ago
"THAT they evolve is an observed fact" This is a statement of blind faith rather than scientific fact. What is observed is the world around us. How it got here is conjecture.
The Bible says: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.." Genesis 1:1. ie A creator to explain a creation.
Evolutions assert that the design we observe made itself.
What do you think requires a higher level of faith?
theot58 2 years ago
"What do you think requires a higher level of faith?"
Clearly your bible story, as all the evidence points to evolution. There's no faith required to begin with.
"This is a statement of blind faith rather than scientific fact."
No, you just don't know the subject.
jjukil 2 years ago
dude... latimer?
metlahead6 2 years ago
Thanks for the video. This was awesome.
tucfinland 2 years ago
Darwinian evolution is not supported by overwhelming scientific evidence. Teaching it as a "fact" to young people is bad science.
theot58 2 years ago
Why do the ignorant always post this? Sigh, evidence for evolution is overwhelming to the scientific community, the only people who maintain this view are people unversed in science and the burden of proof therein.
HOLYdpsBATMAN 2 years ago
you sound kinda like dan brown...are you him?
rubixxcube 2 years ago
man, I'm so glad this guy is in jail now.
ggorg2000 2 years ago
Damn hovind, I almost passed out this summer cause of the temperature rise in Seattle.
DarkZerkerX 2 years ago
how ''could it be the expansion of space-time that lead to the formation of light elements which in turn would condense and collapse under gravity to form stars that would form the heavy elements which would be scattered by supernovae and would condense and collapse in a protostars accretion disc under gravity to form planetesimals and eventually planets'' be logical if none of that existed?
jpiercej 2 years ago
I know why some religious groups are so opposed to the idea of global warming(or climate change, whatever you want to call it). Many of them interpret such a rise in temperature to be a sign of the apocalypse. Now I would think that would make them happy as that would mean that they would get to see their god soon.
Tavereen 2 years ago
"Holy non-sequitur, Batman!"
That made me LOL so hard.
deathadder32 2 years ago 4
The universum section made me put my palm through my face and out the back of my head.
Ebrainiac1 2 years ago 2
Oh my.. this guy Hovind makes my toes curls...
lekkerboeie 2 years ago 4
02:48- You just owned Hovind again.
Throom 2 years ago 2
ExtantDodo, we miss you! Hope to see more videos from you soon. :)
NikolitaNiko 2 years ago 9
Everything that he says infuriates me to no end. Such dishonesty is horrid. His crass and inexcusable ignorance of even the most basic scientific understanding is just plain insulting as a fellow human being.
LogicIsDying 2 years ago
Far more depressing than one man's ignorance is the fact that he is allowed (and made money by) spreading it around to impressionable folks with a lot of faith and very little IQs. I suppose there's not much to be done about being allowed to gull ignorant people (besides educating them) but do they have to pay him for it?
Eff.
robfathah 2 years ago
Mr. Dodo, I'd buy a Red Herring T-shirt to show some love for our fishy friends. Just a thought ; )
Selectedmarksman 2 years ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
Extant, stop drinking people's blood you demon fvck. Yer kind aren't in the evolutionary tree - which means science says you don't exist. LOSER!
Yer not a real person just a lowly parasite - so, why don't you do us all a favor and leave humanity alone you stupid motherfvcker.
And, while yer at it - stop spreading lies before God comes and sets you on fire.
theDracoIX 2 years ago
hurr durr christian morality
spudder456 2 years ago 2
And who are you to know what God thinks, judges, or what he'll do?
Don't insinuate yourself to be equal to or above God.
Orthrus 2 years ago
I lol'd.
MentisIncorruptus 2 years ago
Gooood... 2nd step - stop biting people and drinking their blood you twat.
theDracoIX 2 years ago
I'm a vampire? AWESOME! :O
MentisIncorruptus 2 years ago
Draco, in between your ad hominem attacks, do you have any arguments against the analysis of the Dodos?
(I have a sneaking suspicious that Draco is being sarcastic, but... CURSE YOU POE'S LAW!)
TheGlareofReason 2 years ago
though by "rotate" the Greeks mean "turn" like you would turn a pile of dough when kneading it to make bread
charr05 2 years ago
though shalt learn Latin and not make ridiculous claims about what words mean without looking it up... well powned Dodo, well powned
charr05 2 years ago 3
Kent, why the fuck were you SO close to this guy? You don't need to sit on his lap
charr05 2 years ago
Charr05 he had to prepare for prison somehow.
