Kent Hovind can prove every dating method ever invented wrong. Hovind can prove every scientist in the world wrong. Hovind can show you how to avoid paying taxes, wrong.
I want you to know that you have made it on my prayer list and you will remain there until I die or hopefully you come to Christ. I will admit you are breaking my heart. It is sad to see a life go to waste, especially when Christ died for you. Farewell for now. I will be praying that God will make himself so evident to you that you cannot refuse him. I know you have no way of returning the favor, but… God bless!
You mentioned before that you have a lot of free time so I would like to make a few challenges to you.
Read the Bible in full and then test its claims to see if they are true.
Watch AIG’s video on demand. If evolution is as much a fact as you say then there is no risk, and if God’s word is truth as he says then you have everything to gain.
No, I'm not subjecting myself to that. Every single creationist claim I have heard has been vacuous. I'm not going to torture myself just hearing the same arguments over and over again.
Since you have entered the realm of name calling and God would not have me return the favor I must withdraw. I have given you the truth of scripture and the facts of science that scientists ignore. You must now make the choice on your own. But if you are right then we both lose and turn to dirt. But if God is right then I go to heaven and you Hell when you did not have to. Is this a risk you are willing to take?
@kamijk Creation scientists from ICR AIG and such are equally intelligent and educated as guys like Dawkins and Sagan. Both look at the data and come to different conclusions. Data only shows how things work now but can never tell us how things worked in the past. This difference is presuppositions. We only know who built the D.C. because of historical documents written by people from the time. The Bible is the only document claiming to be from that time. It’s claims must be searched out
@Godswordistruth73 The ICR and AIG scientists have no creation research in mainstream journals. They are not qualified. Presuppositions of science are basic things like external reality exists and we have ways of perceiving that reality. Presuppositions of creationism are things like God exists and does stuff. The presuppositions of creationism are more philosophically controversial than the conclusions they're explaining.
@kamijk A basic presupposition of evolution is that life came from none life. If this is impossible then evolution could not have happened. Now I do not agree with your proposition that God would have created single celled organisms which evolved but there are those who say that is what Genesis says in an allegorical way. With that said, the ball is back in your court and you are saying then that you reject God yet he is a possibility. That’s an awful big risk.
@Godswordistruth73 @Godswordistruth73 No. It's not a basic presupposition of evolution it is a presupposition that life came to be somehow or another. Further the claim that life came from non-life would never be a presupposition of any science. Science doesn't really presuppose anything, except some basics like that external reality exists. Presupposing a conclusion is the territory of apologetics.
@kamijk Tell me where you got that statistic. Something tells me you made it up. I would advise you check the percentage of America’s religious affiliation. Roughly 2 percent of Americans are atheists and would find atheism laughable, but does either statistic make their side right? No! Truth is truth regardless of whether people believe it.
@Godswordistruth73 Project Steve is where I get the statistic. An informal survey found that 97.3% of biology departments said there was no scientific controversy with creationism. Not just that creationism was wrong, but that it wasn't even worth their time.
@kamijk God doesn’God finds your sin disgusting, but he loves you enough to die so you don’t have to pay the penalty. You are avoiding the issue by acting like God should think the way you do. Praise God he doesn’t! You are making excuses for your sin by saying you disagree with God. But all liars and adulterers will have their part in the lake of fire and God does not want to throw you in with the rest of them. No sin is worth paying eternity for.
@Godswordistruth73 I don't think it is too controversial to say that I think anyone who tortures anyone else for eternity has no business making moral commands.
@kamijk Sir, I must remind you that name calling is not valid argument, and is a scare tactic. It is usually an indication of desperation. So if evolution is as sound as you say then keep the conversation clean of such remarks. But there is meaning in the world, so please explain to me where the meaning in the words we use comes from?
@Godswordistruth73 "You can't absorb information" is a really stupid name. And psychoanalyzing an opponents words and attributing them (incorrectly in this case) to desperation is a sign of desperation (the irony is not lost on me). Evolution is as sound as I say but that has no bearing on whether I'm going to make fun of somebody or not. I don't understand how you could possibly come to such a silly conclusion, mushroom-face.
@Godswordistruth73 The meaning in the words we use come from the mutual understanding of the language we share, even your rather rudimentary grasp of it (you shouldn't have encouraged me like you did. Did you not watch the video?).
P.S. I have read the Bible on several occasions and I am understandably underwhelmed. I mean, the moral lesson of the Book of Ruth obviously hasn't held up very well.
@kamijk The world does look like it was created. It is because you look at it from a humanistic POV that you see it the way you do. The smallest cell is far more complicated than anything humans have made. Evolutionists would call us ignorant if we said that you could take all of the parts for billions of watches, throw them together and shake them around for billions of years that even one watch on time and ticking would form, but this is far more likely than the evolution of a single cell.
@Godswordistruth73 The analogy you make is to a completely random progress with betrays your ignorance of evolution. Evolution is a non-random process. If your analogy was that a population of creatures with a selection pressure to keep track of time and gave birth to subsequent generations, then a watch, of sorts, would likely evolve. For example see this video watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0. So maybe you should understand the very basics of evolution before trying to debunk it.
@kamijk There is no known observable process by which new genetic information can be added to an organism’s genetic code. (Quoted from AIG)That is fact. But let’s for the moment accept the virtual impossibility that it could this still does not prove evolution. There is no way that we know that life can form from non-life. Without being able to explain this the whole theory is refuted. People believe it because of the “mantra” of Science has proven Evolution. It has not and cannot.
@Godswordistruth73 It is a fact that you quoted it from AIG I'll admit, but the quote itself is an assertion that very nearly 100% of all would find so audaciously ridiculous that they would be too busy laughing to mount an appropriate rebuttal. The genome can grow and shrink, lose unnecessary parts of which much of the genome is gain duplications, and make random changes to that which is already there. But if the creationists have an alternative model for DNA behavior let them propose it.
@Godswordistruth73 The theory is of how populations diversify into the nested hierarchy we see today. Knowing how life can come from non-life would be nice for science in general, it is a rather prominent hole. But science thrives on holes, because those are new things to figure out. Not knowing how life itself came to be doesn't matter at all to evolution. The first population of single celled organisms could have been created by God himself and evolution would still stand perfectly well.
@kamijk I said that there are exceptions to that. Murder doesn’t always have great consequences. There are many people who abstain before marriage. Hunger is one of the strongest physical urges and Buddha nearly starved himself to death. Many people have fasted for forty days. I personally fasted three and can tell you that it is one of the hardest things to do but it is possible. But let’s be honest. Sin of any sort is worthy of spiritual death, so I would hesitate ranking sins in severity.
@Godswordistruth73 You keep dancing around it don't you. Just come out and say it. I'll be fair here and say in some contexts, it is the correct action to execute a girl or woman for not being a virgin on her wedding night. It's what the bible says. I think it's a disgusting notion and I know I'm more moral than that sort of patriarchal barbarism.
@kamijk Micro evolution from what we can tell has a limit to how far it can go. Molecule to man evolution is something that takes a lot of information. The point I am driving at is that both Christianity and atheism are religions, must be accepted by faith, and thus evidence can appear to point both ways. Data is data. It says what is. People must give that data meaning by interpreting it, and they will interpret it based on the presuppositions they bring to the table.
@Godswordistruth73 How can you say there is a limit? What limits it? How can you say it is because information cannot accumulate? Anything a mutation can do it can undo. If one mutation is a decrease in information then its inverse is an increase. And that means mutations can increase information. But no you just keep on repeating the mantra "information can't increase." Just because you can't absorb new information doesn't mean nothing else in the universe can.
@kamijk I’m glad to see that you will admit evolution is falsifiable. Honestly though observational science in reality will never be able to prove creation or evolution as false. They may show either as possibilities but cannot prove either. Observation deals with the way things are now, but we can never be sure that is how things have always been. In fact evolution would expect things to be vastly different in ages past. But the sad fact of reality we cannot test the past because it is gone.
@Godswordistruth73 Of course I admit it's falsifiable. If it weren't falsifiable it wouldn't be science. And of course science won't be able to "prove" evolution or creationism. Science works by disproof not proof. And it can't even disprove all types of creationism because any way the world is, a magical super being could have created it that way for one reason or another. He could have created it to look like it wasn't created if he was feeling dickish. Which is why creationism isn't science.
@kamijk The Bible condemns murder. Capital punishment is the duty of the government. We are not Jews so we are not subject to the Law of Moses but if I knew that the death penalty awaited me for any sort of crime I would avoid it like the plague. The threat of it gets the point across.
