all this video is someone asking or saying dumb shit and cutting out parts of his clips out to make him sound bad i think you should watch the whole of his videos and then decide and not just decide over this rubbish
@xnobody777x Wisdom teeth and the appendix doesn't prove evolution. Since you want to talk about genetics though, proteins are an essential any organism. Proteins are composed of aproximatiely 20 different types amino acids. There are atleast 30,000 different proteins each composed of the same 20 amino acids. While the number and sequencing of the amino acids involved vary from protein to protein, one thing is certian; the amino acids themselves cannot form into proteins without a detailed .....
@xnobody777x without a detailed set of instuctions. This is where DNA comes in. DNA automaticly points to intelligent design, NOT a god, but the fact that we WERE CREATED in some way, shape, or form. The theory of evolution cannot account for DNA as in evolution we had to have formed SOMEHOW without DNA.
To everyone watching this video: DO NOT take this guys WORD for anything, DO NOT take Kent Hovind's WORD for anything, GET THE FACTS YOURSELF! Take some TIME, put in the EFFORT to educate YOURSELF. ANYONE trying to teach someone will ussually say this FIRST as these are the first words Kent Hovind's mouth on several of his DVDs. It is among the first words printed in William Cooper's book, Behold a Pale Horse. REAL teachers don't want to mis-inform people.
@Caravandrums "Hovind has been serving a ten-year prison sentence after being convicted of 58 federal counts, including 12 tax offenses, one count of obstructing federal agents, and 45 counts of structuring cash transactions"
@xnobody777x "but in the end, we have evidence on our side" -Everyone has evidence on their side, the question is whose evidence is the most trustworthy, the most backed up by the facts and most credible and right now evolutionary theory does not have the scientific or philosophical technology and rhetoric respectively to claim sole heir to the truth on the origin and development of life on earth.
@peterparker2004 "Evolutionists believe this whole world as we know it came from a soup that formed on a rock".... obviously you do not even understand the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origins of the "whole world as we know it". Kent Hovind was nothing but a YEEC fundamentalist preacher in a lab coat. Now he's a YEEC fundamentalist preacher in prison.
man you now nothing it whas the ACLU they framend him because he wus getting to much people on his side theyre scared that people will know that the evolution theorie is bullshit he says allot of things where they dont have an answer too and all of those guys of the ACLU well theyre all great supporters for the evolution theorie
@MrWimvdg There's no way there'll ever be enough people daft enough to believe the nonsense that Mr. Kent Hovind came out with to be a serious threat to anything. Such levels of ignorance and religious delusion are hard to come by in the developed world. YEEC fundamentalists such as Hovind are in the minority, not only in the secular world, but also in the Christian community world wide, and within the scientific community the likes of Hovind are simply ignored. He's a tax evading preacher.
@CarajilloDulce jes we are a monority but history prooved that not only majoritys were wright man if you would look at his movies you see he stumps allot of proffessors who where in the majority
@MrWimvdg I have watched Mr. Hovind's presentations. At first I thought he was a comic genius until I realised that he was taking himself seriously. Then I realised that he was just a fundamentalist preacher trying to justify his particular version of a collection of variously translated and interpreted bronze age myths and anecdotes using pseudo science. Even the experiment he claims to have carried out to prove his "Hovind Theory" regarding a supposed biblical flood disproves his hypothesis.
@CarajilloDulce i think you look over allot of evidence and that you dont wanna believe youve been brainwached bye society i meen can you remember the part about the big skeletons thy where over 4meters long and theyve never seen again an you believe that no musea in the world is ganna be interested in a 4m long skeleton thats the lie that they wanna make us all believe i mean comn and a whole bunch of other other things think about it man
@MrWimvdg I find it amusing that you talk about "evidence" as it's the one thing Kent Hovind fails to present in any meaningful way. He also chooses to ignore a wealth of evidence simply on the grounds that it does not agree with his presupposition that the Earth is only 6000 years old, based upon a book of variously translated and interpreted bronze age myths and anecdotes. He's a fundamentalist preacher desperate to convince people of his religious belief (and to profit from it).
@MrWimvdg Please use correct spelling and grammar if you're going to argue. I'm not being insulting, just saying atleast try. The kind of people you are trying to argue with will try to use it to cut you in half and dis-credit anything you say.
@peterparker2004 no excely i dont but in flanders and the netherlands all the movies are english with dutch subtitels instead of another language spoken over it so out here everybothy speaks ab it of english writing is easy if you can speak it ifcours not without errors and sometimes with difficult words i use google translater
@MrWimvdg Then please tell me, how was his experiment success? Nowhere on Earth do we find evidence to support his hypothesis. Do you even know what his experiment entailed?
@CarajilloDulce im gonna stop this conversation just because of the fact that you wont think about what anyone me kent hovind or anyone else that talks about creation ciau
@MrWimvdg That's OK with me. I was surprised to find a Dutch person who actually believed the nonsense that Hovind comes out with. Nederlanders are usually too intelligent to fall for such nonsense.
yeah you say hese bankrupt can be only cause he gives away everything for free he wants too help everyone he can i dont say you gotta believe him everybody can choose what he wants to believe like on the end of the video please make up your own mind you get everything he says and stick it together all out of context i think the only reason you make stuff like this is cause youre scarerd that maybe he is right
@MrWimvdg by the U.S. judicial system. He believed that his religion gave him excuse not to pay taxes....even though the bible clearly states people should pay their taxes and obey the laws of the land. Hovind couldn't even get the teachings of his own religion correct.
He systematically redirected funds as to avoid taxation. He was convicted of 58 federal counts. He's a criminal and a liar.
they are nothing wrong with making a few dollars.remember it takes money to make money look at so called scientist.he also use NO copy write unlike the evolutionist.people who copywrite their stuff IS worried about money,duuua.@ 2:36 you wrote kent said dinos were dragons but showed him saying they were lizards,fail! i cant watch anymore of this junk you stuck together in a vain attempt to discredit him.you are misleading and a lair.you need to look for truth.
@Casshyr "I agree with GermanConquistador....NOT! What a troll" -Isnt that kind of slap-dash childishness the very essence of trollage? Seriously, my point was to refute this video point by point, thats not being a troll. Thats called walking into Mordor!
And then more out of context jabs and then the ALi G show, in which Kent was not taken seriously at all and was treated pretty crap I have to say. As for the great etc. grandpa thing seems ok to me. Logically speaking, our great etc. ancestors far back enough DID come from the primordial spawns correct? "They were spliced together but content was not edited" - Yes it was, context was edited out, and narrative slideshow captions were edited in. This video is an insult, disgusting mess.
Also, yes jokes very threatening. Clearly Kent is a sexist because he makes jokes about women. But from this video thats all you see. In his seminars he makes just as much fun at men, he jokes about a LOT of things its called a sense of humor. Abortion doctors: I dont even know what to say. He AGREES! He doesnt want the guy killed in mob justice, how is that wrong you idiot?! Gun control: This isnt a critique on Kent's religious views anyone. This is a liberal who cant stand opposing viewpoints
@GermanConquistador08 Hovind also makes fun of science by claiming to be a scientist and to have taught science. Kenty Boy has provided hours of copyright free comedy material with nothing other than common sense being threatened. He's really at his best as "Preacher In A Lab Coat" along with his son Eric, and his dissertation which he used to obtain his mail order doctorate in Christian Education from the Patriot Bible University Diploma Mill is a classic farce. Kent IS comedy!
@CarajilloDulce "Hovind also makes fun of science by claiming to be a scientist" -You can BE a scientist regardless of your state of degrees of whatever. By definition, everyone has been a scientist at one point in our lives because the means by which we acquire knowledge is solely based on scientific processes. What you dislike isnt that Kent is a scientist (which is really a meaningless term scientist as a point of positive character) its that he isnt a secular scientist.
@GermanConquistador08 What I like about Kent Hovind is that he's a comic genius. Did you realise that there are people who take him seriously! He's simply incredible, although to be honest his son Eric is a bit of a disappointment, on tour whilst his father is in prison but his delivery sucks, and unlike Kenty Boy, Eric has no original material. I love the subtle way that Kent implies that the Flinstones is actually a documentary and the YEEC fundamentalists swallow it hook, line, & sinker!
@CarajilloDulce "Did you realise that there are people who take him seriously!" - Well yeah, they take him seriously for the same reason people take people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens seriously (Took Chris seriously I should say now) The fact that atheist HAVE to regard Hovind with this much animosity and spite as a grounds to NOT HAVE to address his arguements says more about the atheistic community rather than Hovind. Its really quite sad.
@CarajilloDulce "he's a comic genius" -he is quite a funny man, he incorporates a lot of old time humor that you just dont see anymore but what have you. "although to be honest his son Eric is a bit of a disappointment" -I'm sure Eric probably doesnt care if hes dissapointing atheists or not, atheists hate the Hovind family for no good reason really. Seriously, what other group of people so demonizes the characters of the opposite arguement than atheists. Its really sad.
@CarajilloDulce "I love the subtle way that Kent implies that the Flinstones is actually a documentary" -In what manner? I find it very troubling that you ignored all of my points and went on a strange rant about how you're disappointed at Eric Hovind because you cant make fun of him as much. Again, if this is how the atheist community wishes to portray itself then fine, but at least stop making yourself out to be this high and mighty group of social crusaders, because you're not.
@GermanConquistador08 How can I be a group... I'm only one person? I don't compare Hovind (junior or senior) to Dawkins or Hitchens. He's closer to the late great Irish comedian David Tynan O'Mahoney, better known as Dave Allen. Dave used to dress up as a Catholic priest and there were a few (admittedly rather simple folk) who actually believed that he was one. Kent's comic genius has fooled far more folk though, but that's in America where maybe it's easier somehow. Who knows.. maybe you do?
@CarajilloDulce "don't compare Hovind (junior or senior) to Dawkins or Hitchens" -Well I did, I'm sorry if I insulted your gods I know but Dawkins and Hitchens were basically the same thing, mouthpieces and poster boys for a movement that were loved by their side by pretty much never taken fully seriously by the other. Editing that Hovind wasnt even that well known in the macro of Christianity, while almost the entire atheist community were taken in by Dawkins and Hitchen's nonsense.
@GermanConquistador08 I don't know how well Hovind was known in the Christian community. I do remember seeing Cosmologist (and Christian) Hugh Ross being set up to "debate" Hovind which was an absolute classic... funnier than anything Ali G has done. The look on Hugh Ross's face!! He couldn't believe the nonsense that Hovind was coming out with but still remained polite and calm (just like Tony Ben did when Ali G set him up). Kent IS comedy!!
@CarajilloDulce "The look on Hugh Ross's face!! He couldn't believe the nonsense that Hovind was coming out with but still remained polite and calm" - Thats the way you're SUPPOSED to act during a debate afterall. And Hovind was calm as well, same in the Ali G interview. Kent debated several people, I've seen several of his debates anyways and I've never seen on where he was outclasses or outwitted rather than his opponent a bit shaken.
@CarajilloDulce Also, these are big names man, they dont need justification "the look on Hugh Ross's face" So you dont care about the points or arguements? "Kent IS comedy!!" - I guess you're going with the say it enough times and it will become true tactic of mental delusion yes? "You say "sorry" a lot. Why do you apologise" - Mostly that I'm giving facts, making points and expressing arguements that totally undermine your worldview. Its sad to destroy someones point entirely.
@GermanConquistador08 Yeah... the look on Hugh Ross's face... it was incredible. He just couldn't believe the nonsense that Hovind was spouting. Hovind kept up the facade really well though. Kenty Boy's at his best when pretending to understand science and scientific method. He takes a loopy hypothesis about the supposed biblical flood, cites an experiment he claims to have performed that in fact disproves the hypothesis produces "The Hovind Theory" Classic farce. Kent IS comedy!!
@CarajilloDulce At this point you're not even addressing my points so I have no interest in participating further in this conversation all you're doing is insulting the opposition and making nicknames "Kenty Boy" which I thought we all grew out of doing after the age of 12, and repeating that montra of yours "Kent IS comedy!!" - In the vain hope that it can one day make any sense at all, of which at the moment it does not.
@GermanConquistador08 Awesome... you talk about making sense while at the same time talking about Kent Hovind. The two are mutually exclusive! You must be one of his comedy class students.