LogicIsDying 2 years ago
Why does this Hitler-hairstyle wanker refer to San Francisco as "the land of the fruits and the flakes"? What does that mean? Is it American slang?
ghanamuscle2000 2 years ago
He's calling it the land of homosexuals and unreliable people.
AKA: Being an belligerent ass.
Orthrus 2 years ago
Ahh I see. Well, it's refreshing to know that this moron is now being buggered senseless in prison. That'll teach him to make fun of homosexuals.
ghanamuscle2000 2 years ago 2
kent hovind should have his own comedy central special
MLGs0phistry 2 years ago 6
im glad my teacher isnt a retard like this guy.
bigblakblob2 2 years ago 4
Believe me, these people never gets into decent highschools and/or universities. Neither as a student nor teacher.
NichtDieseTone 2 years ago
the good thing about hovind is that if Christianity is true, he will be in hell with us since he was sodomized in jail.
Thothsglyphs 2 years ago
hes either a lying manipulator or an idiot
Ilikenuman 2 years ago
Why not both?
NichtDieseTone 2 years ago
idiots dont know to manipulate
Ilikenuman 2 years ago
Wow, he should be in jail for being so stupid...Oh wait...
He is!
ricorurik 2 years ago 17
Hahahah! Good one!
NichtDieseTone 2 years ago
This video is deh shit bro.
darmokandgalad 2 years ago
'Holy non sequitur Batman!'
haha
ThMrksman 2 years ago 4
I am truly grateful that this (I am trying to think of the most derogatory term available) - is in prison.
seseon 2 years ago 3
most derogatory term available - a Hovind ? it isn`t just ignorance. It is wilful deception (which he was convicted of)
Are there any creationist speakers out there who are honest? They all seem to practice duplicity and cheap strawmen arguments. Great video Mr Extant. I have no great expectation that you will change anyones mind tho.
ilikezappa 2 years ago 2
I am ungrateful that something this ignorant has power over any number of people, let alone run a church...
david3newman 2 years ago 4
"Land of the fruits and the flakes"
What a Dbag.
RaidenTheAlmighty 2 years ago 4
i love this video.
lucillelovefereydoon 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
I don't know who is more arrogant and annoying... Hovind or the guy who posted this video.
Narwal88 2 years ago
Why are there [sic] after perfectly proper English words??
Narwal88 2 years ago
after pronouns, to point out that the person in question is named in the context of the original, or after the quote in a replica
zantrua 2 years ago
[sic] is used to indicate that there is an error in the original text.
For instance, "Harry wennt [sic] there."
Narwal88 2 years ago
cracking vid, its worrying people like this are put in public places to preach their shite lol
jnathan310 2 years ago 3
spectacular video, note there's no V in latin, it's pronounced as a W, it would be 'unworsum'
325982668 2 years ago
Yeah, I remember learning that in latin. It still feels weird to say "wesuwius mons" (mount vesuvius).
Of course, it makes one of my favorite terms, and the slogan of the high school latin club at the time, more obvious in meaning.
"Vinum Bibimus" (We drink wine). Yes, that was our slogan. The teacher wasn't very happy, but, due to a technicality involving foreign languages in school rules, we got to keep it.
NoxVulpes 2 years ago
a good line for that is "in Vino Veritus"
325982668 2 years ago
indeed. Freudian slips are rarely as common as they are when one is drunk.
NoxVulpes 2 years ago
nothing like trying to say "can you pass the cornflakes" and actually saying "i hate you you fucking bitch you're ruining my life."
325982668 2 years ago
Veritas, not veritus.
Narwal88 2 years ago
yeah i'm not particularly good at the endings.
325982668 2 years ago
veni vidi vici is funny :P
325982668 2 years ago
veni, vidi, vomui XD
NoxVulpes 2 years ago
waynee weedee womooee... now that's a mouthful.
325982668 2 years ago
The "Berkley course in physics " was published in Romania in the communist era...I know this because it is still widely recommended to students who begin the study of physics . So yes, most people have heard of the renowned university and yes most people know they are not a bible college. Just not those people there...
Blackthorn2323 2 years ago
There is a major flaw in your description of weight in this video. Weight is gravity times mass. Without mass, you cannot have weight, therefore the question of where does all mass come from begs to be questioned. As far as e=mc2 goes, mass and energy, not light, are interchangeable. And if you suggest that mass comes from energy, where did all of that energy come from? And what is expansion of space, if not expansion of mass? Expansion of nothingness?