@Godswordistruth73 You know people do commit murder, a horrific act with consequences for the person doing it all on it's own even with threat of the death penalty. Do you think people are going to be dissuaded from sex, a strong biological urge, just because it's the kind of sex that carries the death penalty? Of course not, which means if you want to uphold the law, you are going to be executing those who "whore around" as a street preacher so eloquently put it. Are you okay with that?
@kamijk. Putting all of this aside for a moment I must ask. Ask yourself this honestly. Is there anything that could make you come to the conclusion that Evolution is false and the Bible true? Just out of curiosity?
@Godswordistruth73 It would be easy to conclude that evolution is false, since all scientific theories are falsifiable. You'd have to come of with a chimera, if you found a crockoduck for example, that would be a nice disproof of evolution. Or if a dog gave birth to kittens. As for proving the bible true, I'm not sure of the entire bible in it's current form, since there are some consistency issues, but if God revealed himself in a way that could only be God and not a hallucination then yes.
@kamijk Premarital relations destroy the family structure which in turn destroys lives, just look at our society today. God dealt with sin harshly because he knew down the road that it would lead to complete corruption. Also we have a case where Jesus said he did not condemn a woman caught in adultery. He did not condone her sin though. That is because God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. Ezekiel 33:11.
@kamijk The reason creationists say it is still a bacteria is because evolution is supposed to take a primordial soup and make a man out of it. Yes MICRO-EVOLUTION is a FACT. MACRO-EVOLUTION on the other hand is fiction. To think a variation within a species can make a soup into an apple, man, or tree is a leap of blind faith.
@kamijk That diversity does not prove evolution. I know you don’t want to talk about speciation but what we saw was E. coli become more E. coli. I can raise dogs and get dogs with very different appearances, but they are still dogs. To say what happened in Lenski’s experiment could cause a primordial soup to eventually become human is a leap into the realm of faith.
P.S. I found “more likely” less out there than the “proof of evolution” that Lenski gave before he even knew what had happened.
@Godswordistruth73 Diversity is only one of the two requirements for evolution the other being selection. And I've yet to meet a creationist that disagrees with selection. And the reason I didn't want to talk about speciation is because you were moving the goal posts from show an increase in information to show speciation. But fine I'll give you an example of speciation in action: Ensatina eschscholtzii.
@Godswordistruth73 P.S. Lenski's experiments are proof of evolution. You've got populations that have a change in allelic frequency over time. You've also got the expression of a novel trait which is just icing on the cake. Icing being unnecessary, but nice anyways.
@kamijk Everything I read on Lenski was inconclusive, and these were from atheists said we still aren’t sure exactly what happened and we are working to find out. That was in 2008 and I cannot find a modern atheist who will touch the subject. All creationists I read say that it was highly likely it was a loss of information. But in the end a loss of information can lead to the gaining of a new ability, but in the end that would make the E. coli a less complex organism not more.
@Godswordistruth73 I think you don't find atheists who "touch the subject" because they'll explain this really cool trait that e coli got and creationists like you will be like "but they're still bacteria." And then they'll stop talking to creationists because it's a waste of time. But fortunately or unfortunately for you, I have no life right now.
@Godswordistruth73 I think you don't find atheists who "touch the subject" because they'll explain this really cool trait that e coli got and creationists like you will be like "but they're still bacteria." And then they'll stop talking to creationists because it's a waste of time. But fortunately or unfortunately for you, I have no life right now.
@Godswordistruth73 I think you don't find atheists who "touch the subject" because they'll explain this really cool trait that e coli got and creationists like you will be like "but they're still bacteria." And then they'll stop talking to creationists because it's a waste of time. But fortunately or unfortunately for you, I have no life right now.
@kamijk Here is the bottom line when it comes to morality. There is absolute truth, especially when it comes to morality. As Jesus himself said when praying to the father, “Thy word is truth.” The absolute truth of morality can be found in God’s word. The Ten Commandments are a great foundation for a moral life. God is good, and anything that is not of God is evil. And not every action can be justified by saying God wanted me to do it. If it goes against his word he don't want it done.
@Godswordistruth73 Yeah that is pretty much what I expected. Everything God says is right and the bible is what God says yadda yadda. No justification for why he is right. Is he right because his nature reflects a morality external to himself? Is he right because it's what his nature reflects and his nature can't be wrong. I for one can't take seriously any book that says a woman should be executed for having premarital sex, no matter the context (Deuteronomy 22). It's patriarchal bullshit.
@kamijk I’m criticizing it because the most likely explanation of what happened was a loss of information, not a gain. Lenski has never shown the gain. We see a new trait yes, but a new trait can still come by a loss of information meaning an organism can only adapt so far. A lizard can never become a bird through mutation. This test is still unclear and is being worked out, but it seems most likely that the mutation was not giving new information but causing the E. coli to lose information.
@Godswordistruth73 It is "more likely" that what happened was a loss? How can you just assert such a extraordinary claim out of thin air. Oh right, theist. But I digress, I wasn't necessarily talking about the citric acid mutation per se, I was talking about the populations with increased genetic variety. If that's not more information, then your definition of information is nonsense.
@Godswordistruth73 Why should the default explanation be that there was a loss of "information." Why would you think that your pet explanation of the world is true until proven otherwise. Oh right, theist. First, you give no coherent definition of information, second you just assert that there is no more information, when you have a population of bacteria that has become much more genetically diverse. And if that doesn't mean a gain in information, then you don't know what information is.
@kamijk I ask the question because if your failure to see the rational justification of God’s morality has some inconsistency within it then your argument collapses like a house of straw being blown by the big bad wolf as well.
@Godswordistruth73 According to most apologetics I've heard on morality it's God's nature to prefer certain values while condemning others, but it doesn't follow from that that those values God's nature demands are right. Unless the only thing that is valued is God's happiness in which case any action can be justified as "God wanted me to kill my son, so it must be right." Now I think it is likely that you will take this critique and accept it, but I am offended by such a mockery of morality.
@kamijk In Isaiah 55:8 God said “For my thoughts are not your thoughts” He spoke this to unbelievers so it’s not surprising that you would say you don’t see the justification for his morality. But at the same time I would like to know why you fail to see the rational justification for God’s morality?
@kamijk I found Lenski’s experiments interesting, but I think it flew in his face. The E. coli that he started with was still E.coli in the end. It is fact that adaptations occur within a species but what happened in the test could never change e-coli to something else. One thing that Lenski didn’t mention was that E. coli already has the ability to transport and utilize citrate under certain conditions. which means it is more likely that the E. coli lost information in order to use the citrate.
@kamijk You and I would probably agree that we as people are too complicated to be summed up in one word. God then must be even more so. Yes he is loving but he is good and a just judge. As good he cannot tolerate evil, and as judge he must punish it to the highest degree, which means Hell. But seeing that he is loving he paid the penalty for that sin himself and will forgive your sin debt if you will just take the payment by trusting in him. That is what true love is.
@Godswordistruth73 Yes, yes, and we're all sinners deserving of hell unless we're saved by Jesus. I know what the story is but, I don't think it's true. Mostly because even granting that a God exists I fail to see a rational justification for Christianity's morality. And if you can't establish that, everything else collapses like a house of straw being blown by the big bad wolf.
@kamijk Ah, duplications. While they appear to be gains in actuality they are only a duplication, as its name suggests. Duplication only uses old information over again, which would result in a dog with five legs or something strange like that. This still adds no new information. It simply repeats the old. That dog may have a new leg, but no matter how many dogs you get with strange legs it will never grow a wing or feathers. That would take a gain in information, not a repetition of the old.
@Godswordistruth73 Then the duplicated gene can subsequently be changed, and voila, new information. If you want a black and white example of a gain of information then you should check out Lenski's bacteria experiments. There's a reason Andrew Schlafly tried so hard to deny the results, and failed miserably, probably because Schlafly knows less about science than Kent Hovind.
@kamijk P.S. I must honestly say I found your atheist “God bless” humorous. But I want you to know guys like Kent Hovind and I make arguments like these because we love people such as yourself, not because we want to be right. Being right is not worth offending people over, but looking after them is. I say this to let you know
that I am just tired of seeing people attack folks like Hovind. You don’t have to agree with him, but do understand and respect that he does it because he cares.
@Godswordistruth73 I understand that you want to save me from your loving God's eternal torture dungeon and I can respect your motives. In fact I question those wishy washy types who say they believe that sort of thing but decide to keep it to themselves. But just because your motives are pure (they aren't necessarily pure for example, televangelists, who are generally in it for the money) it doesn't mean that I'm going to respect his baldfaced lies/unintentional misrepresentations of science.
@kamijk Thank you for returning the question. I have done research on the Bible and Evolution. While it is true that the Bible doesn’t give the answer to every question in the universe it does answer the most important ones.