@CarajilloDulce "you talk about making sense while at the same time talking about Kent Hovind. The two are mutually exclusive!" -But thats a complete supposition on your part! Lets look at this logically, which isnt a good point in favor of people like you: If Kent Hovind made NO SENSE, no sense at all, then there would be no way to disect his arguements into coherent points. You CAN do this however as many people have, therefore Kent Hovind makes sense YOU and others simply dont AGREE!
@CarajilloDulce But for some reason, because people like you disagree but unlike others dont have the intelligence or patience to argue points, you have to resort to redefinitions and montras like "kent is commedy" in order to argue with someone who DOES have the intelligence to argue actual points, unlike you. Do you follow this simple logic man? "You must be one of his comedy class students" -...Kent doesnt run a comedy class, and I never lived in Pensecola so..no obviously. Idiot.
@GermanConquistador08 Ha Ha... you're calling me an idiot, but you're the one who actually believes the nonsense Hovind comes out with. A case of a fool being fooled by a fool.
@CarajilloDulce "you're calling me an idiot, but you're the one who actually believes the nonsense Hovind comes out with" - Ok again, I just explained to you: Just because you disagree with something, doesnt make it nonsense. I disagree with atheism, doesnt mean it doesnt make sense. It makes sense, its just WRONG. In the same sense, Hovind's point are NOT nonsense, you just believe them to be wrong. Now I NEVER said I AGREED with Hovind at all. Thats YOUR projection.
@CarajilloDulce Interesting wouldnt you agree? I dont agree with everything Hovind says, but a lot of what he says is simple logic and history. I dont subscribe to the Hovind theory or anything that he doesnt get from scripture or the like and he doesnt know his history when it comes to certain aspects. I dont agree or disagree with Hovind as a whole, like most normal people I agree and disagree with things he says. Anything else, you know that persons talking a bunch of crap.
@CarajilloDulce "Interesting?.... No, not really" -Yeah, thats what I thought. You really dont care about truth, or arguements do you? Thanks for wasting my time.
@CarajilloDulce I'm sorry, but the men talked about things they werent educated on, history, theology, geopgraphy. I'm sorry, they spoke nonsense. "but that's in America where maybe it's easier somehow. Who knows.. maybe you do?" - well, I wasnt born here, I was born farther south and raised across the Atlantic but I've been here since my teenage years so take that as you will.
@GermanConquistador08 You say "sorry" a lot. Why do you apologise so much if you've done nothing wrong? Which part of Germany are you from, and what did you conquer?
@CarajilloDulce "Which part of Germany are you from" -West Prussia. My paternal grandparents are from Poznan, half German half Polish. Same city as Paul von Hindenburg actually. "and what did you conquer?" - Well that would depend. Do you count my Prussian ancestry or my Mexican ancestry on the other side of my family, mestizo Aztec/Spanish? Or do you count where I grew up in my formative years in Brandenburg? Brandenburg-Prussia but later Germany, you know your history dont you?
@CarajilloDulce Does it really matter if he isnt a professional scientist? Does it regard secular scientists? And if you're looking for an actual PROFESSIONAL scientist than look no further than Francis Collins, an amazing human genome researcher and the man who took care of Christopher Hitchens when he had cancer. Its not a matter that you take offense to Kent's claims to be a scientist its that he didnt teach the science YOU particularly agree with.
@GermanConquistador08 You wanna know who was a PROFESSIONAL scientist? Albert Einstein. And you know whose theories completely disprove the idea of a young universe? Albert Einstein's.
@CarajilloDulce "He's really at his best as "Preacher In A Lab Coat"" - Personally, I dont care about his awards, degrees whatever what SHOULD be cared about is his ARGUEMENTS! I've almost never seen his arguements addressed, only his character. "doctorate...is a classic farce." - As Kent himself said "if you dont like my doctor title than call me Buba and address the arguements." There are men who add Don, Colonel, and Lord to their names. Doesnt make them any less credible.
@GermanConquistador08 " I've almost never seen his arguements addressed, only his character. "
Then you've been reading extremely selectively, because his hypotheses are very easy to disprove. He argues for the flood which is disprovable by geological records, he argues that fossils were created in the flood despite the organization of the fossil record, he doesn't even address carbon dating, he argues that oil can be formed in 6000 years... it goes on. He is a dishonest science-illiterate.
@ChaseKittens "He argues for the flood which is disprovable by geological records, he argues that fossils were created in the flood despite the organization of the fossil record" -but thats the problem, you arent addressing this arguements, you're addressing his POSITIONS of which he talks about geological and fossil records. And yes he does address carbon dating, its not in his video series though its in a seperate one, his college classes and 100 reasons why evolution is stupid.
@GermanConquistador08 There is no difference between his arguments and positions because he doesn't provide arguments for his positions, because he is a science-illiterate. It is piss-easy to disprove his claims to anyone with a basic understanding of science. He isn't convincing to anyone with a proper education, hence creationism sharing a starkly negative correlation with higher education.
@ChaseKittens "There is no difference between his arguments and positions because he doesn't provide arguments for his positions" - Thats not true at all, he provides examples, arguements, point by point refutiations of his opponents arguements and the like completely. "because he is a science-illiterate" -So your only evidence is a false supposition? Good job. "It is piss-easy to disprove his claims" -Than why hasnt anyone attempted to do so critically?
@ChaseKittens "a basic understanding of science" -Well how basic? High-school level? Middle school level? Honestly, when you make sweeping statements like that its hard to tell where your actual position is. Even HOVIND states his positions better than you. "He isn't convincing to anyone with a proper education" - I have a proper education and some of what he says appeals to me. Not all of it or even the grand majority but to make sweeping statements again, just clouds your positions.
@ChaseKittens "hence creationism sharing a starkly negative correlation with higher education" - Thats like saying that heliocentric theory shared a starkly negative correlation with higher education. Well OF COURSE no alternative is even being presented and people are FIRED for doing so, IN an educational envirnment where revisionist history and economic theories exist.There are college courses on Communist theories and communist-leaning professors who keep their jobs but creationists get fired
@GermanConquistador08 Creationists don't become scientists because creationism isn't science. Being a creationist biologist wouldn't get you far because it's professional incompetence.
You seem to be pretending that no one is willing to go in-depth about his claims, but you just aren't looking. I'll do it if you want to, anything from the validity of carbon dating to the fossil record to vestigial organs to comparative genetics.
@ChaseKittens "Creationists don't become scientists" -So NO creationists reside in any scientific fields? Whatsoever? Again,sweeping statements is all you have to support your claims at this moment. "because creationism isn't science" - No, its not. At least its not suppose to be, its a viewpoint, just like evolution. But there is evolutionary science and creation science, both dealing with experiments MOSTLY on the theoretical and micro-scale because its impossible to do hard science on these
@ChaseKittens This is what I mean: If an evolutionist wants to experiment with a piece of evolution theory, than they'd have to set up a theoretical model of that piece because as even evolutionists have said its impossible to conduct direct experimentation on the ideals of evolution because of its conditions, time afterall isnt replicatible. The experiment therefore pre-SUPPOSES the conditions by which you have the experiment. Creation Science does the EXACT same thing only with creationism...
@GermanConquistador08 There is plenty of evidence for evolution without needing to model time, although evolution's predictions in regard to the passage of time are perfectly matched with those of geology and all relevant feilds of science, which you can't say for creationism. Vestigial organs/genes, junk DNA, comparative genomes, observed speciation, you don't even need the timeline to get into the evidence for evolution.
@ChaseKittens "Vestigial organs/genes, junk DNA, comparative genomes, observed speciation" -Again, that would all be fine if you didnt have answers of all of these that simply dont get addressed. Vestigial organs are often NOT vestigal, they have purposes as such you can have them removed and have severe affects on the body such as the tailbone. If you point to the appendix, you can remove it but so can one of your kidneys and neither is suggested unless it is neccesary.
@GermanConquistador08 Really, doctors don't suggest cutting you open and making you go through painful and potentially risky surgery unless it's necessary? Wow, that's news to me. And vestigial organs generally are vestigial. The appendix used to do something vital, now it is only mildly helpful and not necessary to survive. The kidneys are a terrible example and are not vestigial at all. And you want a real vestigial organ? How about whales' vestigial leg bones? Or an ostrich's vestigial wings?
@GermanConquistador08 " Vestigial organs are often NOT vestigal, they have purposes"
Because of secondary features, like in your case of the appendix. Blind mole rats with eyes completely covered in skin, and with eyesight poorer than some animals without eyes at all, aren't so easy to sweep under the carpet.
Also, what a convenient coincidence for the "evolutionists" that vestigial organs line up with the tree of life of evolution. Shame creationists never address that.
@ChaseKittens ..being your supposed condition rather than evolution. And to people who dont believe in evolution its about as much science as creation science is to evolutionists. "Being a creationist biologist" - There ARE creationists biologists, they're just not common. You religious beliefs dont interfere with what you love to do for a living. "You seem to be pretending that no one is willing to go in-depth" - As of yet, the best was probably Thunderfoot's videos on him, laced with insults
There ARE holocaust-denying historians too, they don't don't carry any merit because of their lack of evidence and denial of reality, just like creationists - their theories bring about no new knowledge and don't explain the observations as well as more consensual theories.
Just because Thunderfoot's videos contain well-deserved insults doesn't mean you can brush his criticism of Hovind under the carpet.
@ChaseKittens "There ARE holocaust-denying historians too" -First of all, holocaust-denial as in questioning the exact numbers, location and people involved with it yes, but no serious, professional historians at this day and age are holocaust-denialist. Secondly, you're comparing an act that has video footage, eyewitness testimony on a MASSIVE scale and pin-point accurate documentation from the Nazis themselves. Saying that evolution is as true as the Holocaust is an INSULT to that event.
@GermanConquistador08 "Saying that evolution is as true as the Holocaust is an INSULT"
Saying it isn't discloses ignorance to the science involved, which you clearly have poor comprehension of. Yes, history and science have different methodology, but in this case the holocaust/evolution have all the evidence pointing to them and none to the contrary.
I brought up Holocaust denial amongst historians to point out that human are fallable and we'll always have a handful of crackpot anomolies.
@ChaseKittens Seriously, neanderthals and dinosaurs didnt have entire office buildings filled with documentation on their evolution, we have the clerk at the Wannsee Conferance, you dont have anything like that for evolution. Creationists arent Holocaust-deniers. Saying so proves your historical illiteracy. "well-deserved insults" -This is my problem with the atheists, NO ONE! deserved insults for speaking their views, regardless of how much you disagree with it, thats called arrogence.
The distribution of life, fossil record, comparative genomes/anatomy, vestigial organs, DNA replication, pseudogenes and junk DNA, observed speciation... So far ALL of biology and relevant chemistry and geology all are exactly precise on the same fact of evolution.
Not to mention evolution would be piss-easy to disprove if it weren't true. Just find a fossil drastically out of place, before it should exist in time.
@ChaseKittens Again, I'd love to see a straight shooting debunking of Hovind's main points rather than just a cut-paste of his clips along with insults all the way. "but you just aren't looking" -Well, I am. And I've found nothing.
@ChaseKittens And in the same sense, having higher educated people agreeing with you doesnt matter if NONE of them can articulate why this "moron" Hovind, as described by every militant evolutionist, is WRONG! Everyone just baas the same copy-pasted answer "its so easy to disprove its not worth it"
@GermanConquistador08 HAHAHA militant evolutionist. That's a good one. So tell me, how many evolutionists have you seen taking up arms against creationists? Is there an evolutionist army? You know, there have been militant Christians, but I've never heard of any atheists taking up arms simply for the sake of atheism, or evolutionists for the sake of evolution. You know those things called the Crusades? Well atheists don't have a holy land to try to take over, raping and pillaging as they go.
@siegel019 "Is there an evolutionist army?" -No, but your straw man doesnt hold up very well man, I never said there was. I mean militant as in angry, bitter, hostile to opposing opinion. "You know those things called the Crusades?" -Yeah, when the Byzantian Emperor plead for support from the Pope agains thte Turks and the Pope responded by sending the jobless knights to protect pilgrams? Yeah I do, it wasnt a completely religious encounter, and suprisingly little civilian death for the times.