TracyII77 2 years ago
"where does mass come"
The Standard Model predicts that a particle called the Higgs Boson is responsible for mass. Elementary particles traveling through the Higgs field experience drag similar to a ball traveling through the air. But rather than lose energy and slow down their kinetic energy is converted into mass.
"where did energy come from"
The energy was always there. Prior to the Higgs field forming, 10^-9 seconds into the Big Bang, all particles were traveling at the speed of light.
coasterpro 2 years ago
Here in lies the first flaw of this video. Hovind states that either the world is either made or it made itself. We can keep going backwards: Where did the Higgs Boson particle come from? Has anyone seen this particle outside of a model? You state that energy has always been here. If that is the case, why would it all of a sudden change course, and turn into mass? If it's the Higgs field, why wasn't the Higgs field prior to the Big Bang? Once again, where did it come from?
TracyII77 2 years ago
"Has anyone seen (the Higgs) particle outside of a model?"
Not yet. But physicists need enormous energies to release it, and that's one of the reasons why the $8 billion dollar Hadron Collider was built. The Higgs is the only fundamental particle actually predicted by the Standard Model that has yet to be experimentally observed. They experienced a malfunction last September when it was first turned on, but I believe they're scheduled to go online again a month or two.
coasterpro 2 years ago
So the fact that it has as yet to be experimentally verified, means that according to antireligion science definitions, the Higgs model cannot be considered a valid scientific explanation. It may fit the relm as best possible guess, but not science as verified data. In reality, science is defined as the search for knowledge. So if that knowledge is acquired experimentally, through eye witness accounts, logical analysis, or religion, it is all science.
TracyII77 2 years ago
Antireligion science definitions?
The Higgs model is a scientific explanation. It's a logical inference based on all the other particles and forces we know exist and have experimentally confirmed. It's a direct prediction of the Standard Model of physics. If the model is correct the Higgs is there. If the model is incorrect then the model will need to be changed if it can be. Otherwise we'll have to go in search of a new model. That's how science works.
coasterpro 2 years ago
What are Antireligion science definitions?
The Higgs model is a scientific explanation. Its a logical inference based on all other particles and forces we know exist and have experimentally confirmed. Its a direct prediction of the Standard Model of physics. If the model is correct the Higgs is there. If not then the model will need to be changed if it can be. Otherwise well have to go in search of a new model. Thats how science works. Observation, prediction, modification. Not guesswork.
coasterpro 2 years ago
It is no more a scientific explanation, than God created the world. It is just a model, an educated guess (the definition of logical inference). You can play word games all you want. Until it has been experimentally verified, you CANNOT claim more than that. And as you have admitted, it could be the wrong model. Therefore, you are no more right in saying that the Higgs model is the start of the universe, than I can say that God created it.
TracyII77 2 years ago
"It is no more a scientific explanation, than God created the world."
Of course it is. It's an explanation based on evidence, experiment, and logical inference. How is that not scientific?
"It is just a model, an educated guess (the definition of logical inference)."
Yes. Again. How is that not scientific?
"You can play word games all you want. "
Actually I'm not the one playing word games. You so loosely defined the term Science below as it to make it irrelevant to this discussion.
coasterpro 2 years ago
Knowledge is knowledge no matter how you slice it. So I did not loosely define science.
"It's an explanation based on evidence, experiment"
What evidence? What experiment? I keep asking for this information, and you have yet to provide it. So what if they are trying to produce it with the collider. It HAS not yet been proven. Therefore it is a GUESS.
TracyII77 2 years ago
"What evidence? What experiment? I keep asking for this information, and you have yet to provide it."
Most of the experiments are done in particle accelerators. Every accelerator has contributed to some degree. CERN's Large Hadron Collider has already been mentioned, though here's their website..
public . web . cern . ch
"It HAS not yet been proven. Therefore it is a GUESS."
Yes, a highly educated guess based on evidence and sound argument. Not a blind guess like "Godunit"
coasterpro 2 years ago
But a guess nonetheless. My belief in God is not blind. We see the same data and derive at two completely different interpretations. Yours is "I don't know." Mine is God created the world. Now I know that you won't believe me, but I actually talk with God, so I prefer to put my faith in him, and not someone's guess that is possibly wrong.
"Most of the experiments are done in particle accelerators."
So you misstated before that the Higgs particle has not been proven yet?
TracyII77 2 years ago
"But a guess nonetheless."
Again loose definitions of terms will not save you here. An educated guess is not any old guess. A logical inference is not blind speculation. They are led by evidence.
"We see the same data and derive at two completely different interpretations. Yours is "I don't kno