On the other hand no scientist has ever been able to give any scientific evidence of how life formed from none life or how a mutation, a loss in information can produce a gain in information such as a reptile forming feathers. From science it is still an unlikely theory.
@Godswordistruth73 The fact that no one knows the origin of life on earth isn't a point against evolution or naturalistic explanations of the universe. It's just a particular spot where there isn't a point for natural explanations, not a point for anything. Ignorance of today is the science of tomorrow.
As for your mutation claim, it's flat out wrong. There are several types of mutations that add information, like gene duplications, and those are fairly common. Look up Lenski's bacteria for ex.
One final thing and I will get off the soapbox. Just a word of friendly advice, the majority has been wrong in the past. Do the research and find the truth for yourself. Never simply take anyone at their word. Test what they say and see if it is consistent. I would advise looking at opposing views to see if there are valid holes in what you believe. It sounds good is never a good reason to believe something. God bless.
@Godswordistruth73 Just a word of friendly advice to you, the majority has been wrong in the past. Do the research and find the truth for yourself. Never simply take anyone at their word. Test what they say and see if it is consistent. I would advise looking at opposing views to see if there are valid holes in what you believe. It sounds good is never a good reason to believe something. May Richard Dawkins look kindly on you (There's no official atheist "God Bless," so I did my best).
@kamijk The most recent statistic I heard said that scientist are divided around 55% believing in evolution and 45% believing in intelligent design. With that small of a margin the debate is still valid and must be solved through evidence not mockery.
@Godswordistruth73 Your statistics are wildly wrong. That is closer to the American population generally. Among scientists it is in the 90-99% range for evolution. Among biologists it is in the high 99%. I didn't feel like making a substantive argument against Hovind the day I made this so I didn't. I instead made fun of him. It wasn't a "form of argument," I don't recall making any arguments. I made accusations and observations, perhaps one of them was funny. I propose the "tough crowd" one.
@kamijk Attacking the messenger does not disprove the message. This is also one of the lowest forms of argument. Let’s just say for the basis of argument that Hovind was mostly wrong, that still does not mean that he is wrong all of the time. Making fun of him only makes you look like the fool. If you want to silence the message go out there and prove it wrong!
Everything written in the subtitles was unfounded. Sarcasm and contradiction is not a valid argument form. You should think before posting erroneous videos like this one.
@Godswordistruth73 Of course it's not a valid argument form. I know you want to use your word of the day, but I assure you this video isn't "erroneous." It's ridiculing the man, I give you that, but it's Kent Hovind, what else can you do?
Published scientists would be foolish to lie about their findings, the scientist would be exposed during peer review. Hovind loses the minuscule amount of credibility he has when he alludes to the writers of science text books intentionally lying. He makes this allegation by saying that several points of evo. theory are wrong. Fact is, these parts of evo. are currently accepted by the VAST majority of the world's Phd's & published scientists. He is pretty much alone in his "beliefs"
It is hilarious that Hovind actually deludes himself into believing that scientists are afraid to debate him. Actually, Hovind is so irrelevant and shows such a lack of understanding of evo. theory that no legitimate scientist would bother wasting the time on him. When you make statements like "evolution theory is a religion" or that "evolution doesn't explain gravity" etc. I'm sorry...no one will take you seriously.
@kamijk Sometimes yes but not in this topic. Making fun of very smart and intelligent man that tries to help people is not appropriate. Especially when he is talking about religion.
@kamijk I don't know if he is na expert in religion, but he is certainly an expert of proving evolution wrong and placing religion ( Chriscianity ) in Science.
@ProMajtas If you're familiar with Hovind's work you'll see many arguments of his on this page created by creationists called "arguments creationist's shouldn't use." If not I'll give you one example. In one of his talks Hovind says that because of the second law of thermodynamics, everything on earth should have increasing entropy. This is only true for a closed system, which the earth is not, since the sun is providing energy. There's also Hovind thinking human population grows exponentially.
@kamijk So there are some holes that he cannot yet explain. If you pay attention to these holes you should pay attention to holes in evolution such as rock layrs on earth above the water with no erosion.
@ProMajtas What, no, that's not what I said at all. He was wrong about things like the second law of thermodynamics and human population growth. He didn't have holes, he had mistakes. And I'm sorry but I don't understand your claim but it is rather irrelevant to biological evolution. I'll admit, I'm not much of a geologist.
@kamijk so he was wrong not lying . Look at my previous comment. My irrelevant geological question and explain how could many layers of rock form with no erosion over millions of years (according to evoluionists) when these rocks could have never been under water also according to evolutionists. ?
@ProMajtas Yes I know he was wrong that's what I said and what you challenged me to prove. As for your geological question I'd say that the compression of the layers into stone probably smoothed out the signs of erosion, but I'm not sure, I'm not a geologist. But one thing I do know is that turbulent water doesn't randomly arrange layers based on material, it arranges particulates from largest to smallest ignoring the type of material. Watch this watch?v=e5ElhX38w3Q and try it yourself.
@kamijk quite interesting. I am sure that later on in future it will be explained propretly later. In that video, they yell us that these layers are tens of thousands of yesrs old, yet petrified trees are found buried vertically all over the world going through all these layers. How can that be explained?
@ProMajtas Trees can die, and can continue standing for several years, if they are in a flood basin then they'd be slowly buried by annual floods. Since it takes several events to put down several layers.
So basically, he loves science, until they say something different than his holy book does. Anything that would conflict with the Bible must be "lies". If this guy isn't brainwashed, or living in denial, I don't know...
The only reasonable creation model was of an old universe, where a god set up natural constants and hit the start button. Any other god-dependent model is pure bullshit!
@kamijk listen this bitch...i dont give a fuck bout this hovind guy...but seriously he debunked everyone who wanted to debate him,like you can see in you tube its FACT so tell me why you mocking him when he is now in jail,are you fuckin pussy????people like dr shermer,dr. kent miller,dr. callaghan,dr robertson etc all of them lost......and only couple of theese was actually enough brave to go and debate hovind others refused......so wait till this freak comes out of jail and then you.......
@kamijk by the way pussy i watched this shit about lies in the textbooks....why didnt you continued pussy...???huh cos actually he didnt lied about things which he claimed......or if he told some lie in the textbooks somebody would correct him or you would refute that ok???now i dont give a fuck bout him,or bout you but i care about arguments....so pussy next time you should be more clever.......ok kid....now go and watch fuckin dragon ball z cos i saw you like to watch cartoons buahahaha
@giska1000 I got bored of doing the editing so I stopped at an arbitrary point. The joke was probably getting old by then anyway. And it's the dragon ball z abridged people singing a song from Mulan. So there's another cartoon. And I probably wouldn't debate Kent Hovind, since I am not a good debater and I have no idea how to defeat the Gish gallop. I was just mocking Kent, if you want a detailed refutation you should go to the extantdodo channel.
@kamijk well i haved been,but its joke...noone ever still didnt refuted this kent hovind......you must admit that,i cant believe he actually pwned every evolutionist i watched,specially when he comes up with lies in textbooks,noone ever refuted that everyones agree about heckel embryologies,apendix,whales giltz...and so on.......so its weird how one highschool profesor could do that until police arrested him before couple of years.....
@kamijk hey lool extantdodo is joke......he did t refuted hovind...he made just couple videos about his seminars about garden of eden and other shit,which can be discussed etc...but i dont care bout that.....i care about refuting that videos which are dedicated to debunking lies in textbooks,evolution etc......he by the way did embarased ken ham.....that guy is insane....ken ham is psychopat.......
@giska1000 I think extant did a good job with the Kent Hovind stuff he addressed, but he kept getting DMCAs filed against him, it was probably discouraging. Ken Ham seems similar to Hovind as far as beliefs about evolution, I'm not sure about either of their personalities, but Ham has some really weird views about race that I don't think I ever got from Hovind.
@kamijk ken ham is ridicolous he is clown....but we disagree about hovind,extondodo made something about kent but it was like truth in arguments,garden of eden and those stuff but he didnt adressed evolution...he didnt refute things which hovind claimed are lies in textbooks etc.....but you will agree with me that extandodo should be brave and wait to hovind to go out from jail and then debate him,cos hovind cant defend himslef......and its not fair......
@giska1000 Extantdodo seems to have retired from the evolution defense circuit, but I'm not sure that a oral debate format is the best way to go about deciding scientific principles. If one of the debaters said something wrong, it takes a long time to explain the errors so they can't address all the claims. A written debate format would probably be better for getting the truth, but it would also be boring. A mock trial might work, I could support something like that.