@GermanConquistador08 First of all, there were multiple Crusades. That was only the First Crusade. The rest were pointless religious wars, often fought because of the changing of hands of a single city that was found to be important, and thousands of people were slaughtered. It's not a straw man argument, you implied that evolutions were taking up arms by calling them militant. There aren't any militant evolutionists. Sure there are activist evolutionists, but they wouldn't fight a war for it.
@siegel019 "there were multiple Crusades" -Yes, the first being a call from their allies in Byzantium and the social problems with the European knights, the second was to protect the pilgrams in Jerusalem. The third was to retake Jerusalem, at that point a military and strategic objective not just religious, the fourth was the Venetians proving how secular the crusades were for the Italians, war for trade routes to the East. The rest were either failures or taken without the popes permission.
@siegel019 " thousands of people were slaughtered" - Less civilians were killed in the crusades than the 100 years war. It wasnt in the crusader states that the persecution of Jews were taken, it was EUROPE at the TIME of the crusades were hte jews were persecuted. Jews in the Holy land faired reasonable well. It was the citizens in cities holding out under siege which bore the brunt of the brutality, but that was a common tactic in medieval military tactic to prevent sieges later in wars.
@GermanConquistador08 Wow, really, less civilians died in a series of wars that, when you add them up, lasted 40 years total, than a war that lasted 116 years? However did that happen? But the fact is that if the church had not been so hell-bent on conquering the Holy Land after the First Crusade, then nobody would have died. It was a senseless war, and above all, a religious war. Children fought in the crusades.Children died for a cause they weren't really even old enough to understand.
@siegel019 "Wow, really, less civilians died in a series of wars that, when you add them up, lasted 40 years total, than a war that lasted 116 years?" - As in Europeans are more likely to kill each other over dynastic influences than killing foreigners of different religions. Perhaps not the best example granted. "the church had not been so hell-bent on conquering the Holy Land " -They werent, the circumstances were simply perfect for the opprotunity to take.
@siegel019 "It was a senseless war, and above all, a religious war" -Sorry, you're completely wrong. No war is senseless, if it was so it wouldnt have been fought. No one goes to war ignorantly, period. The Crusaders were fought for political, strategtic, economic, diplomatic, and social reasons along with religious and in combat those reasons mean little. "Children fought in the crusades" - You do realize that it probably never happened? Dont worry, history produces many myths.
@GermanConquistador08 You know, by saying that Jews were persecuted in Europe, you're not really helping your case here. So the Catholic Church was killing people at home and abroad. See what I mean by militant?
@siegel019 "You know, by saying that Jews were persecuted in Europe, you're not really helping your case here." - The fact that the Christian knights and soldiers acted with more civility than the European peasents. Also, Europeans are fickle with the Jews, Spain was the safest place for them before 1492, and Germany before the 20th century, and its rarely for religious reasons they are persecuted, mostly economic.
@GermanConquistador08 Also, since you accused me of a straw man argument, I would like to point out that your original argument contained an argument ad hominem, and that's mainly why I chose to attack your use of the word militant rather than actually saying anything about evolution. However, there is plenty of proof for evolution, it's just that you and your ilk simply brush it off and come up with some stupid reason why you should reject it. So generally nobody bothers.
@siegel019 And there was little to no persecution of Muslims under the Crusader states. The Muslim poet Ibn Jubayr makes note of how WELL Muslims lived under the crusaders, and many muslims were tempted to go TO those states and live there. "you implied that evolutions were taking up arms" - No I didnt, you see what I mean by straw man? Militant as in in attitude, they're militantly adherent to their beliefs. I said militant, not violent or extremists. Give me a break with that crap.
@GermanConquistador08 Okay, well, no, evolutionists are not the ones who are militantly adherent to our beliefs. If a new theory surfaces that has more and better evidence for it than evolution, then evolution will be discarded in favor of that theory. It's simply that we don't want dogma taught in school, and we want the best theories taught, and for now, evolution is certainly the best theory, unless you want to give me hard evidence of your intelligent design crap.
@siegel019 "evolutionists are not the ones who are militantly adherent to our beliefs" - Than why is it that anyone holidng opposing viewpoints are literally insulted to point the redundency? I'm just saying, this doesnt happen en masse with other group...except possibly Ron Paul supports but thats a joke rather than an arguement, heh. "then evolution will be discarded in favor of that theory" -Somehow I highyl doubt that. "we don't want dogma taught in school" -Than why is it?
@GermanConquistador08 "this doesnt happen en masse with other group..." Really? Are you fucking serious? Let me share this gem with you. It might take more than one comment, though, since the guy posted this to my channel. Actually, I'm going to have to make a new comment for it.
@GermanConquistador08 go fuck ur homosexual pervert father u dumbfucking incest freak of nature, fuck u atheists cocksuckers, u guys drool for fucking bug-infested shemales & HIV transvestites, vote for gay marrage & abortions & pretend ur so smart cool & decent, when u fucks are the worst dumbshit to walk this earth.
@GermanConquistador08 ur so arrogant, ignorant & stupid u think ur so special when u blindly believe in the dumbest bullshit myth ever invented by man, the fucking evolution, in other words ur proud to say ur most distant ancestor was fucking sand. That alone makes ur so-called cleverness into clusterfuck stupidity. From nothing life can't evolve u dumbass fucktard.
@GermanConquistador08 Have u no idea how fucking morons u fucks are ? ur just a fucking minority throwing shit at whoever disagrees with u like fucking kids, FUCK OFF U & UR FUCKING MONKEY ASSWIPE DARWIN & UR COCKBEGGING ATHEISM U FUCKING PIG'S CUNT." -- some creationist insulting me simply for being an evolutionist.
@siegel019 "See what I mean by militant?" -The socio-political organization kill during a war? Yeah I do, whats your point? "since the guy posted this to my channel" -Again, en masse, if its one person than it doesnt help your case. Also, I looked at your channel, didnt see any comments. Might just be the new outline. Idk. As such I dont care about your comment, it might not even be real as far as I know and I sure dont know if it was a creationist, might have just been a troll.They shape-shift.
@siegel019 "And that stuff is pretty typical" -Well, I couldnt find it on your channel, and I've never seen youtube content producers put this kind of stuff out as well I've rarely seen CHrisitans act like this on youtube openly. HOWEVER, I have seen it by atheists constantly. I'm sorry, one unprovable account doesnt help you. "seriously, give me some evidence" - Uniformity, laws of logic, the cosmological arguement, natural morality to name I'll go in deeper if you'd like on a single topic
@GermanConquistador08 Please, go into detail on each, I'd like to know more. But how about the cosmological argument first? And if you use Pascal's Wager for the laws of logic, I'll probably bang my head against the wall. It's a flawed argument; it creates a false dichotomy.
@siegel019 "But how about the cosmological argument first?" - The fact of the matter is, the universe, ours obviously, is extremely fine tuned, if one thing was out of place, life would not exist and we're learning how this is true more and more as we learn about the universe. Logic: If reason and logic is just something that humans have created than it has no force on thinking beings other than what other humans have imposed on them. Logic and reason have no basis for themselves.
@GermanConquistador08 The cosmological argument is entirely false. For example, one of the things that creationists claim is that if the earth were a few miles closer to the sun, then life on earth would not be possible. However, the habitable zone is actually 41 million miles wide, so the earth could be much closer or much further away from the sun.
@siegel019 "so the earth could be much closer or much further away from the sun." - I'm not talking about the habitable zone, I'm talking about the rate at which the universe expands, the length stars and galaxies are from each other, the rate at which things orbit etc. etc. Again, I'm not great on scientific principles, especially astronomy (pardon, as I've said) but if the universe DOES show these kind of rules, than something tells me it isnt by accident.
@GermanConquistador08 Also, with so many planets orbiting so many billions of stars, it is almost statistically impossible that life would not exist on at least one of them. Assuming evolution is correct, that is. And also, not only is it false, but it's flawed logic. Just because you do not understand something does not mean it was created, and just because something is complex or has certain requirements does not mean it was created either. You're jumping to conclusions.
@siegel019 The reason I say this is because of how unlikely it is that it happened in the first place. "You're jumping to conclusions." -Wouldnt you say that YOU are jumpinh to conclusions? I never said that I dont understand something, I just havnt gotten an answer on the things I do understand and havnt been filled on the things that not only I dont understand, but the things that SCIENTISTS dont understand. "What about if Hindus are right?" -Well which Hindus? THeres millions of Hinduisms
@siegel019 This much is a fact: If evolution ever did take place, it isnt right now and the odds of it happening are very very slim, and we've never seen concrete proof of evolution beyond several facetes of darwin's ideas, survival and the fittest and the like, and speciation. And no, e. coli learning to eat something different doesnt make it proof of evolution, that experiment did not convince me. Maybe its like a meme thing, you dont understand it unless you're in on it. Huh.
@GermanConquistador08 It IS taking place now, but it is not taking place with humans because of a lack of selective pressures in our society. A person can have severe genetic defects that an animal in the wild would not survive, but because of modern medicine, a human can survive long enough to reproduce. E. coli learning to adapt to a new environment and survive in it, however, is a radical change. Also, that experiment completely disproves Hovind's claim that no new genetic info is introduced.
@siegel019 "a lack of selective pressures in our society" - What about in more primative countries. Shouldnt there be tests on African or Far East communities and their rate of mutation or whatever data they can gather? Also, if at some people we can cure genetic defects and humanity becomes more uniform, wont that forever shut out the evidence of human evolution? "Also, that experiment completely disproves Hovind's claim that no new genetic info is introduced" - How so?
@siegel019 "give me hard evidence of your intelligent design crap." -Well, your assumption is that its already crap. Any evidence I give you regardless of how strong would bounce right off and I dont feel like wasting my time. And no thats not hypocracy, I'm free and open to evolutionary evidence and I'll tell you why I think its wrong and your free to respond, rather than atheists who simply insult anyone who raises any sort of objection.
@GermanConquistador08 Your'e just dodging the question. No, seriously, give me some evidence. If it actually makes sense, then I will consider it. I can keep an open mind and consider real evidence, but I've just never been given any that actually makes sense.
@siegel019 "with some stupid reason why you should reject it." -Again, isnt that a completely baseless assumption? If evolutionists arent even to address basic arguements and brush THAT off, hypocritically I might add, rather than explain and examine and RE-examine again and again a theory which is SO beloved than why do they resist to do it? A Christian rarely refuses a chance to argue about the evidence of God and the like, why not atheists on evolution? Are you guys just THAT arrogent?
@GermanConquistador08 It's not a baseless assumption. It is a generalization, yes, but in my experience, it's true. You want proof of evolution? Google "evolution observed in a lab" and click one of the first few results. There's proof of speciation right there. However, you'll simply say "but it's the same KIND of organism" because it's a bacteria, despite the fact that it is radically different from its ancestors.
@siegel019 Look, I'm not saying that evolution should be a scientific endeavor. Everything should be, including creationism. All science is worth something, it doesnt matter what it doesnt conform to. What I'm saying is that lets wait to teach it in college biology rather than 12+ before we actual know all of the ramifications. "it is radically different from its ancestors" - No it isnt. Learning to eat (metabolise whatever) something else that the organism didnt before NO thats not radical.
@GermanConquistador08 Evolution is not taught at age 12. I was never taught it until AP Biology in 11th grade, or maybe it was Honors Biology in 10th, but either way, I was a high school student, completely capable of understanding everything that was taught to me and the ramifications of it. The problem with what you're saying is that creationism is not a science. You start off with a preconceived notion and start out to prove it. Science starts with the evidence and draws a conclusion.
@siegel019 Afterall, other organisms can use citrate. I'm sorry but that seems like a small drop in an empty pool man, I'm sorry I'm trying to see how it works. I admit that science is my weakest subject of human intrigue, history, geography and politics are more my speed but with my limited knowledge I cant make any connections betwen being able to grow on a new substaince over time leads to these E coli become a higher form of life.
@GermanConquistador08 That in and of itself does not lead to E. coli becoming "a higher form of life", but that is not the point. The point is that it is different. You are also only given a very short period of time for the E. coli to mutate, so you cannot expect that you will observe in a lab what took millions of years in nature. The fact is that that specific bacteria strain is no longer E. coli. It is something else.