@kamijk well i agree...but then live debate is better cos its not boring,and there you must to give pure facts,its like you are forbidden to make mistakes......cos if one side make one mistake if they give one wrong statement........well its bad.....like for example dr shermer did,or dr rainbow he is completely destroyed by hovind,dr calaghan is actually embarased and many other debators.......cos hovinds best adutes are lies in evolution......(lies in textbooks)
@giska1000 Well the thing about live debates is you can't check your opponents facts, and every second you spend addressing the others points is a second you're not using to use on your own points. I personally would prefer a mock trial because then if someone says something you think is wrong you could say "objection," and stop them right away but it gives a lot of power to the judge. That would be very entertaining though.
@kamijk it would be but in case of kent hovind you must agree it doesent work...cos from his first debate in 199(and some year) until 2007 he always haved seminares and debates with exactly same topics,facts,arguments,words,jokes blablabla......so you know that fcts could be always checked and in next debate with kent hovind refuted..........but fuccy he didnt chaged anything in his debates,and seminars and he was sucesful always until they arested him (i dont know why).......
@kamijk you know what i mean.....if you for example check every video from his seminares and debates its all the same every fuckin time....even his bad jokes are always same......
LIes, Lies, Lies, Everyone is wrong except Kent, winner of the Golden Crockoduck Award, given to people who have been proven to be wrong and still LIE about it.
Why is it a utter falsehood? You do realise you defend Hovind's ridiculous, unscientific theories without knowing them, do you?
All of your Creation arguments on your channel have been refuted as logically fallacious already on the whole of the Internet. Why not search and read with a Christless mind?
History is written by the victor. The bible was written by the victor to make the victorious side(creationism)more grand.
Take a look at the meso american(mayans,incans, aztecs, etc.) and check out the history that was made by the spanish. There was a loose truth but LOTS of propaganda to make Cortez and Pizarro look good.
To roundabout the idiots who will assume your statement has some hardheaded religious basis (which it doesn't), a clarification. The truth is the collective studies and observations of reality under the scrutiny of peers made by people with the intention to understand the universe in which we exist with realistic answers that do not necessarily evoke the need of a deity. =D
Science deals with what they know and would like to update their knowledge as the go, so their truth is never stronger than a scientific theory, because they are brave enough to tell the TRUTH when they have no answer and say "we don't know enough ... yet"
As opposed to the creationist dimwits that has to start with the TRUTH and now they have gotten themselves in to a fat mess trying to squeeze in all new evidence into making sense without deviating from the bible hahaha
What lies are in text books, I was in high school 3 years ago and EVERY teacher I had AND EVERY textbook I had said evolution is a THEORY still and my teachers also urged us not to freak out b/c it isn't fact. So what lies is he talking about?
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? -Epicurus
Tis like how gravity is both a fact and theory. We have the fact of gravity (that objects fall towards the centre of the Earth, objects orbit bigger ones etc.) and we have the theory (our understanding of it, such as the equations of general reletivity).
Evolution happens, like gravity, whether we understand it or not.
they might not have said it wasn't a fact they just said something something if ur religious something you still have 2 learn it. I don't really remember exact words obviously they just had 2 by administrative decision explain 2 religious people that they don't have to believe it?(i guess) I didn't really care my parents didn't take me 2 church and I decided no God would force someone to pick 1 religion out of the however many that exist OR send me 2 hell if it was the wrong 1, that isn't JUST
Kent is so hilarious with all this talk about how evolution is a lie, when any rational person who isn't working under presuppositions can see otherwise.
Kent Hovind can prove every dating method ever invented wrong. Hovind can prove every scientist in the world wrong. Hovind can show you how to avoid paying taxes, wrong.
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz That was pretty good, you had me going for a second.
kamijk 1 month ago
I want you to know that you have made it on my prayer list and you will remain there until I die or hopefully you come to Christ. I will admit you are breaking my heart. It is sad to see a life go to waste, especially when Christ died for you. Farewell for now. I will be praying that God will make himself so evident to you that you cannot refuse him. I know you have no way of returning the favor, but… God bless!
Godswordistruth73 5 months ago
@Godswordistruth73 Saying you'll pray for me is like saying you'll masturbate to me. I don't need to know about it.
kamijk 5 months ago
You mentioned before that you have a lot of free time so I would like to make a few challenges to you.
Read the Bible in full and then test its claims to see if they are true.
Watch AIG’s video on demand. If evolution is as much a fact as you say then there is no risk, and if God’s word is truth as he says then you have everything to gain.
Godswordistruth73 5 months ago
@Godswordistruth73
No, I'm not subjecting myself to that. Every single creationist claim I have heard has been vacuous. I'm not going to torture myself just hearing the same arguments over and over again.
kamijk 5 months ago
Since you have entered the realm of name calling and God would not have me return the favor I must withdraw. I have given you the truth of scripture and the facts of science that scientists ignore. You must now make the choice on your own. But if you are right then we both lose and turn to dirt. But if God is right then I go to heaven and you Hell when you did not have to. Is this a risk you are willing to take?
Godswordistruth73 5 months ago
@Godswordistruth73 How can they be scientific facts if scientists don't think they're true?
kamijk 5 months ago
@kamijk Creation scientists from ICR AIG and such are equally intelligent and educated as guys like Dawkins and Sagan. Both look at the data and come to different conclusions. Data only shows how things work now but can never tell us how things worked in the past. This difference is presuppositions. We only know who built the D.C. because of historical documents written by people from the time. The Bible is the only document claiming to be from that time. It’s claims must be searched out
Godswordistruth73 5 months ago
@Godswordistruth73 The ICR and AIG scientists have no creation research in mainstream journals. They are not qualified. Presuppositions of science are basic things like external reality exists and we have ways of perceiving that reality. Presuppositions of creationism are things like God exists and does stuff. The presuppositions of creationism are more philosophically controversial than the conclusions they're explaining.
kamijk 5 months ago
@kamijk A basic presupposition of evolution is that life came from none life. If this is impossible then evolution could not have happened. Now I do not agree with your proposition that God would have created single celled organisms which evolved but there are those who say that is what Genesis says in an allegorical way. With that said, the ball is back in your court and you are saying then that you reject God yet he is a possibility. That’s an awful big risk.
Godswordistruth73 5 months ago
@Godswordistruth73 @Godswordistruth73 No. It's not a basic presupposition of evolution it is a presupposition that life came to be somehow or another. Further the claim that life came from non-life would never be a presupposition of any science. Science doesn't really presuppose anything, except some basics like that external reality exists. Presupposing a conclusion is the territory of apologetics.
kamijk 5 months ago
@kamijk Tell me where you got that statistic. Something tells me you made it up. I would advise you check the percentage of America’s religious affiliation. Roughly 2 percent of Americans are atheists and would find atheism laughable, but does either statistic make their side right? No! Truth is truth regardless of whether people believe it.
Godswordistruth73 5 months ago
@Godswordistruth73 Project Steve is where I get the statistic. An informal survey found that 97.3% of biology departments said there was no scientific controversy with creationism. Not just that creationism was wrong, but that it wasn't even worth their time.
kamijk 5 months ago
@kamijk God doesn’God finds your sin disgusting, but he loves you enough to die so you don’t have to pay the penalty. You are avoiding the issue by acting like God should think the way you do. Praise God he doesn’t! You are making excuses for your sin by saying you disagree with God. But all liars and adulterers will have their part in the lake of fire and God does not want to throw you in with the rest of them. No sin is worth paying eternity for.
Godswordistruth73 5 months ago
@Godswordistruth73 I don't think it is too controversial to say that I think anyone who tortures anyone else for eternity has no business making moral commands.
kamijk 5 months ago
@kamijk Sir, I must remind you that name calling is not valid argument, and is a scare tactic. It is usually an indication of desperation. So if evolution is as sound as you say then keep the conversation clean of such remarks. But there is meaning in the world, so please explain to me where the meaning in the words we use comes from?
P.S. How many times have you read the Bible?
Godswordistruth73 5 months ago
@Godswordistruth73 "You can't absorb information" is a really stupid name. And psychoanalyzing an opponents words and attributing them (incorrectly in this case) to desperation is a sign of desperation (the irony is not lost on me). Evolution is as sound as I say but that has no bearing on whether I'm going to make fun of somebody or not. I don't understand how you could possibly come to such a silly conclusion, mushroom-face.
kamijk 5 months ago
@Godswordistruth73 The meaning in the words we use come from the mutual understanding of the language we share, even your rather rudimentary grasp of it (you shouldn't have encouraged me like you did. Did you not watch the video?).
P.S. I have read the Bible on several occasions and I am understandably underwhelmed. I mean, the moral lesson of the Book of Ruth obviously hasn't held up very well.
kamijk 5 months ago
@kamijk The world does look like it was created. It is because you look at it from a humanistic POV that you see it the way you do. The smallest cell is far more complicated than anything humans have made. Evolutionists would call us ignorant if we said that you could take all of the parts for billions of watches, throw them together and shake them around for billions of years that even one watch on time and ticking would form, but this is far more likely than the evolution of a single cell.
Godswordistruth73 5 months ago
@Godswordistruth73 The analogy you make is to a completely random progress with betrays your ignorance of evolution. Evolution is a non-random process. If your analogy was that a population of creatures with a selection pressure to keep track of time and gave birth to subsequent generations, then a watch, of sorts, would likely evolve. For example see this video watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0. So maybe you should understand the very basics of evolution before trying to debunk it.
kamijk 5 months ago
@kamijk There is no known observable process by which new genetic information can be added to an organism’s genetic code. (Quoted from AIG)That is fact. But let’s for the moment accept the virtual impossibility that it could this still does not prove evolution. There is no way that we know that life can form from non-life. Without being able to explain this the whole theory is refuted. People believe it because of the “mantra” of Science has proven Evolution. It has not and cannot.
Godswordistruth73 5 months ago
@Godswordistruth73 It is a fact that you quoted it from AIG I'll admit, but the quote itself is an assertion that very nearly 100% of all would find so audaciously ridiculous that they would be too busy laughing to mount an appropriate rebuttal. The genome can grow and shrink, lose unnecessary parts of which much of the genome is gain duplications, and make random changes to that which is already there. But if the creationists have an alternative model for DNA behavior let them propose it.
kamijk 5 months ago
@Godswordistruth73 The theory is of how populations diversify into the nested hierarchy we see today. Knowing how life can come from non-life would be nice for science in general, it is a rather prominent hole. But science thrives on holes, because those are new things to figure out. Not knowing how life itself came to be doesn't matter at all to evolution. The first population of single celled organisms could have been created by God himself and evolution would still stand perfectly well.
kamijk 5 months ago
@kamijk I said that there are exceptions to that. Murder doesn’t always have great consequences. There are many people who abstain before marriage. Hunger is one of the strongest physical urges and Buddha nearly starved himself to death. Many people have fasted for forty days. I personally fasted three and can tell you that it is one of the hardest things to do but it is possible. But let’s be honest. Sin of any sort is worthy of spiritual death, so I would hesitate ranking sins in severity.
Godswordistruth73 5 months ago
@Godswordistruth73 You keep dancing around it don't you. Just come out and say it. I'll be fair here and say in some contexts, it is the correct action to execute a girl or woman for not being a virgin on her wedding night. It's what the bible says. I think it's a disgusting notion and I know I'm more moral than that sort of patriarchal barbarism.
kamijk 5 months ago
@kamijk Micro evolution from what we can tell has a limit to how far it can go. Molecule to man evolution is something that takes a lot of information. The point I am driving at is that both Christianity and atheism are religions, must be accepted by faith, and thus evidence can appear to point both ways. Data is data. It says what is. People must give that data meaning by interpreting it, and they will interpret it based on the presuppositions they bring to the table.
Godswordistruth73 5 months ago
@Godswordistruth73 How can you say there is a limit? What limits it? How can you say it is because information cannot accumulate? Anything a mutation can do it can undo. If one mutation is a decrease in information then its inverse is an increase. And that means mutations can increase information. But no you just keep on repeating the mantra "information can't increase." Just because you can't absorb new information doesn't mean nothing else in the universe can.
kamijk 5 months ago
@kamijk I’m glad to see that you will admit evolution is falsifiable. Honestly though observational science in reality will never be able to prove creation or evolution as false. They may show either as possibilities but cannot prove either. Observation deals with the way things are now, but we can never be sure that is how things have always been. In fact evolution would expect things to be vastly different in ages past. But the sad fact of reality we cannot test the past because it is gone.
Godswordistruth73 5 months ago
@Godswordistruth73 Of course I admit it's falsifiable. If it weren't falsifiable it wouldn't be science. And of course science won't be able to "prove" evolution or creationism. Science works by disproof not proof. And it can't even disprove all types of creationism because any way the world is, a magical super being could have created it that way for one reason or another. He could have created it to look like it wasn't created if he was feeling dickish. Which is why creationism isn't science.
kamijk 5 months ago
@kamijk The Bible condemns murder. Capital punishment is the duty of the government. We are not Jews so we are not subject to the Law of Moses but if I knew that the death penalty awaited me for any sort of crime I would avoid it like the plague. The threat of it gets the point across.
Godswordistruth73 5 months ago
@Godswordistruth73 You know people do commit murder, a horrific act with consequences for the person doing it all on it's own even with threat of the death penalty. Do you think people are going to be dissuaded from sex, a strong biological urge, just because it's the kind of sex that carries the death penalty? Of course not, which means if you want to uphold the law, you are going to be executing those who "whore around" as a street preacher so eloquently put it. Are you okay with that?
kamijk 5 months ago
@kamijk. Putting all of this aside for a moment I must ask. Ask yourself this honestly. Is there anything that could make you come to the conclusion that Evolution is false and the Bible true? Just out of curiosity?
Godswordistruth73 5 months ago
@Godswordistruth73 It would be easy to conclude that evolution is false, since all scientific theories are falsifiable. You'd have to come of with a chimera, if you found a crockoduck for example, that would be a nice disproof of evolution. Or if a dog gave birth to kittens. As for proving the bible true, I'm not sure of the entire bible in it's current form, since there are some consistency issues, but if God revealed himself in a way that could only be God and not a hallucination then yes.
kamijk 5 months ago
@kamijk Premarital relations destroy the family structure which in turn destroys lives, just look at our society today. God dealt with sin harshly because he knew down the road that it would lead to complete corruption. Also we have a case where Jesus said he did not condemn a woman caught in adultery. He did not condone her sin though. That is because God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. Ezekiel 33:11.
Godswordistruth73 5 months ago
@Godswordistruth73 So in some contexts it's okay to kill the whores? Jack the Ripper should have used that as his defense.
kamijk 5 months ago
@kamijk The reason creationists say it is still a bacteria is because evolution is supposed to take a primordial soup and make a man out of it. Yes MICRO-EVOLUTION is a FACT. MACRO-EVOLUTION on the other hand is fiction. To think a variation within a species can make a soup into an apple, man, or tree is a leap of blind faith.
Godswordistruth73 5 months ago
@Godswordistruth73 Macro-evolution is simply a accumulation of micro-evolutionary change. You can't have one without the other.
kamijk 5 months ago
@kamijk That diversity does not prove evolution. I know you don’t want to talk about speciation but what we saw was E. coli become more E. coli. I can raise dogs and get dogs with very different appearances, but they are still dogs. To say what happened in Lenski’s experiment could cause a primordial soup to eventually become human is a leap into the realm of faith.
P.S. I found “more likely” less out there than the “proof of evolution” that Lenski gave before he even knew what had happened.
Godswordistruth73 5 months ago
@Godswordistruth73 Diversity is only one of the two requirements for evolution the other being selection. And I've yet to meet a creationist that disagrees with selection. And the reason I didn't want to talk about speciation is because you were moving the goal posts from show an increase in information to show speciation. But fine I'll give you an example of speciation in action: Ensatina eschscholtzii.
kamijk 5 months ago
@Godswordistruth73 P.S. Lenski's experiments are proof of evolution. You've got populations that have a change in allelic frequency over time. You've also got the expression of a novel trait which is just icing on the cake. Icing being unnecessary, but nice anyways.
kamijk 5 months ago
@kamijk Everything I read on Lenski was inconclusive, and these were from atheists said we still aren’t sure exactly what happened and we are working to find out. That was in 2008 and I cannot find a modern atheist who will touch the subject. All creationists I read say that it was highly likely it was a loss of information. But in the end a loss of information can lead to the gaining of a new ability, but in the end that would make the E. coli a less complex organism not more.
Godswordistruth73 5 months ago
@Godswordistruth73 I think you don't find atheists who "touch the subject" because they'll explain this really cool trait that e coli got and creationists like you will be like "but they're still bacteria." And then they'll stop talking to creationists because it's a waste of time. But fortunately or unfortunately for you, I have no life right now.
kamijk 5 months ago
@Godswordistruth73 I think you don't find atheists who "touch the subject" because they'll explain this really cool trait that e coli got and creationists like you will be like "but they're still bacteria." And then they'll stop talking to creationists because it's a waste of time. But fortunately or unfortunately for you, I have no life right now.
kamijk 5 months ago
@Godswordistruth73 I think you don't find atheists who "touch the subject" because they'll explain this really cool trait that e coli got and creationists like you will be like "but they're still bacteria." And then they'll stop talking to creationists because it's a waste of time. But fortunately or unfortunately for you, I have no life right now.
kamijk 5 months ago
@kamijk Here is the bottom line when it comes to morality. There is absolute truth, especially when it comes to morality. As Jesus himself said when praying to the father, “Thy word is truth.” The absolute truth of morality can be found in God’s word. The Ten Commandments are a great foundation for a moral life. God is good, and anything that is not of God is evil. And not every action can be justified by saying God wanted me to do it. If it goes against his word he don't want it done.