@GermanConquistador08 Yes, other organisms can use citrate, but E. coli cannot. This specific E. coli strain was able to develop that trait, and it proliferated much more quickly in the environment than the other strains did, leading to that one becoming the dominant form of E. coli in the test. That is evolution.
@siegel019 "The problem with what you're saying is that creationism is not a science" -Anything that uses the scientific method is a science. Sciences attempts to prove and disprove theories. Your argueing semantics at this point. "ignored my evidence that the universe is at least 13 billion years old. Care to offer a rebuttal?" -Well to be honest I didnt see it, might have missed it or you didnt post it. My apologies.
@GermanConquistador08 Alright, well, what I said was that the universe has to be at least 13.1 billion years old, because the farthest object we can see is 30 billion light years away, meaning that if the universe were not at least 13.1 billion years old (you have to do some calculations using the rate of expansion of space-time in order to come up with this number), then the light from that object would not have reached earth yet.
@siegel019 It has no meaning essentially. Also, if the universe has no uniformity (the cosmological arguement) then we can only use particulars to gain knowledge because anything would have no relation to anything else, even if it seems that is the case. Just because something is a certain way in one instance doesnt mean that it is in every instance. Unless nature is uniform, than there is no universals. What would give a random universe uniformity, a personal, non-contingent, omni-present being
@siegel019 Why do I say that? Omnipresent because it would have to be outside of the universe, noncontingent because it would need to be unseen otherwise it would be obvious to everyone and that is not the case and personal because it would only be in this manner that we COULD know about the existance of such a being, and yes being because an objection would need to have an account for itself, an omni-present being would not. We call this being God.
@siegel019 Finally, the mind. If the mind is just part of the brain and theres no element besides the physical than we're all driven solely by chemical reactions in our brains and no one could be held responsible for anything they did, there would be no right or wrong and no reason to follow any conventions of right and wrong. Pascal's wager is just another arguement, but its still one to be considered. Afterall, if atheists are right you'll never know and if you're wrong you'll know forever.
@GermanConquistador08 What about if Hindus are right? What about if Muslims are right? What about if no religion is right, but something entirely different is? That's what I mean by a false dichotomy. It's entirely flawed. Also, all of your arguments are purely philosophical, and therefore have no real bearing on the world. You cannot simply say that god exists because I think he should. There is no real, objective evidence.
@siegel019 The fact of the matter if, the Judeo-Christian religion is the one with the MOST evidence, logical explaination and the only one with provable fulfilld prophecies in the world. There is no religion like it. Pascal's wager is simply the logical conclusion of a simple calculation, I'm not saying its a reason to believe I'm saying its a reason to CONSIDER. "because I think he should" -Its not a matter of he should, its a matter of if he doesnt, than things logically dont fit together.
@GermanConquistador08 And again, in your argument about the mind, you jump to conclusions. You assume that nothing could give us morality other than god and religion. Society gives us morality. Society tells us what is right and wrong. Society is a contract between multiple people based off of trust and solidarity, and in it, rules are laid out, and people are raised to obey those rules. Your problem is that you attribute things to god that do not have to be attributed to god.
@siegel019 "Society gives us morality" - Thats not true, if that was the case than there SHOULD BE no uniform state of morality, but ALL people understand concepts like rape, murder, and illogic are things to be avoided. All humans are built with a moral code as far as we can see it, why? And if its the cause of evolutionary processes, as indeed it SHOULD BE, than why? Does the evolutionary process somehow KNOW that the ultimate goal of humanity SHOULD BE..to simple survive and grow?
@GermanConquistador08 Society does give us morality to some degree, to another degree our morality is based on the argument of "i wouldn't want it to happen to me". Murder is and always has been wrong (between peers, not slaves or people that do not count as 'us') because nobody wants to be murdered. Evolution knows nothing, its the name of the process of passing on genes and mutation but it only passes on the genes of the survivors and breeders so in a way it knows.
@rhubis "Evolution knows nothing, its the name of the process of passing on genes and mutation but it only passes on the genes of the survivors and breeders so in a way it knows." - I completely agree. I mean, in simplified terms YES thats what evolution as we know it is and I accept that 100%. But even the idea of the golden rule, I wouldnt do to this person what I wouldnt do to myself is destroyed by the fact that its not universal and in many animal kigndoms KILLING is needed to survival
@GermanConquistador08 Look among social animals, wolves and chimps and you see that its not the case. Then again if you look at human history then you see that our morals have not always been the same they have also changed to reflect a change in attitudes, when we counted black people as equals then the crimes against them became equal. While the base of our morality comes from the social animals we evolved from it changed as our society did.
@rhubis "when we counted black people as equals then the crimes against them became equal" - Actually, thats an argument FOR universal morality. The #1 place for the world slave trader was Africa after the 1400s BUT the #1 profiteers of the African slave trade were OTHER Africans. Before then, slavery was by blood and debt obligation, it wasnt until the later 17th century that it became a racial thing on a mass level.
@rhubis "While the base of our morality comes from the social animals we evolved from it changed as our society did." - If thats the case, why dont we see societies of wolves and chimps CHANGE radically as we do, especially under different envirnments. Except for physical restrictions, animals seem to live the same way regardless of their envirnment, at least with other animals.
@GermanConquistador08 Again not true, apes in captivity have been seen to adopt new 'laws' so to speak. Back to the main point, our society does give us morals rather than some God. Our morals are echoed in social animals and the 'golden rule' do unto others predates the bible by many centuries. Our morals have changed along with our society animals society has mostly remained static.
@rhubis "Our morals have changed along with our society animals society has mostly remained static." -Thats my point. If evolution is continious, than WHY dont we see morality or social rules changing amongst animals? You'd think that'd be a natural part of evolution, evolving mentally, physically and socially as we supposedly have. And if society gives us morals, why is it that humans can choose not to follow those rules, but animals cant? Its their programming, not ours?
@GermanConquistador08 Only if it gives a benefit to have better morality. Does the morality improve the survival of animals? I can't see that it would. Evolution only explains part of our morality (that which is common among social animals), our society evolved along with our understanding not because we gained better morals through evolution.
@rhubis "Does the morality improve the survival of animals? I can't see that it would" - Than wouldnt that mean that morality is actually a HINDERANCE to human evolutionary development? If it is to animals, but why would they EVER develop one? And if thats the case, why do humans hold to morality that ultimately subverts their basic instincts, food, sex and pleasure. "Some modern countries only see the fault in the woman for allowing herself to be raped." - Again my point being...
@GermanConquistador08 i meant superiour to what they currently have when i said improve survival of social animals. human morality is almost universal at the basic level, the golden rule is universal as long as the society sees the various people as equal. The differences of our moral code depend on the society in question.
@rhubis "The differences of our moral code depend on the society in question." - So can humans, alter the course of evolutionary development by their actions? And if so, wouldnt the evolutionary process be driving that? Scientists, as far as I've heard, really dont have a cut off point for when the evolutionary process STOPS being the driving force of humanity. Does it? And if it doesnt, how is it so malluable by humans?
@GermanConquistador08 Would a social stigma against killing other animals negativly affect the survival of wolves? Yes. Is there a bonus to survival if lions live in a pride and protect each other and don't kill eachother? Yes. Gaining a morality akin to humans would poorly effect the survival of such animals, they have developed their morality to survive in a social environment, it works as well as possible.
@rhubis AND if it is so changable by humanity through ever means possible, including artifical evolution in the lab, than how can we say for certain that evolution is a NATURAL process? "Yes. Gaining a morality akin to humans would poorly effect the survival of such animals" - In which case, HOW did animals evolve to the level of humans if their morality, as we see throughout MOST of the animal kingdom, never progresses?
@GermanConquistador08 Dude, you can't argue with some people. Either they are too ignorant to want to learn or too dumb to understand the concept of learning. So, they just take everyone's word or the first concept they hear for granted.
@GermanConquistador08 back to the original point, does society give us morality? Look to humans in their early history or even in other countries. Rape, morally wrong to the extreme in the western world, in the bible (even though it doesn't stand up historically it is from around the time and indicates the views of the people) Rape was an offence punishable via a fine. Some modern countries only see the fault in the woman for allowing herself to be raped.
all this video is someone asking or saying dumb shit and cutting out parts of his clips out to make him sound bad i think you should watch the whole of his videos and then decide and not just decide over this rubbish
pizzafishman 2 days ago
if you have ever seen his videos or dvds they make perfect sence your just to ignorant to see it differently
pizzafishman 2 days ago
Jeffrey Dahmer was an atheist
ikawpipa 4 days ago
@peterparker2004 go to any museum. go to any modern genetics laboratory. or you can just ask for an xray of your wisdom teeth and appendix.
xnobody777x 1 week ago
@xnobody777x Wisdom teeth and the appendix doesn't prove evolution. Since you want to talk about genetics though, proteins are an essential any organism. Proteins are composed of aproximatiely 20 different types amino acids. There are atleast 30,000 different proteins each composed of the same 20 amino acids. While the number and sequencing of the amino acids involved vary from protein to protein, one thing is certian; the amino acids themselves cannot form into proteins without a detailed .....
peterparker2004 1 week ago
@xnobody777x without a detailed set of instuctions. This is where DNA comes in. DNA automaticly points to intelligent design, NOT a god, but the fact that we WERE CREATED in some way, shape, or form. The theory of evolution cannot account for DNA as in evolution we had to have formed SOMEHOW without DNA.
peterparker2004 1 week ago
To everyone watching this video: DO NOT take this guys WORD for anything, DO NOT take Kent Hovind's WORD for anything, GET THE FACTS YOURSELF! Take some TIME, put in the EFFORT to educate YOURSELF. ANYONE trying to teach someone will ussually say this FIRST as these are the first words Kent Hovind's mouth on several of his DVDs. It is among the first words printed in William Cooper's book, Behold a Pale Horse. REAL teachers don't want to mis-inform people.
peterparker2004 1 week ago
Kent Hovind has some of the best debates I've found on youtube.
Caravandrums 2 weeks ago
@Caravandrums "Hovind has been serving a ten-year prison sentence after being convicted of 58 federal counts, including 12 tax offenses, one count of obstructing federal agents, and 45 counts of structuring cash transactions"
Dont you mean best lies?
redddbaron 2 weeks ago
@Caravandrums he doesn't even understand fucking evolution. his competitors don't even bother with him.
xnobody777x 1 week ago
@xnobody777x He does't have to, it's not his RELIGEON.
peterparker2004 1 week ago
@peterparker2004 if he wants to debate evolutionists and not spew bullshit, then i think he should understand evolution.
xnobody777x 1 week ago
@xnobody777x Evolutionists believe this whole world as we know it came from a soup that formed on a rock. Do you believe that?
peterparker2004 1 week ago
@peterparker2004 sure. evidence. you can try to make it sound as silly as you want, but in the end, we have evidence on our side.
xnobody777x 1 week ago
@xnobody777x Really? Where is this evidence? I would love to see it!
peterparker2004 1 week ago
@xnobody777x "but in the end, we have evidence on our side" -Everyone has evidence on their side, the question is whose evidence is the most trustworthy, the most backed up by the facts and most credible and right now evolutionary theory does not have the scientific or philosophical technology and rhetoric respectively to claim sole heir to the truth on the origin and development of life on earth.
GermanConquistador08 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@peterparker2004 "Evolutionists believe this whole world as we know it came from a soup that formed on a rock".... obviously you do not even understand the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origins of the "whole world as we know it". Kent Hovind was nothing but a YEEC fundamentalist preacher in a lab coat. Now he's a YEEC fundamentalist preacher in prison.
CarajilloDulce 1 week ago
this video is made by a fool
hondaspeed152 2 weeks ago
@hondaspeed152 Correction.... this video is made about a fool.
CarajilloDulce 2 weeks ago
The Hovind Theory ........ check the evidence for yourselves .........
youtube.com/watch?v=_sD_7rxYoZY
CarajilloDulce 2 weeks ago
Creation Science.... one of the great oxymorons of our time.