Godswordistruth73 5 months ago
@Godswordistruth73 Yeah that is pretty much what I expected. Everything God says is right and the bible is what God says yadda yadda. No justification for why he is right. Is he right because his nature reflects a morality external to himself? Is he right because it's what his nature reflects and his nature can't be wrong. I for one can't take seriously any book that says a woman should be executed for having premarital sex, no matter the context (Deuteronomy 22). It's patriarchal bullshit.
kamijk 5 months ago
@kamijk I’m criticizing it because the most likely explanation of what happened was a loss of information, not a gain. Lenski has never shown the gain. We see a new trait yes, but a new trait can still come by a loss of information meaning an organism can only adapt so far. A lizard can never become a bird through mutation. This test is still unclear and is being worked out, but it seems most likely that the mutation was not giving new information but causing the E. coli to lose information.
Godswordistruth73 5 months ago
@Godswordistruth73 It is "more likely" that what happened was a loss? How can you just assert such a extraordinary claim out of thin air. Oh right, theist. But I digress, I wasn't necessarily talking about the citric acid mutation per se, I was talking about the populations with increased genetic variety. If that's not more information, then your definition of information is nonsense.
kamijk 5 months ago
@Godswordistruth73 Why should the default explanation be that there was a loss of "information." Why would you think that your pet explanation of the world is true until proven otherwise. Oh right, theist. First, you give no coherent definition of information, second you just assert that there is no more information, when you have a population of bacteria that has become much more genetically diverse. And if that doesn't mean a gain in information, then you don't know what information is.
kamijk 5 months ago
@kamijk I ask the question because if your failure to see the rational justification of God’s morality has some inconsistency within it then your argument collapses like a house of straw being blown by the big bad wolf as well.
Godswordistruth73 5 months ago
@Godswordistruth73 According to most apologetics I've heard on morality it's God's nature to prefer certain values while condemning others, but it doesn't follow from that that those values God's nature demands are right. Unless the only thing that is valued is God's happiness in which case any action can be justified as "God wanted me to kill my son, so it must be right." Now I think it is likely that you will take this critique and accept it, but I am offended by such a mockery of morality.
kamijk 5 months ago
@kamijk In Isaiah 55:8 God said “For my thoughts are not your thoughts” He spoke this to unbelievers so it’s not surprising that you would say you don’t see the justification for his morality. But at the same time I would like to know why you fail to see the rational justification for God’s morality?
Godswordistruth73 5 months ago
@kamijk I found Lenski’s experiments interesting, but I think it flew in his face. The E. coli that he started with was still E.coli in the end. It is fact that adaptations occur within a species but what happened in the test could never change e-coli to something else. One thing that Lenski didn’t mention was that E. coli already has the ability to transport and utilize citrate under certain conditions. which means it is more likely that the E. coli lost information in order to use the citrate.
Godswordistruth73 5 months ago
@Godswordistruth73 I showed you an example of information gain and you're criticizing the study for not showing speciation!? You're a fucking wanker.
kamijk 5 months ago
@kamijk You and I would probably agree that we as people are too complicated to be summed up in one word. God then must be even more so. Yes he is loving but he is good and a just judge. As good he cannot tolerate evil, and as judge he must punish it to the highest degree, which means Hell. But seeing that he is loving he paid the penalty for that sin himself and will forgive your sin debt if you will just take the payment by trusting in him. That is what true love is.
Godswordistruth73 5 months ago
@Godswordistruth73 Yes, yes, and we're all sinners deserving of hell unless we're saved by Jesus. I know what the story is but, I don't think it's true. Mostly because even granting that a God exists I fail to see a rational justification for Christianity's morality. And if you can't establish that, everything else collapses like a house of straw being blown by the big bad wolf.
kamijk 5 months ago
@kamijk Ah, duplications. While they appear to be gains in actuality they are only a duplication, as its name suggests. Duplication only uses old information over again, which would result in a dog with five legs or something strange like that. This still adds no new information. It simply repeats the old. That dog may have a new leg, but no matter how many dogs you get with strange legs it will never grow a wing or feathers. That would take a gain in information, not a repetition of the old.
Godswordistruth73 5 months ago
@Godswordistruth73 Then the duplicated gene can subsequently be changed, and voila, new information. If you want a black and white example of a gain of information then you should check out Lenski's bacteria experiments. There's a reason Andrew Schlafly tried so hard to deny the results, and failed miserably, probably because Schlafly knows less about science than Kent Hovind.
kamijk 5 months ago
@kamijk P.S. I must honestly say I found your atheist “God bless” humorous. But I want you to know guys like Kent Hovind and I make arguments like these because we love people such as yourself, not because we want to be right. Being right is not worth offending people over, but looking after them is. I say this to let you know
that I am just tired of seeing people attack folks like Hovind. You don’t have to agree with him, but do understand and respect that he does it because he cares.
Godswordistruth73 5 months ago
@Godswordistruth73 I understand that you want to save me from your loving God's eternal torture dungeon and I can respect your motives. In fact I question those wishy washy types who say they believe that sort of thing but decide to keep it to themselves. But just because your motives are pure (they aren't necessarily pure for example, televangelists, who are generally in it for the money) it doesn't mean that I'm going to respect his baldfaced lies/unintentional misrepresentations of science.
kamijk 5 months ago
@kamijk Thank you for returning the question. I have done research on the Bible and Evolution. While it is true that the Bible doesn’t give the answer to every question in the universe it does answer the most important ones.
On the other hand no scientist has ever been able to give any scientific evidence of how life formed from none life or how a mutation, a loss in information can produce a gain in information such as a reptile forming feathers. From science it is still an unlikely theory.
Godswordistruth73 5 months ago
@Godswordistruth73 The fact that no one knows the origin of life on earth isn't a point against evolution or naturalistic explanations of the universe. It's just a particular spot where there isn't a point for natural explanations, not a point for anything. Ignorance of today is the science of tomorrow.
As for your mutation claim, it's flat out wrong. There are several types of mutations that add information, like gene duplications, and those are fairly common. Look up Lenski's bacteria for ex.
kamijk 5 months ago
One final thing and I will get off the soapbox. Just a word of friendly advice, the majority has been wrong in the past. Do the research and find the truth for yourself. Never simply take anyone at their word. Test what they say and see if it is consistent. I would advise looking at opposing views to see if there are valid holes in what you believe. It sounds good is never a good reason to believe something. God bless.
Godswordistruth73 5 months ago
@Godswordistruth73 Just a word of friendly advice to you, the majority has been wrong in the past. Do the research and find the truth for yourself. Never simply take anyone at their word. Test what they say and see if it is consistent. I would advise looking at opposing views to see if there are valid holes in what you believe. It sounds good is never a good reason to believe something. May Richard Dawkins look kindly on you (There's no official atheist "God Bless," so I did my best).
kamijk 5 months ago
@kamijk The most recent statistic I heard said that scientist are divided around 55% believing in evolution and 45% believing in intelligent design. With that small of a margin the debate is still valid and must be solved through evidence not mockery.
Godswordistruth73 5 months ago
@Godswordistruth73 Your statistics are wildly wrong. That is closer to the American population generally. Among scientists it is in the 90-99% range for evolution. Among biologists it is in the high 99%. I didn't feel like making a substantive argument against Hovind the day I made this so I didn't. I instead made fun of him. It wasn't a "form of argument," I don't recall making any arguments. I made accusations and observations, perhaps one of them was funny. I propose the "tough crowd" one.
kamijk 5 months ago
@kamijk Attacking the messenger does not disprove the message. This is also one of the lowest forms of argument. Let’s just say for the basis of argument that Hovind was mostly wrong, that still does not mean that he is wrong all of the time. Making fun of him only makes you look like the fool. If you want to silence the message go out there and prove it wrong!
Godswordistruth73 5 months ago
Everything written in the subtitles was unfounded. Sarcasm and contradiction is not a valid argument form. You should think before posting erroneous videos like this one.
Godswordistruth73 5 months ago
@Godswordistruth73 Of course it's not a valid argument form. I know you want to use your word of the day, but I assure you this video isn't "erroneous." It's ridiculing the man, I give you that, but it's Kent Hovind, what else can you do?
kamijk 5 months ago
"I just want to make a path for the FSM"
Hahahahaha!
"Thermodynamics is from satan. How do you think Hell is powered?"