CarajilloDulce 3 weeks ago
@CarajilloDulce Is that so? So I'm guessin then you're saying evolution isn't part of science either?
peterparker2004 1 week ago
man you now nothing it whas the ACLU they framend him because he wus getting to much people on his side theyre scared that people will know that the evolution theorie is bullshit he says allot of things where they dont have an answer too and all of those guys of the ACLU well theyre all great supporters for the evolution theorie
MrWimvdg 3 weeks ago
@MrWimvdg There's no way there'll ever be enough people daft enough to believe the nonsense that Mr. Kent Hovind came out with to be a serious threat to anything. Such levels of ignorance and religious delusion are hard to come by in the developed world. YEEC fundamentalists such as Hovind are in the minority, not only in the secular world, but also in the Christian community world wide, and within the scientific community the likes of Hovind are simply ignored. He's a tax evading preacher.
CarajilloDulce 3 weeks ago
@CarajilloDulce jes we are a monority but history prooved that not only majoritys were wright man if you would look at his movies you see he stumps allot of proffessors who where in the majority
MrWimvdg 3 weeks ago
@MrWimvdg I have watched Mr. Hovind's presentations. At first I thought he was a comic genius until I realised that he was taking himself seriously. Then I realised that he was just a fundamentalist preacher trying to justify his particular version of a collection of variously translated and interpreted bronze age myths and anecdotes using pseudo science. Even the experiment he claims to have carried out to prove his "Hovind Theory" regarding a supposed biblical flood disproves his hypothesis.
CarajilloDulce 3 weeks ago
@MrWimvdg ...and also, being in such a minority, it is hardly likely that YEEC fundamentalists pose a serious threat to anything.
CarajilloDulce 3 weeks ago
@CarajilloDulce i think you look over allot of evidence and that you dont wanna believe youve been brainwached bye society i meen can you remember the part about the big skeletons thy where over 4meters long and theyve never seen again an you believe that no musea in the world is ganna be interested in a 4m long skeleton thats the lie that they wanna make us all believe i mean comn and a whole bunch of other other things think about it man
MrWimvdg 3 weeks ago
@MrWimvdg I find it amusing that you talk about "evidence" as it's the one thing Kent Hovind fails to present in any meaningful way. He also chooses to ignore a wealth of evidence simply on the grounds that it does not agree with his presupposition that the Earth is only 6000 years old, based upon a book of variously translated and interpreted bronze age myths and anecdotes. He's a fundamentalist preacher desperate to convince people of his religious belief (and to profit from it).
CarajilloDulce 3 weeks ago
@MrWimvdg Please use correct spelling and grammar if you're going to argue. I'm not being insulting, just saying atleast try. The kind of people you are trying to argue with will try to use it to cut you in half and dis-credit anything you say.
peterparker2004 1 week ago
@peterparker2004 i understand its just that english is not my native language im from flanders in belgium
MrWimvdg 1 week ago
@MrWimvdg Oh ok, then you must be using a translator of some sort?
peterparker2004 1 week ago
@peterparker2004 no excely i dont but in flanders and the netherlands all the movies are english with dutch subtitels instead of another language spoken over it so out here everybothy speaks ab it of english writing is easy if you can speak it ifcours not without errors and sometimes with difficult words i use google translater
MrWimvdg 1 week ago
@peterparker2004 thx anyway
MrWimvdg 1 week ago
@CarajilloDulce and BDW the experiment whasnt a failiure it was a succes and he made allot of bullshit theories be proved not to be wright
MrWimvdg 3 weeks ago
@MrWimvdg Then please tell me, how was his experiment success? Nowhere on Earth do we find evidence to support his hypothesis. Do you even know what his experiment entailed?
CarajilloDulce 3 weeks ago
@CarajilloDulce im gonna stop this conversation just because of the fact that you wont think about what anyone me kent hovind or anyone else that talks about creation ciau
MrWimvdg 2 weeks ago
@MrWimvdg That's OK with me. I was surprised to find a Dutch person who actually believed the nonsense that Hovind comes out with. Nederlanders are usually too intelligent to fall for such nonsense.
CarajilloDulce 2 weeks ago
@CarajilloDulce im from belgium thats right next to the nederlands how did you know
MrWimvdg 2 weeks ago
@MrWimvdg Evidence!! Your You Tube "Kanaal" and also the style in which you write English.
CarajilloDulce 2 weeks ago
yeah you say hese bankrupt can be only cause he gives away everything for free he wants too help everyone he can i dont say you gotta believe him everybody can choose what he wants to believe like on the end of the video please make up your own mind you get everything he says and stick it together all out of context i think the only reason you make stuff like this is cause youre scarerd that maybe he is right
MrWimvdg 3 weeks ago
@MrWimvdg you are aware Hovind is currently in prison for fraud, right?
stiimuli 3 weeks ago
@stiimuli jes you are aware by who?
MrWimvdg 3 weeks ago
@MrWimvdg by the U.S. judicial system. He believed that his religion gave him excuse not to pay taxes....even though the bible clearly states people should pay their taxes and obey the laws of the land. Hovind couldn't even get the teachings of his own religion correct.
He systematically redirected funds as to avoid taxation. He was convicted of 58 federal counts. He's a criminal and a liar.
stiimuli 3 weeks ago
they are nothing wrong with making a few dollars.remember it takes money to make money look at so called scientist.he also use NO copy write unlike the evolutionist.people who copywrite their stuff IS worried about money,duuua.@ 2:36 you wrote kent said dinos were dragons but showed him saying they were lizards,fail! i cant watch anymore of this junk you stuck together in a vain attempt to discredit him.you are misleading and a lair.you need to look for truth.
davymatheny 1 month ago
Every one watch a real seminar and its makes sense ExtantDodo is an idiot
1122dmitriy 1 month ago
I agree with GermanConquistador....NOT! What a troll lmao
Casshyr 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Casshyr "I agree with GermanConquistador....NOT! What a troll" -Isnt that kind of slap-dash childishness the very essence of trollage? Seriously, my point was to refute this video point by point, thats not being a troll. Thats called walking into Mordor!
GermanConquistador08 1 month ago
And then more out of context jabs and then the ALi G show, in which Kent was not taken seriously at all and was treated pretty crap I have to say. As for the great etc. grandpa thing seems ok to me. Logically speaking, our great etc. ancestors far back enough DID come from the primordial spawns correct? "They were spliced together but content was not edited" - Yes it was, context was edited out, and narrative slideshow captions were edited in. This video is an insult, disgusting mess.
GermanConquistador08 1 month ago
Also, yes jokes very threatening. Clearly Kent is a sexist because he makes jokes about women. But from this video thats all you see. In his seminars he makes just as much fun at men, he jokes about a LOT of things its called a sense of humor. Abortion doctors: I dont even know what to say. He AGREES! He doesnt want the guy killed in mob justice, how is that wrong you idiot?! Gun control: This isnt a critique on Kent's religious views anyone. This is a liberal who cant stand opposing viewpoints
GermanConquistador08 1 month ago
@GermanConquistador08 Hovind also makes fun of science by claiming to be a scientist and to have taught science. Kenty Boy has provided hours of copyright free comedy material with nothing other than common sense being threatened. He's really at his best as "Preacher In A Lab Coat" along with his son Eric, and his dissertation which he used to obtain his mail order doctorate in Christian Education from the Patriot Bible University Diploma Mill is a classic farce. Kent IS comedy!
CarajilloDulce 1 month ago
@CarajilloDulce "Hovind also makes fun of science by claiming to be a scientist" -You can BE a scientist regardless of your state of degrees of whatever. By definition, everyone has been a scientist at one point in our lives because the means by which we acquire knowledge is solely based on scientific processes. What you dislike isnt that Kent is a scientist (which is really a meaningless term scientist as a point of positive character) its that he isnt a secular scientist.
GermanConquistador08 1 month ago
@GermanConquistador08 What I like about Kent Hovind is that he's a comic genius. Did you realise that there are people who take him seriously! He's simply incredible, although to be honest his son Eric is a bit of a disappointment, on tour whilst his father is in prison but his delivery sucks, and unlike Kenty Boy, Eric has no original material. I love the subtle way that Kent implies that the Flinstones is actually a documentary and the YEEC fundamentalists swallow it hook, line, & sinker!
CarajilloDulce 1 month ago
@CarajilloDulce "Did you realise that there are people who take him seriously!" - Well yeah, they take him seriously for the same reason people take people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens seriously (Took Chris seriously I should say now) The fact that atheist HAVE to regard Hovind with this much animosity and spite as a grounds to NOT HAVE to address his arguements says more about the atheistic community rather than Hovind. Its really quite sad.
GermanConquistador08 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CarajilloDulce "he's a comic genius" -he is quite a funny man, he incorporates a lot of old time humor that you just dont see anymore but what have you. "although to be honest his son Eric is a bit of a disappointment" -I'm sure Eric probably doesnt care if hes dissapointing atheists or not, atheists hate the Hovind family for no good reason really. Seriously, what other group of people so demonizes the characters of the opposite arguement than atheists. Its really sad.
GermanConquistador08 1 month ago
@CarajilloDulce "I love the subtle way that Kent implies that the Flinstones is actually a documentary" -In what manner? I find it very troubling that you ignored all of my points and went on a strange rant about how you're disappointed at Eric Hovind because you cant make fun of him as much. Again, if this is how the atheist community wishes to portray itself then fine, but at least stop making yourself out to be this high and mighty group of social crusaders, because you're not.
GermanConquistador08 1 month ago
@GermanConquistador08 How can I be a group... I'm only one person? I don't compare Hovind (junior or senior) to Dawkins or Hitchens. He's closer to the late great Irish comedian David Tynan O'Mahoney, better known as Dave Allen. Dave used to dress up as a Catholic priest and there were a few (admittedly rather simple folk) who actually believed that he was one. Kent's comic genius has fooled far more folk though, but that's in America where maybe it's easier somehow. Who knows.. maybe you do?
CarajilloDulce 1 month ago
@CarajilloDulce "don't compare Hovind (junior or senior) to Dawkins or Hitchens" -Well I did, I'm sorry if I insulted your gods I know but Dawkins and Hitchens were basically the same thing, mouthpieces and poster boys for a movement that were loved by their side by pretty much never taken fully seriously by the other. Editing that Hovind wasnt even that well known in the macro of Christianity, while almost the entire atheist community were taken in by Dawkins and Hitchen's nonsense.
GermanConquistador08 1 month ago
@GermanConquistador08 I don't know how well Hovind was known in the Christian community. I do remember seeing Cosmologist (and Christian) Hugh Ross being set up to "debate" Hovind which was an absolute classic... funnier than anything Ali G has done. The look on Hugh Ross's face!! He couldn't believe the nonsense that Hovind was coming out with but still remained polite and calm (just like Tony Ben did when Ali G set him up). Kent IS comedy!!
CarajilloDulce 1 month ago
@CarajilloDulce "The look on Hugh Ross's face!! He couldn't believe the nonsense that Hovind was coming out with but still remained polite and calm" - Thats the way you're SUPPOSED to act during a debate afterall. And Hovind was calm as well, same in the Ali G interview. Kent debated several people, I've seen several of his debates anyways and I've never seen on where he was outclasses or outwitted rather than his opponent a bit shaken.
GermanConquistador08 1 month ago
@CarajilloDulce Also, these are big names man, they dont need justification "the look on Hugh Ross's face" So you dont care about the points or arguements? "Kent IS comedy!!" - I guess you're going with the say it enough times and it will become true tactic of mental delusion yes? "You say "sorry" a lot. Why do you apologise" - Mostly that I'm giving facts, making points and expressing arguements that totally undermine your worldview. Its sad to destroy someones point entirely.
GermanConquistador08 1 month ago
@GermanConquistador08 Yeah... the look on Hugh Ross's face... it was incredible. He just couldn't believe the nonsense that Hovind was spouting. Hovind kept up the facade really well though. Kenty Boy's at his best when pretending to understand science and scientific method. He takes a loopy hypothesis about the supposed biblical flood, cites an experiment he claims to have performed that in fact disproves the hypothesis produces "The Hovind Theory" Classic farce. Kent IS comedy!!
CarajilloDulce 1 month ago
@CarajilloDulce At this point you're not even addressing my points so I have no interest in participating further in this conversation all you're doing is insulting the opposition and making nicknames "Kenty Boy" which I thought we all grew out of doing after the age of 12, and repeating that montra of yours "Kent IS comedy!!" - In the vain hope that it can one day make any sense at all, of which at the moment it does not.
GermanConquistador08 1 month ago
@GermanConquistador08 Awesome... you talk about making sense while at the same time talking about Kent Hovind. The two are mutually exclusive! You must be one of his comedy class students.
CarajilloDulce 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CarajilloDulce "you talk about making sense while at the same time talking about Kent Hovind. The two are mutually exclusive!" -But thats a complete supposition on your part! Lets look at this logically, which isnt a good point in favor of people like you: If Kent Hovind made NO SENSE, no sense at all, then there would be no way to disect his arguements into coherent points. You CAN do this however as many people have, therefore Kent Hovind makes sense YOU and others simply dont AGREE!
GermanConquistador08 1 month ago
@CarajilloDulce But for some reason, because people like you disagree but unlike others dont have the intelligence or patience to argue points, you have to resort to redefinitions and montras like "kent is commedy" in order to argue with someone who DOES have the intelligence to argue actual points, unlike you. Do you follow this simple logic man? "You must be one of his comedy class students" -...Kent doesnt run a comedy class, and I never lived in Pensecola so..no obviously. Idiot.
GermanConquistador08 1 month ago
@GermanConquistador08 Ha Ha... you're calling me an idiot, but you're the one who actually believes the nonsense Hovind comes out with. A case of a fool being fooled by a fool.
CarajilloDulce 1 month ago
@CarajilloDulce "you're calling me an idiot, but you're the one who actually believes the nonsense Hovind comes out with" - Ok again, I just explained to you: Just because you disagree with something, doesnt make it nonsense. I disagree with atheism, doesnt mean it doesnt make sense. It makes sense, its just WRONG. In the same sense, Hovind's point are NOT nonsense, you just believe them to be wrong. Now I NEVER said I AGREED with Hovind at all. Thats YOUR projection.
GermanConquistador08 1 month ago
@CarajilloDulce Interesting wouldnt you agree? I dont agree with everything Hovind says, but a lot of what he says is simple logic and history. I dont subscribe to the Hovind theory or anything that he doesnt get from scripture or the like and he doesnt know his history when it comes to certain aspects. I dont agree or disagree with Hovind as a whole, like most normal people I agree and disagree with things he says. Anything else, you know that persons talking a bunch of crap.
GermanConquistador08 1 month ago
@GermanConquistador08 Interesting?.... No, not really.
CarajilloDulce 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CarajilloDulce "Interesting?.... No, not really" -Yeah, thats what I thought. You really dont care about truth, or arguements do you? Thanks for wasting my time.
GermanConquistador08 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CarajilloDulce I'm sorry, but the men talked about things they werent educated on, history, theology, geopgraphy. I'm sorry, they spoke nonsense. "but that's in America where maybe it's easier somehow. Who knows.. maybe you do?" - well, I wasnt born here, I was born farther south and raised across the Atlantic but I've been here since my teenage years so take that as you will.
GermanConquistador08 1 month ago
@GermanConquistador08 You say "sorry" a lot. Why do you apologise so much if you've done nothing wrong? Which part of Germany are you from, and what did you conquer?
CarajilloDulce 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CarajilloDulce "Which part of Germany are you from" -West Prussia. My paternal grandparents are from Poznan, half German half Polish. Same city as Paul von Hindenburg actually. "and what did you conquer?" - Well that would depend. Do you count my Prussian ancestry or my Mexican ancestry on the other side of my family, mestizo Aztec/Spanish? Or do you count where I grew up in my formative years in Brandenburg? Brandenburg-Prussia but later Germany, you know your history dont you?
GermanConquistador08 1 month ago
@CarajilloDulce Does it really matter if he isnt a professional scientist? Does it regard secular scientists? And if you're looking for an actual PROFESSIONAL scientist than look no further than Francis Collins, an amazing human genome researcher and the man who took care of Christopher Hitchens when he had cancer. Its not a matter that you take offense to Kent's claims to be a scientist its that he didnt teach the science YOU particularly agree with.
GermanConquistador08 1 month ago
@GermanConquistador08 You wanna know who was a PROFESSIONAL scientist? Albert Einstein. And you know whose theories completely disprove the idea of a young universe? Albert Einstein's.
siegel019 3 weeks ago
@CarajilloDulce "He's really at his best as "Preacher In A Lab Coat"" - Personally, I dont care about his awards, degrees whatever what SHOULD be cared about is his ARGUEMENTS! I've almost never seen his arguements addressed, only his character. "doctorate...is a classic farce." - As Kent himself said "if you dont like my doctor title than call me Buba and address the arguements." There are men who add Don, Colonel, and Lord to their names. Doesnt make them any less credible.
GermanConquistador08 1 month ago
@GermanConquistador08 " I've almost never seen his arguements addressed, only his character. "
Then you've been reading extremely selectively, because his hypotheses are very easy to disprove. He argues for the flood which is disprovable by geological records, he argues that fossils were created in the flood despite the organization of the fossil record, he doesn't even address carbon dating, he argues that oil can be formed in 6000 years... it goes on. He is a dishonest science-illiterate.
ChaseKittens 3 weeks ago
@ChaseKittens "He argues for the flood which is disprovable by geological records, he argues that fossils were created in the flood despite the organization of the fossil record" -but thats the problem, you arent addressing this arguements, you're addressing his POSITIONS of which he talks about geological and fossil records. And yes he does address carbon dating, its not in his video series though its in a seperate one, his college classes and 100 reasons why evolution is stupid.
GermanConquistador08 3 weeks ago
@GermanConquistador08 There is no difference between his arguments and positions because he doesn't provide arguments for his positions, because he is a science-illiterate. It is piss-easy to disprove his claims to anyone with a basic understanding of science. He isn't convincing to anyone with a proper education, hence creationism sharing a starkly negative correlation with higher education.
ChaseKittens 3 weeks ago
@ChaseKittens "There is no difference between his arguments and positions because he doesn't provide arguments for his positions" - Thats not true at all, he provides examples, arguements, point by point refutiations of his opponents arguements and the like completely. "because he is a science-illiterate" -So your only evidence is a false supposition? Good job. "It is piss-easy to disprove his claims" -Than why hasnt anyone attempted to do so critically?
GermanConquistador08 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ChaseKittens "a basic understanding of science" -Well how basic? High-school level? Middle school level? Honestly, when you make sweeping statements like that its hard to tell where your actual position is. Even HOVIND states his positions better than you. "He isn't convincing to anyone with a proper education" - I have a proper education and some of what he says appeals to me. Not all of it or even the grand majority but to make sweeping statements again, just clouds your positions.
GermanConquistador08 3 weeks ago
@ChaseKittens "hence creationism sharing a starkly negative correlation with higher education" - Thats like saying that heliocentric theory shared a starkly negative correlation with higher education. Well OF COURSE no alternative is even being presented and people are FIRED for doing so, IN an educational envirnment where revisionist history and economic theories exist.There are college courses on Communist theories and communist-leaning professors who keep their jobs but creationists get fired
GermanConquistador08 3 weeks ago
@GermanConquistador08 Creationists don't become scientists because creationism isn't science. Being a creationist biologist wouldn't get you far because it's professional incompetence.
You seem to be pretending that no one is willing to go in-depth about his claims, but you just aren't looking. I'll do it if you want to, anything from the validity of carbon dating to the fossil record to vestigial organs to comparative genetics.
ChaseKittens 3 weeks ago
@ChaseKittens "Creationists don't become scientists" -So NO creationists reside in any scientific fields? Whatsoever? Again,sweeping statements is all you have to support your claims at this moment. "because creationism isn't science" - No, its not. At least its not suppose to be, its a viewpoint, just like evolution. But there is evolutionary science and creation science, both dealing with experiments MOSTLY on the theoretical and micro-scale because its impossible to do hard science on these
GermanConquistador08 3 weeks ago
@ChaseKittens This is what I mean: If an evolutionist wants to experiment with a piece of evolution theory, than they'd have to set up a theoretical model of that piece because as even evolutionists have said its impossible to conduct direct experimentation on the ideals of evolution because of its conditions, time afterall isnt replicatible. The experiment therefore pre-SUPPOSES the conditions by which you have the experiment. Creation Science does the EXACT same thing only with creationism...
GermanConquistador08 3 weeks ago
@GermanConquistador08 There is plenty of evidence for evolution without needing to model time, although evolution's predictions in regard to the passage of time are perfectly matched with those of geology and all relevant feilds of science, which you can't say for creationism. Vestigial organs/genes, junk DNA, comparative genomes, observed speciation, you don't even need the timeline to get into the evidence for evolution.
ChaseKittens 3 weeks ago
@ChaseKittens "Vestigial organs/genes, junk DNA, comparative genomes, observed speciation" -Again, that would all be fine if you didnt have answers of all of these that simply dont get addressed. Vestigial organs are often NOT vestigal, they have purposes as such you can have them removed and have severe affects on the body such as the tailbone. If you point to the appendix, you can remove it but so can one of your kidneys and neither is suggested unless it is neccesary.
GermanConquistador08 3 weeks ago
@GermanConquistador08 Really, doctors don't suggest cutting you open and making you go through painful and potentially risky surgery unless it's necessary? Wow, that's news to me. And vestigial organs generally are vestigial. The appendix used to do something vital, now it is only mildly helpful and not necessary to survive. The kidneys are a terrible example and are not vestigial at all. And you want a real vestigial organ? How about whales' vestigial leg bones? Or an ostrich's vestigial wings?
siegel019 3 weeks ago
@GermanConquistador08 " Vestigial organs are often NOT vestigal, they have purposes"
Because of secondary features, like in your case of the appendix. Blind mole rats with eyes completely covered in skin, and with eyesight poorer than some animals without eyes at all, aren't so easy to sweep under the carpet.
Also, what a convenient coincidence for the "evolutionists" that vestigial organs line up with the tree of life of evolution. Shame creationists never address that.
ChaseKittens 2 weeks ago
@ChaseKittens ..being your supposed condition rather than evolution. And to people who dont believe in evolution its about as much science as creation science is to evolutionists. "Being a creationist biologist" - There ARE creationists biologists, they're just not common. You religious beliefs dont interfere with what you love to do for a living. "You seem to be pretending that no one is willing to go in-depth" - As of yet, the best was probably Thunderfoot's videos on him, laced with insults
GermanConquistador08 3 weeks ago
@GermanConquistador08 "There ARE creationists biologists, they're just not common."
There ARE holocaust-denying historians too, they don't don't carry any merit because of their lack of evidence and denial of reality, just like creationists - their theories bring about no new knowledge and don't explain the observations as well as more consensual theories.
Just because Thunderfoot's videos contain well-deserved insults doesn't mean you can brush his criticism of Hovind under the carpet.
ChaseKittens 3 weeks ago
@ChaseKittens "There ARE holocaust-denying historians too" -First of all, holocaust-denial as in questioning the exact numbers, location and people involved with it yes, but no serious, professional historians at this day and age are holocaust-denialist. Secondly, you're comparing an act that has video footage, eyewitness testimony on a MASSIVE scale and pin-point accurate documentation from the Nazis themselves. Saying that evolution is as true as the Holocaust is an INSULT to that event.
GermanConquistador08 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GermanConquistador08 "Saying that evolution is as true as the Holocaust is an INSULT"
Saying it isn't discloses ignorance to the science involved, which you clearly have poor comprehension of. Yes, history and science have different methodology, but in this case the holocaust/evolution have all the evidence pointing to them and none to the contrary.
I brought up Holocaust denial amongst historians to point out that human are fallable and we'll always have a handful of crackpot anomolies.
ChaseKittens 2 weeks ago
@ChaseKittens Seriously, neanderthals and dinosaurs didnt have entire office buildings filled with documentation on their evolution, we have the clerk at the Wannsee Conferance, you dont have anything like that for evolution. Creationists arent Holocaust-deniers. Saying so proves your historical illiteracy. "well-deserved insults" -This is my problem with the atheists, NO ONE! deserved insults for speaking their views, regardless of how much you disagree with it, thats called arrogence.