"Lying should be limited to church"
"They´re biased against pseudo science"
Hahahaha! Thanks. This was hilarious.
katnils 8 months ago
Published scientists would be foolish to lie about their findings, the scientist would be exposed during peer review. Hovind loses the minuscule amount of credibility he has when he alludes to the writers of science text books intentionally lying. He makes this allegation by saying that several points of evo. theory are wrong. Fact is, these parts of evo. are currently accepted by the VAST majority of the world's Phd's & published scientists. He is pretty much alone in his "beliefs"
orangemod 8 months ago
It is hilarious that Hovind actually deludes himself into believing that scientists are afraid to debate him. Actually, Hovind is so irrelevant and shows such a lack of understanding of evo. theory that no legitimate scientist would bother wasting the time on him. When you make statements like "evolution theory is a religion" or that "evolution doesn't explain gravity" etc. I'm sorry...no one will take you seriously.
orangemod 8 months ago
WOW this video is so ignorant. No facts only to make fun of a great man that wants to help people
ProMajtas 8 months ago
@ProMajtas I think it's appropriate to meet ridiculousness with ridicule, don't you?
kamijk 8 months ago
@kamijk Sometimes yes but not in this topic. Making fun of very smart and intelligent man that tries to help people is not appropriate. Especially when he is talking about religion.
ProMajtas 8 months ago
@ProMajtas He better be an expert when it comes to religion (which I doubt) because in the realm of science he has no equals, only greaters.
kamijk 8 months ago
@kamijk I don't know if he is na expert in religion, but he is certainly an expert of proving evolution wrong and placing religion ( Chriscianity ) in Science.
ProMajtas 8 months ago
@ProMajtas How can he be proving evolution wrong if he's shown that he doesn't understand it.
kamijk 8 months ago
@kamijk could you please gie me one example he said that you think he doesn't understand science?
ProMajtas 8 months ago
@ProMajtas If you're familiar with Hovind's work you'll see many arguments of his on this page created by creationists called "arguments creationist's shouldn't use." If not I'll give you one example. In one of his talks Hovind says that because of the second law of thermodynamics, everything on earth should have increasing entropy. This is only true for a closed system, which the earth is not, since the sun is providing energy. There's also Hovind thinking human population grows exponentially.
kamijk 8 months ago
@kamijk So there are some holes that he cannot yet explain. If you pay attention to these holes you should pay attention to holes in evolution such as rock layrs on earth above the water with no erosion.
ProMajtas 8 months ago
@ProMajtas What, no, that's not what I said at all. He was wrong about things like the second law of thermodynamics and human population growth. He didn't have holes, he had mistakes. And I'm sorry but I don't understand your claim but it is rather irrelevant to biological evolution. I'll admit, I'm not much of a geologist.
kamijk 8 months ago
@kamijk so he was wrong not lying . Look at my previous comment. My irrelevant geological question and explain how could many layers of rock form with no erosion over millions of years (according to evoluionists) when these rocks could have never been under water also according to evolutionists. ?
ProMajtas 8 months ago
@ProMajtas Yes I know he was wrong that's what I said and what you challenged me to prove. As for your geological question I'd say that the compression of the layers into stone probably smoothed out the signs of erosion, but I'm not sure, I'm not a geologist. But one thing I do know is that turbulent water doesn't randomly arrange layers based on material, it arranges particulates from largest to smallest ignoring the type of material. Watch this watch?v=e5ElhX38w3Q and try it yourself.
kamijk 8 months ago
@kamijk quite interesting. I am sure that later on in future it will be explained propretly later. In that video, they yell us that these layers are tens of thousands of yesrs old, yet petrified trees are found buried vertically all over the world going through all these layers. How can that be explained?
ProMajtas 8 months ago
@ProMajtas Trees can die, and can continue standing for several years, if they are in a flood basin then they'd be slowly buried by annual floods. Since it takes several events to put down several layers.
kamijk 8 months ago
Oh and not all layers are deposited slowly, it depends on the material. Floods can put down a layer rather quickly.
kamijk 8 months ago
I see you did not want to watch the video when he starts to point out the outdated material in the books. lol
kg4bga 9 months ago
@kg4bga I got lazy. He probably starts talking about Haekel doesn't he.
kamijk 9 months ago
the fact that my dog, is a dog and not a wolf like her great, great, great, great etc... grandparents were, proves evolution.
donkeymasternr1 1 year ago 3
@donkeymasternr1 Really? Well let me know when your dog lays an egg
kg4bga 9 months ago
@kg4bga so in order to prove evolution, a dog needs to lay an egg?
donkeymasternr1 9 months ago
@kg4bga That would disprove evolution.
kamijk 9 months ago
@kamijk I have no idea where you're going with this...
donkeymasternr1 9 months ago
@donkeymasternr1 I wasn't going anywhere, I was just answering your question in the negative.
kamijk 9 months ago
@kamijk hah, that was actually meant for "kg4bga" who seems to believe that evolution means dogs laying
eggs...
donkeymasternr1 9 months ago
@donkeymasternr1 my guess is he's not coming back.
kamijk 9 months ago 2
Is Kent out of jail yet? i havent seen many seminars from him recently
fish5133 1 year ago
It's really funny Kent brings up the ten commandments to drive the point that he will not lie, doesn't break those commandments.
Kent Hovind, the biggest creationist douche there is. “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s..." you tax evading bitch!
KinkyKonnivingKunt 1 year ago
So basically, he loves science, until they say something different than his holy book does. Anything that would conflict with the Bible must be "lies". If this guy isn't brainwashed, or living in denial, I don't know...
GenghisKrahn 1 year ago
Kent Hovind is the man!!! God bless 'im.
Pokerislife7 1 year ago 2
@Pokerislife7 He's a role model for children the world over isn't he?
kamijk 1 year ago
@kamijk Yeah, if you want your children to lead a life that results in them spending ten years in prison! He's an absolute moron!
maskofsan1ty 1 year ago
"reasonable creation model" (=ID) LMAO like
"reasonable santa claus model"
"round square model"
The only reasonable creation model was of an old universe, where a god set up natural constants and hit the start button. Any other god-dependent model is pure bullshit!
Elune137 1 year ago
Seriously, somebody throw some rotten eggs at the guys.
Or somebody in prison show him why banana's are actually made by the devil as a torture device of lust :P
fucking prick.
DarwinAwardsInc 1 year ago
he said there wasting there time trying to get evolution out and creation in well no shit when you have NO evidence and we have ALL of it
patrickledford420 1 year ago
lol "contradicts magic man done it" fucking great they really get pissed when reality goes against there idea of "reality"
patrickledford420 1 year ago
the fact is nothing in the bible can ever be construed as evidence for anything, just as harry potter doesnt prove wizards exist
Dragonflamz 1 year ago
@Dragonflamz ..Havn't heard that one before
Capuano231 1 year ago
lol textbook should be currenty and accurate - unlike the bible.
badpanda84 1 year ago
Everytime Kent Hovind talks about "creation science", a puppy gets tossed into a river and some unlucky person loses their ability to use logic.
DarkZerkerX 1 year ago
Nice song at the end. Hey I love Cake! Kent Hovind makes a little part of me die every time I watch. I just can't stand it.
chuckinator0 1 year ago
Curious that in the Garden of Eden God did lie, but the Devil told the truth.
gamesbok 1 year ago
Nice video.
If Hovind ever told the truth it would be accidental.
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
"They're taught evolution for nine months and they panic when I come for 2 hours."
It took years to build the World Trade Center towers but only a few religious fanatics, a plane and a few hours to destroy them.
infectingthecrypts 2 years ago 10
@infectingthecrypts Sorry, TWO planes.
infectingthecrypts 2 years ago
we're not against science!
but we like to lie about it!