GermanConquistador08 3 weeks ago
@GermanConquistador08 "you dont have anything like that for evolution"
The distribution of life, fossil record, comparative genomes/anatomy, vestigial organs, DNA replication, pseudogenes and junk DNA, observed speciation... So far ALL of biology and relevant chemistry and geology all are exactly precise on the same fact of evolution.
Not to mention evolution would be piss-easy to disprove if it weren't true. Just find a fossil drastically out of place, before it should exist in time.
ChaseKittens 2 weeks ago
@ChaseKittens Again, I'd love to see a straight shooting debunking of Hovind's main points rather than just a cut-paste of his clips along with insults all the way. "but you just aren't looking" -Well, I am. And I've found nothing.
GermanConquistador08 3 weeks ago
@ChaseKittens And in the same sense, having higher educated people agreeing with you doesnt matter if NONE of them can articulate why this "moron" Hovind, as described by every militant evolutionist, is WRONG! Everyone just baas the same copy-pasted answer "its so easy to disprove its not worth it"
GermanConquistador08 3 weeks ago
@GermanConquistador08 HAHAHA militant evolutionist. That's a good one. So tell me, how many evolutionists have you seen taking up arms against creationists? Is there an evolutionist army? You know, there have been militant Christians, but I've never heard of any atheists taking up arms simply for the sake of atheism, or evolutionists for the sake of evolution. You know those things called the Crusades? Well atheists don't have a holy land to try to take over, raping and pillaging as they go.
siegel019 3 weeks ago
@siegel019 "Is there an evolutionist army?" -No, but your straw man doesnt hold up very well man, I never said there was. I mean militant as in angry, bitter, hostile to opposing opinion. "You know those things called the Crusades?" -Yeah, when the Byzantian Emperor plead for support from the Pope agains thte Turks and the Pope responded by sending the jobless knights to protect pilgrams? Yeah I do, it wasnt a completely religious encounter, and suprisingly little civilian death for the times.
GermanConquistador08 3 weeks ago
@GermanConquistador08 First of all, there were multiple Crusades. That was only the First Crusade. The rest were pointless religious wars, often fought because of the changing of hands of a single city that was found to be important, and thousands of people were slaughtered. It's not a straw man argument, you implied that evolutions were taking up arms by calling them militant. There aren't any militant evolutionists. Sure there are activist evolutionists, but they wouldn't fight a war for it.
siegel019 3 weeks ago
@siegel019 "there were multiple Crusades" -Yes, the first being a call from their allies in Byzantium and the social problems with the European knights, the second was to protect the pilgrams in Jerusalem. The third was to retake Jerusalem, at that point a military and strategic objective not just religious, the fourth was the Venetians proving how secular the crusades were for the Italians, war for trade routes to the East. The rest were either failures or taken without the popes permission.
GermanConquistador08 3 weeks ago
@siegel019 " thousands of people were slaughtered" - Less civilians were killed in the crusades than the 100 years war. It wasnt in the crusader states that the persecution of Jews were taken, it was EUROPE at the TIME of the crusades were hte jews were persecuted. Jews in the Holy land faired reasonable well. It was the citizens in cities holding out under siege which bore the brunt of the brutality, but that was a common tactic in medieval military tactic to prevent sieges later in wars.
GermanConquistador08 3 weeks ago
@GermanConquistador08 Wow, really, less civilians died in a series of wars that, when you add them up, lasted 40 years total, than a war that lasted 116 years? However did that happen? But the fact is that if the church had not been so hell-bent on conquering the Holy Land after the First Crusade, then nobody would have died. It was a senseless war, and above all, a religious war. Children fought in the crusades.Children died for a cause they weren't really even old enough to understand.
siegel019 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@siegel019 "Wow, really, less civilians died in a series of wars that, when you add them up, lasted 40 years total, than a war that lasted 116 years?" - As in Europeans are more likely to kill each other over dynastic influences than killing foreigners of different religions. Perhaps not the best example granted. "the church had not been so hell-bent on conquering the Holy Land " -They werent, the circumstances were simply perfect for the opprotunity to take.
GermanConquistador08 2 weeks ago
@siegel019 "It was a senseless war, and above all, a religious war" -Sorry, you're completely wrong. No war is senseless, if it was so it wouldnt have been fought. No one goes to war ignorantly, period. The Crusaders were fought for political, strategtic, economic, diplomatic, and social reasons along with religious and in combat those reasons mean little. "Children fought in the crusades" - You do realize that it probably never happened? Dont worry, history produces many myths.
GermanConquistador08 2 weeks ago
@GermanConquistador08 You know, by saying that Jews were persecuted in Europe, you're not really helping your case here. So the Catholic Church was killing people at home and abroad. See what I mean by militant?
siegel019 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@siegel019 "You know, by saying that Jews were persecuted in Europe, you're not really helping your case here." - The fact that the Christian knights and soldiers acted with more civility than the European peasents. Also, Europeans are fickle with the Jews, Spain was the safest place for them before 1492, and Germany before the 20th century, and its rarely for religious reasons they are persecuted, mostly economic.
GermanConquistador08 2 weeks ago
@GermanConquistador08 Also, since you accused me of a straw man argument, I would like to point out that your original argument contained an argument ad hominem, and that's mainly why I chose to attack your use of the word militant rather than actually saying anything about evolution. However, there is plenty of proof for evolution, it's just that you and your ilk simply brush it off and come up with some stupid reason why you should reject it. So generally nobody bothers.
siegel019 3 weeks ago
@siegel019 And there was little to no persecution of Muslims under the Crusader states. The Muslim poet Ibn Jubayr makes note of how WELL Muslims lived under the crusaders, and many muslims were tempted to go TO those states and live there. "you implied that evolutions were taking up arms" - No I didnt, you see what I mean by straw man? Militant as in in attitude, they're militantly adherent to their beliefs. I said militant, not violent or extremists. Give me a break with that crap.
GermanConquistador08 3 weeks ago
@GermanConquistador08 Okay, well, no, evolutionists are not the ones who are militantly adherent to our beliefs. If a new theory surfaces that has more and better evidence for it than evolution, then evolution will be discarded in favor of that theory. It's simply that we don't want dogma taught in school, and we want the best theories taught, and for now, evolution is certainly the best theory, unless you want to give me hard evidence of your intelligent design crap.
siegel019 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@siegel019 "evolutionists are not the ones who are militantly adherent to our beliefs" - Than why is it that anyone holidng opposing viewpoints are literally insulted to point the redundency? I'm just saying, this doesnt happen en masse with other group...except possibly Ron Paul supports but thats a joke rather than an arguement, heh. "then evolution will be discarded in favor of that theory" -Somehow I highyl doubt that. "we don't want dogma taught in school" -Than why is it?
GermanConquistador08 3 weeks ago
@GermanConquistador08 "this doesnt happen en masse with other group..." Really? Are you fucking serious? Let me share this gem with you. It might take more than one comment, though, since the guy posted this to my channel. Actually, I'm going to have to make a new comment for it.
siegel019 3 weeks ago
@GermanConquistador08 go fuck ur homosexual pervert father u dumbfucking incest freak of nature, fuck u atheists cocksuckers, u guys drool for fucking bug-infested shemales & HIV transvestites, vote for gay marrage & abortions & pretend ur so smart cool & decent, when u fucks are the worst dumbshit to walk this earth.
siegel019 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GermanConquistador08 ur so arrogant, ignorant & stupid u think ur so special when u blindly believe in the dumbest bullshit myth ever invented by man, the fucking evolution, in other words ur proud to say ur most distant ancestor was fucking sand. That alone makes ur so-called cleverness into clusterfuck stupidity. From nothing life can't evolve u dumbass fucktard.
siegel019 3 weeks ago
@GermanConquistador08 Have u no idea how fucking morons u fucks are ? ur just a fucking minority throwing shit at whoever disagrees with u like fucking kids, FUCK OFF U & UR FUCKING MONKEY ASSWIPE DARWIN & UR COCKBEGGING ATHEISM U FUCKING PIG'S CUNT." -- some creationist insulting me simply for being an evolutionist.
siegel019 3 weeks ago
@siegel019 "See what I mean by militant?" -The socio-political organization kill during a war? Yeah I do, whats your point? "since the guy posted this to my channel" -Again, en masse, if its one person than it doesnt help your case. Also, I looked at your channel, didnt see any comments. Might just be the new outline. Idk. As such I dont care about your comment, it might not even be real as far as I know and I sure dont know if it was a creationist, might have just been a troll.They shape-shift.
GermanConquistador08 2 weeks ago
@GermanConquistador08 And that stuff is pretty typical.
siegel019 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@siegel019 "And that stuff is pretty typical" -Well, I couldnt find it on your channel, and I've never seen youtube content producers put this kind of stuff out as well I've rarely seen CHrisitans act like this on youtube openly. HOWEVER, I have seen it by atheists constantly. I'm sorry, one unprovable account doesnt help you. "seriously, give me some evidence" - Uniformity, laws of logic, the cosmological arguement, natural morality to name I'll go in deeper if you'd like on a single topic
GermanConquistador08 2 weeks ago
@GermanConquistador08 Please, go into detail on each, I'd like to know more. But how about the cosmological argument first? And if you use Pascal's Wager for the laws of logic, I'll probably bang my head against the wall. It's a flawed argument; it creates a false dichotomy.
siegel019 2 weeks ago
@siegel019 "But how about the cosmological argument first?" - The fact of the matter is, the universe, ours obviously, is extremely fine tuned, if one thing was out of place, life would not exist and we're learning how this is true more and more as we learn about the universe. Logic: If reason and logic is just something that humans have created than it has no force on thinking beings other than what other humans have imposed on them. Logic and reason have no basis for themselves.
GermanConquistador08 2 weeks ago
@GermanConquistador08 The cosmological argument is entirely false. For example, one of the things that creationists claim is that if the earth were a few miles closer to the sun, then life on earth would not be possible. However, the habitable zone is actually 41 million miles wide, so the earth could be much closer or much further away from the sun.
siegel019 2 weeks ago
@siegel019 "so the earth could be much closer or much further away from the sun." - I'm not talking about the habitable zone, I'm talking about the rate at which the universe expands, the length stars and galaxies are from each other, the rate at which things orbit etc. etc. Again, I'm not great on scientific principles, especially astronomy (pardon, as I've said) but if the universe DOES show these kind of rules, than something tells me it isnt by accident.
GermanConquistador08 2 weeks ago
@GermanConquistador08 Also, with so many planets orbiting so many billions of stars, it is almost statistically impossible that life would not exist on at least one of them. Assuming evolution is correct, that is. And also, not only is it false, but it's flawed logic. Just because you do not understand something does not mean it was created, and just because something is complex or has certain requirements does not mean it was created either. You're jumping to conclusions.
siegel019 2 weeks ago
@siegel019 The reason I say this is because of how unlikely it is that it happened in the first place. "You're jumping to conclusions." -Wouldnt you say that YOU are jumpinh to conclusions? I never said that I dont understand something, I just havnt gotten an answer on the things I do understand and havnt been filled on the things that not only I dont understand, but the things that SCIENTISTS dont understand. "What about if Hindus are right?" -Well which Hindus? THeres millions of Hinduisms
GermanConquistador08 2 weeks ago
@siegel019 This much is a fact: If evolution ever did take place, it isnt right now and the odds of it happening are very very slim, and we've never seen concrete proof of evolution beyond several facetes of darwin's ideas, survival and the fittest and the like, and speciation. And no, e. coli learning to eat something different doesnt make it proof of evolution, that experiment did not convince me. Maybe its like a meme thing, you dont understand it unless you're in on it. Huh.
GermanConquistador08 3 weeks ago
@GermanConquistador08 It IS taking place now, but it is not taking place with humans because of a lack of selective pressures in our society. A person can have severe genetic defects that an animal in the wild would not survive, but because of modern medicine, a human can survive long enough to reproduce. E. coli learning to adapt to a new environment and survive in it, however, is a radical change. Also, that experiment completely disproves Hovind's claim that no new genetic info is introduced.
siegel019 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@siegel019 "a lack of selective pressures in our society" - What about in more primative countries. Shouldnt there be tests on African or Far East communities and their rate of mutation or whatever data they can gather? Also, if at some people we can cure genetic defects and humanity becomes more uniform, wont that forever shut out the evidence of human evolution? "Also, that experiment completely disproves Hovind's claim that no new genetic info is introduced" - How so?
GermanConquistador08 2 weeks ago
@siegel019 "give me hard evidence of your intelligent design crap." -Well, your assumption is that its already crap. Any evidence I give you regardless of how strong would bounce right off and I dont feel like wasting my time. And no thats not hypocracy, I'm free and open to evolutionary evidence and I'll tell you why I think its wrong and your free to respond, rather than atheists who simply insult anyone who raises any sort of objection.
GermanConquistador08 3 weeks ago
@GermanConquistador08 Your'e just dodging the question. No, seriously, give me some evidence. If it actually makes sense, then I will consider it. I can keep an open mind and consider real evidence, but I've just never been given any that actually makes sense.
siegel019 3 weeks ago
@siegel019 "with some stupid reason why you should reject it." -Again, isnt that a completely baseless assumption? If evolutionists arent even to address basic arguements and brush THAT off, hypocritically I might add, rather than explain and examine and RE-examine again and again a theory which is SO beloved than why do they resist to do it? A Christian rarely refuses a chance to argue about the evidence of God and the like, why not atheists on evolution? Are you guys just THAT arrogent?
GermanConquistador08 3 weeks ago
@GermanConquistador08 It's not a baseless assumption. It is a generalization, yes, but in my experience, it's true. You want proof of evolution? Google "evolution observed in a lab" and click one of the first few results. There's proof of speciation right there. However, you'll simply say "but it's the same KIND of organism" because it's a bacteria, despite the fact that it is radically different from its ancestors.
siegel019 3 weeks ago
@siegel019 Look, I'm not saying that evolution should be a scientific endeavor. Everything should be, including creationism. All science is worth something, it doesnt matter what it doesnt conform to. What I'm saying is that lets wait to teach it in college biology rather than 12+ before we actual know all of the ramifications. "it is radically different from its ancestors" - No it isnt. Learning to eat (metabolise whatever) something else that the organism didnt before NO thats not radical.
GermanConquistador08 3 weeks ago
@GermanConquistador08 Evolution is not taught at age 12. I was never taught it until AP Biology in 11th grade, or maybe it was Honors Biology in 10th, but either way, I was a high school student, completely capable of understanding everything that was taught to me and the ramifications of it. The problem with what you're saying is that creationism is not a science. You start off with a preconceived notion and start out to prove it. Science starts with the evidence and draws a conclusion.
siegel019 3 weeks ago
@siegel019 Afterall, other organisms can use citrate. I'm sorry but that seems like a small drop in an empty pool man, I'm sorry I'm trying to see how it works. I admit that science is my weakest subject of human intrigue, history, geography and politics are more my speed but with my limited knowledge I cant make any connections betwen being able to grow on a new substaince over time leads to these E coli become a higher form of life.
GermanConquistador08 2 weeks ago
@GermanConquistador08 That in and of itself does not lead to E. coli becoming "a higher form of life", but that is not the point. The point is that it is different. You are also only given a very short period of time for the E. coli to mutate, so you cannot expect that you will observe in a lab what took millions of years in nature. The fact is that that specific bacteria strain is no longer E. coli. It is something else.
siegel019 2 weeks ago
@GermanConquistador08 Yes, other organisms can use citrate, but E. coli cannot. This specific E. coli strain was able to develop that trait, and it proliferated much more quickly in the environment than the other strains did, leading to that one becoming the dominant form of E. coli in the test. That is evolution.
siegel019 2 weeks ago
@siegel019 "The problem with what you're saying is that creationism is not a science" -Anything that uses the scientific method is a science. Sciences attempts to prove and disprove theories. Your argueing semantics at this point. "ignored my evidence that the universe is at least 13 billion years old. Care to offer a rebuttal?" -Well to be honest I didnt see it, might have missed it or you didnt post it. My apologies.
GermanConquistador08 2 weeks ago
@GermanConquistador08 Alright, well, what I said was that the universe has to be at least 13.1 billion years old, because the farthest object we can see is 30 billion light years away, meaning that if the universe were not at least 13.1 billion years old (you have to do some calculations using the rate of expansion of space-time in order to come up with this number), then the light from that object would not have reached earth yet.
siegel019 2 weeks ago
@siegel019 It has no meaning essentially. Also, if the universe has no uniformity (the cosmological arguement) then we can only use particulars to gain knowledge because anything would have no relation to anything else, even if it seems that is the case. Just because something is a certain way in one instance doesnt mean that it is in every instance. Unless nature is uniform, than there is no universals. What would give a random universe uniformity, a personal, non-contingent, omni-present being
GermanConquistador08 2 weeks ago
@siegel019 Why do I say that? Omnipresent because it would have to be outside of the universe, noncontingent because it would need to be unseen otherwise it would be obvious to everyone and that is not the case and personal because it would only be in this manner that we COULD know about the existance of such a being, and yes being because an objection would need to have an account for itself, an omni-present being would not. We call this being God.
GermanConquistador08 2 weeks ago
@siegel019 Finally, the mind. If the mind is just part of the brain and theres no element besides the physical than we're all driven solely by chemical reactions in our brains and no one could be held responsible for anything they did, there would be no right or wrong and no reason to follow any conventions of right and wrong. Pascal's wager is just another arguement, but its still one to be considered. Afterall, if atheists are right you'll never know and if you're wrong you'll know forever.
GermanConquistador08 2 weeks ago
@GermanConquistador08 What about if Hindus are right? What about if Muslims are right? What about if no religion is right, but something entirely different is? That's what I mean by a false dichotomy. It's entirely flawed. Also, all of your arguments are purely philosophical, and therefore have no real bearing on the world. You cannot simply say that god exists because I think he should. There is no real, objective evidence.
siegel019 2 weeks ago
@siegel019 The fact of the matter if, the Judeo-Christian religion is the one with the MOST evidence, logical explaination and the only one with provable fulfilld prophecies in the world. There is no religion like it. Pascal's wager is simply the logical conclusion of a simple calculation, I'm not saying its a reason to believe I'm saying its a reason to CONSIDER. "because I think he should" -Its not a matter of he should, its a matter of if he doesnt, than things logically dont fit together.
GermanConquistador08 2 weeks ago
@GermanConquistador08 And again, in your argument about the mind, you jump to conclusions. You assume that nothing could give us morality other than god and religion. Society gives us morality. Society tells us what is right and wrong. Society is a contract between multiple people based off of trust and solidarity, and in it, rules are laid out, and people are raised to obey those rules. Your problem is that you attribute things to god that do not have to be attributed to god.
siegel019 2 weeks ago
@siegel019 "Society gives us morality" - Thats not true, if that was the case than there SHOULD BE no uniform state of morality, but ALL people understand concepts like rape, murder, and illogic are things to be avoided. All humans are built with a moral code as far as we can see it, why? And if its the cause of evolutionary processes, as indeed it SHOULD BE, than why? Does the evolutionary process somehow KNOW that the ultimate goal of humanity SHOULD BE..to simple survive and grow?
GermanConquistador08 2 weeks ago
@GermanConquistador08 Society does give us morality to some degree, to another degree our morality is based on the argument of "i wouldn't want it to happen to me". Murder is and always has been wrong (between peers, not slaves or people that do not count as 'us') because nobody wants to be murdered. Evolution knows nothing, its the name of the process of passing on genes and mutation but it only passes on the genes of the survivors and breeders so in a way it knows.
rhubis 2 weeks ago
@rhubis "Evolution knows nothing, its the name of the process of passing on genes and mutation but it only passes on the genes of the survivors and breeders so in a way it knows." - I completely agree. I mean, in simplified terms YES thats what evolution as we know it is and I accept that 100%. But even the idea of the golden rule, I wouldnt do to this person what I wouldnt do to myself is destroyed by the fact that its not universal and in many animal kigndoms KILLING is needed to survival
GermanConquistador08 2 weeks ago
@GermanConquistador08 Look among social animals, wolves and chimps and you see that its not the case. Then again if you look at human history then you see that our morals have not always been the same they have also changed to reflect a change in attitudes, when we counted black people as equals then the crimes against them became equal. While the base of our morality comes from the social animals we evolved from it changed as our society did.
rhubis 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rhubis "when we counted black people as equals then the crimes against them became equal" - Actually, thats an argument FOR universal morality. The #1 place for the world slave trader was Africa after the 1400s BUT the #1 profiteers of the African slave trade were OTHER Africans. Before then, slavery was by blood and debt obligation, it wasnt until the later 17th century that it became a racial thing on a mass level.
GermanConquistador08 2 weeks ago
@rhubis "While the base of our morality comes from the social animals we evolved from it changed as our society did." - If thats the case, why dont we see societies of wolves and chimps CHANGE radically as we do, especially under different envirnments. Except for physical restrictions, animals seem to live the same way regardless of their envirnment, at least with other animals.
GermanConquistador08 2 weeks ago
@GermanConquistador08 Again not true, apes in captivity have been seen to adopt new 'laws' so to speak. Back to the main point, our society does give us morals rather than some God. Our morals are echoed in social animals and the 'golden rule' do unto others predates the bible by many centuries. Our morals have changed along with our society animals society has mostly remained static.
rhubis 2 weeks ago
@rhubis "Our morals have changed along with our society animals society has mostly remained static." -Thats my point. If evolution is continious, than WHY dont we see morality or social rules changing amongst animals? You'd think that'd be a natural part of evolution, evolving mentally, physically and socially as we supposedly have. And if society gives us morals, why is it that humans can choose not to follow those rules, but animals cant? Its their programming, not ours?
GermanConquistador08 2 weeks ago
@GermanConquistador08 Only if it gives a benefit to have better morality. Does the morality improve the survival of animals? I can't see that it would. Evolution only explains part of our morality (that which is common among social animals), our society evolved along with our understanding not because we gained better morals through evolution.
rhubis 2 weeks ago
@rhubis "Does the morality improve the survival of animals? I can't see that it would" - Than wouldnt that mean that morality is actually a HINDERANCE to human evolutionary development? If it is to animals, but why would they EVER develop one? And if thats the case, why do humans hold to morality that ultimately subverts their basic instincts, food, sex and pleasure. "Some modern countries only see the fault in the woman for allowing herself to be raped." - Again my point being...
GermanConquistador08 2 weeks ago
@GermanConquistador08 i meant superiour to what they currently have when i said improve survival of social animals. human morality is almost universal at the basic level, the golden rule is universal as long as the society sees the various people as equal. The differences of our moral code depend on the society in question.
rhubis 2 weeks ago
@rhubis "The differences of our moral code depend on the society in question." - So can humans, alter the course of evolutionary development by their actions? And if so, wouldnt the evolutionary process be driving that? Scientists, as far as I've heard, really dont have a cut off point for when the evolutionary process STOPS being the driving force of humanity. Does it? And if it doesnt, how is it so malluable by humans?
GermanConquistador08 2 weeks ago
@GermanConquistador08 Would a social stigma against killing other animals negativly affect the survival of wolves? Yes. Is there a bonus to survival if lions live in a pride and protect each other and don't kill eachother? Yes. Gaining a morality akin to humans would poorly effect the survival of such animals, they have developed their morality to survive in a social environment, it works as well as possible.
rhubis 2 weeks ago
@rhubis AND if it is so changable by humanity through ever means possible, including artifical evolution in the lab, than how can we say for certain that evolution is a NATURAL process? "Yes. Gaining a morality akin to humans would poorly effect the survival of such animals" - In which case, HOW did animals evolve to the level of humans if their morality, as we see throughout MOST of the animal kingdom, never progresses?
GermanConquistador08 2 weeks ago
@GermanConquistador08 Dude, you can't argue with some people. Either they are too ignorant to want to learn or too dumb to understand the concept of learning. So, they just take everyone's word or the first concept they hear for granted.
peterparker2004 1 week ago
@peterparker2004 I've noticed, but thats never stopped people like us from trying eh?
GermanConquistador08 1 week ago
@GermanConquistador08 back to the original point, does society give us morality? Look to humans in their early history or even in other countries. Rape, morally wrong to the extreme in the western world, in the bible (even though it doesn't stand up historically it is from around the time and indicates the views of the people) Rape was an offence punishable via a fine. Some modern countries only see the fault in the woman for allowing herself to be raped.
rhubis 2 weeks ago