:D
blahdoot20 2 years ago 3
That's a good one. I wish I thought of that.
kamijk 2 years ago
@kamijk listen this bitch...i dont give a fuck bout this hovind guy...but seriously he debunked everyone who wanted to debate him,like you can see in you tube its FACT so tell me why you mocking him when he is now in jail,are you fuckin pussy????people like dr shermer,dr. kent miller,dr. callaghan,dr robertson etc all of them lost......and only couple of theese was actually enough brave to go and debate hovind others refused......so wait till this freak comes out of jail and then you.......
giska1000 1 year ago
@kamijk ..........chalenge him to debate him ok???but dont be pussy,now when he is jail you attacking.....fuckin idiot......
giska1000 1 year ago
@kamijk by the way pussy i watched this shit about lies in the textbooks....why didnt you continued pussy...???huh cos actually he didnt lied about things which he claimed......or if he told some lie in the textbooks somebody would correct him or you would refute that ok???now i dont give a fuck bout him,or bout you but i care about arguments....so pussy next time you should be more clever.......ok kid....now go and watch fuckin dragon ball z cos i saw you like to watch cartoons buahahaha
giska1000 1 year ago
@giska1000 I got bored of doing the editing so I stopped at an arbitrary point. The joke was probably getting old by then anyway. And it's the dragon ball z abridged people singing a song from Mulan. So there's another cartoon. And I probably wouldn't debate Kent Hovind, since I am not a good debater and I have no idea how to defeat the Gish gallop. I was just mocking Kent, if you want a detailed refutation you should go to the extantdodo channel.
kamijk 1 year ago
@kamijk well i haved been,but its joke...noone ever still didnt refuted this kent hovind......you must admit that,i cant believe he actually pwned every evolutionist i watched,specially when he comes up with lies in textbooks,noone ever refuted that everyones agree about heckel embryologies,apendix,whales giltz...and so on.......so its weird how one highschool profesor could do that until police arrested him before couple of years.....
giska1000 1 year ago
@kamijk hey lool extantdodo is joke......he did t refuted hovind...he made just couple videos about his seminars about garden of eden and other shit,which can be discussed etc...but i dont care bout that.....i care about refuting that videos which are dedicated to debunking lies in textbooks,evolution etc......he by the way did embarased ken ham.....that guy is insane....ken ham is psychopat.......
giska1000 1 year ago
@giska1000 I think extant did a good job with the Kent Hovind stuff he addressed, but he kept getting DMCAs filed against him, it was probably discouraging. Ken Ham seems similar to Hovind as far as beliefs about evolution, I'm not sure about either of their personalities, but Ham has some really weird views about race that I don't think I ever got from Hovind.
kamijk 1 year ago
@kamijk ken ham is ridicolous he is clown....but we disagree about hovind,extondodo made something about kent but it was like truth in arguments,garden of eden and those stuff but he didnt adressed evolution...he didnt refute things which hovind claimed are lies in textbooks etc.....but you will agree with me that extandodo should be brave and wait to hovind to go out from jail and then debate him,cos hovind cant defend himslef......and its not fair......
giska1000 1 year ago
@giska1000 Extantdodo seems to have retired from the evolution defense circuit, but I'm not sure that a oral debate format is the best way to go about deciding scientific principles. If one of the debaters said something wrong, it takes a long time to explain the errors so they can't address all the claims. A written debate format would probably be better for getting the truth, but it would also be boring. A mock trial might work, I could support something like that.
kamijk 1 year ago
@kamijk well i agree...but then live debate is better cos its not boring,and there you must to give pure facts,its like you are forbidden to make mistakes......cos if one side make one mistake if they give one wrong statement........well its bad.....like for example dr shermer did,or dr rainbow he is completely destroyed by hovind,dr calaghan is actually embarased and many other debators.......cos hovinds best adutes are lies in evolution......(lies in textbooks)
giska1000 1 year ago
@giska1000 Well the thing about live debates is you can't check your opponents facts, and every second you spend addressing the others points is a second you're not using to use on your own points. I personally would prefer a mock trial because then if someone says something you think is wrong you could say "objection," and stop them right away but it gives a lot of power to the judge. That would be very entertaining though.
kamijk 1 year ago
@kamijk it would be but in case of kent hovind you must agree it doesent work...cos from his first debate in 199(and some year) until 2007 he always haved seminares and debates with exactly same topics,facts,arguments,words,jokes blablabla......so you know that fcts could be always checked and in next debate with kent hovind refuted..........but fuccy he didnt chaged anything in his debates,and seminars and he was sucesful always until they arested him (i dont know why).......
giska1000 1 year ago
@kamijk you know what i mean.....if you for example check every video from his seminares and debates its all the same every fuckin time....even his bad jokes are always same......
giska1000 1 year ago
Gotta love the slide -
'God has given us 'nearly' 40 talented and dedicated people to help in our 'unusual' ministry'
You mean paying wages brings in labour?
And who is 'nearly'?
Has he got half a person working for him?
digitised 2 years ago
Hovind is a liar and a thief !
ikinmoore 2 years ago 2
Even with the subtitles...it's painful to listen to him. It's burning...the stupid.
GumbaMasta 2 years ago 2
Whats that?
They're teaching Newtonian mechanics!
The outdated simplified version of mechanics.
Those physics teachers should all be fired and we should teach every child relativity.
sean14916 2 years ago
leave kent hovind alone
go back to atheist club you nazi
jurgmike 2 years ago
I especially like your punctuation and capitalization.
kamijk 2 years ago
fuck u its the internet
jurgmike 2 years ago
I know where you live.
kamijk 2 years ago
then what am i wearing
jurgmike 2 years ago
Just because I know where you live doesn't mean I know what you're wearing, but it's a gray t-shirt and black sweat pants.
kamijk 2 years ago
wtf how did u know that
jurgmike 2 years ago
Periscope.
kamijk 2 years ago
@jurgmike We can't actually bug him since he is in prison for lying about his taxes (ironically)
DarwinAwardsInc 1 year ago
@5:42-Take a note folks. This was when America was ruled, not by the people, but by industrial and religious cartels{and we still are today!}.
SixtiesFan90 2 years ago
LIes, Lies, Lies, Everyone is wrong except Kent, winner of the Golden Crockoduck Award, given to people who have been proven to be wrong and still LIE about it.
gregrutz 2 years ago
This is utter falsehood
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
Why is it a utter falsehood? You do realise you defend Hovind's ridiculous, unscientific theories without knowing them, do you?
All of your Creation arguments on your channel have been refuted as logically fallacious already on the whole of the Internet. Why not search and read with a Christless mind?
HDuyNguyen 2 years ago
History is written by the victor. The bible was written by the victor to make the victorious side(creationism)more grand.
Take a look at the meso american(mayans,incans, aztecs, etc.) and check out the history that was made by the spanish. There was a loose truth but LOTS of propaganda to make Cortez and Pizarro look good.
DarkZerkerX 2 years ago
There is only one side, the TRUTH,
it's called Science.
gregrutz 2 years ago 17
To roundabout the idiots who will assume your statement has some hardheaded religious basis (which it doesn't), a clarification. The truth is the collective studies and observations of reality under the scrutiny of peers made by people with the intention to understand the universe in which we exist with realistic answers that do not necessarily evoke the need of a deity. =D
Ethrock 2 years ago
Well, yes and no ...
Science deals with what they know and would like to update their knowledge as the go, so their truth is never stronger than a scientific theory, because they are brave enough to tell the TRUTH when they have no answer and say "we don't know enough ... yet"
As opposed to the creationist dimwits that has to start with the TRUTH and now they have gotten themselves in to a fat mess trying to squeeze in all new evidence into making sense without deviating from the bible hahaha
heyawhaw 2 years ago
Yes, kent makes shit up to save the bible story.
Scientist know more than most people realize. The 'gap' is between science and what non-scientists know.
Creationist have no idea of the fossil record.
gregrutz 2 years ago
What lies are in text books, I was in high school 3 years ago and EVERY teacher I had AND EVERY textbook I had said evolution is a THEORY still and my teachers also urged us not to freak out b/c it isn't fact. So what lies is he talking about?
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? -Epicurus
SK3Nives 2 years ago
Well, technically your teachers lied then.
Evolution is both a fact and theory.
Tis like how gravity is both a fact and theory. We have the fact of gravity (that objects fall towards the centre of the Earth, objects orbit bigger ones etc.) and we have the theory (our understanding of it, such as the equations of general reletivity).
Evolution happens, like gravity, whether we understand it or not.
bishofthebass 2 years ago
they might not have said it wasn't a fact they just said something something if ur religious something you still have 2 learn it. I don't really remember exact words obviously they just had 2 by administrative decision explain 2 religious people that they don't have to believe it?(i guess) I didn't really care my parents didn't take me 2 church and I decided no God would force someone to pick 1 religion out of the however many that exist OR send me 2 hell if it was the wrong 1, that isn't JUST
SK3Nives 2 years ago
*Nods* Agreed.
bishofthebass 2 years ago
LOL THEIR SLOGAN IS "We are not against science!"
ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS?!
Thatonedude917 2 years ago
Dishonesty and creationism go hand in hand. Either dishonesty or ignorance of what science means.
kamijk 2 years ago
I just thought it was funny they had to say it on the slide. You don't see scientists saying that.
Thatonedude917 2 years ago
Kent is so hilarious with all this talk about how evolution is a lie, when any rational person who isn't working under presuppositions can see otherwise.
Hilarious -_-
TGGeko 2 years ago
I'm pretty sure that if Hovind told the truth, the universe would turn inside out.
theshredator 2 years ago