Added: 4 years ago
From: Joshua271987
Views: 22,485
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (481)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • didn't you all know the world began right around the agricultural revolution, after man domesticated the dog?

  • "...they don't want to bury it (the big bang) because *they* have nothing to replace it with."

    The creation of the elements had to be ordered because most of the most common elements result in obeying the orders of a preexisting word.

    Think about that. Nothing ever works according to a plan without being made to work.

    So we have about 18 or so essential elements that have billions of ordered functions only because of the way they are made.

    watch?v=lEledPONpkQ

  • I do just for clarification believe the Earth and most of the universe is somewhere between 13,000 and 14,000 years old closer to 14 thousand not 6,000 or so years, most likely just over 13,600 eyars old. The remaining fraction or small fraction of the universe is older maybe a few billion years old. The full enternt of the rang of Young Earth Creationism would be from 6,000 years maybe just under still about 6 thousand to just over 16,000 years.

  • Acting like the universe is a giant machine like the simple machines we use. This apeal to common reasoning saying there is something heavily mechanical about the may space works is just into something that works. It's not that there isn't some kind of design behind it but this kind of reasoning cannot be applied. Also not that there is nothing outside the universe but the big bang is said to be the expanding of even space so angular momentum deosn't work.

  • I'm not saying I believe in the big bang but one maybe commonly overlooked characteristic about the Big Bang is that it did not begin from an infinitely small point. It would have been trillions and trilllions and trillions and trillions or whatever times smaller than the volume or even diameter of the smallest subatmoic particle known. That spinning of a dot or condensing refers to how a solar system would form.

  • @RJL738 We have particles everywhere, and the believe that one particle produced the rest, is not only illogical but unrealistic. It is therefore, much more intelligent to believe that there exist a being outside the universe who is capable of creating the Universe from *nothing*. that is right, *from nothing*. So, in the end, its the same thing, except, that He really created everything from nothing. The big bang assumes there was a little something.  Where does this it come from

  • To be fair, hovind is an eloquent speaker and his points are very appealing to intuition. However, he has no evidence to support his claims but he can gloss this over with his eloquence, something every effective politician is able to do

  • ''As the Nebula shrank, it spun faster and faster''

    I always wonderd where this IDiot got the idea a dot can spin, he mis-quotes a paper talking about Nebula. Stupid, just stupid.

  • one of his main arguments is the 2nd law of thermo dynamics which he misquotes and takes out of context. he claims that it points out everything tend to chaos. he fails however to mention the second part of the law of thermodynamics: that the energy is used for growth and repair and productivity. also, the law actually states that things want to be more at rest not at chaos... i.e. something that is hot wants to get rid of that excess energy... his applying this to buildings is wrong

  • he is GOOD at fooling stupid folk that have NO science education at all and that cannot think right

  • He's an idiot plain and simple.He's a liar.

  • @mrdalerod1-then why do u watch him? ur the idiot for watching, not him....nobody dragged u here and held a gun 2 ur head and made u watch. And besides hes awesome! nothing but truth comes out of his mouth.....if u got issues got and debate him otherwise dont be an idiot and watch. simple

  • kent hovind seems to talk about tax is alot XD to bad he dont pay his hahahaha

  • Isnt this guy in prison for tax fraud or something?

  • Comment removed

  • "Every thing in the Universe should be evenly spread out, instead everything is lumpy."

    Hey Kent, are you aware of the existence of gravity? If not, you should check it out! Oh, wait...its just a theory. Just like evolution. Jesus Christ this man is hilariously stupid.

  • Hovind: 'I believe in the beginning God and you believe in the beginning dirt'

    Good News Bible: 'The the lord God took some soil from the ground and formed a man out of it'

    Oh the irony.

  • @maskofsan1ty Good News Bible is Roman Catholic and the pope himself pushes evolution. Have a nice day regardless. :)

  • @makahru I was talking about what Hovind said, not the pope!

  • @maskofsan1ty Your point is good, I must say. However, just dirt is dirt. Dust to Dust etc You leave God out, and right there is the difference. It's truly choose atheism or God. Your point cuts right to the matter of things.

  • Kent mentions resistance such as hitting a tree or a telephone pole ... Taking his merry-go-round metaphor a bit further, wouldn't spacial objects crashing into other spacial objects, debris into other debris, planets into other planets, qualify as "resistance"?

  • @pooooccurs From a central point explosion everything is traveling away in all directions from everything else. Only getting farther and farther from each other.

  • propaganda

  • This guy is dumb as dirt, and the screw balls in the pews are sucking this crap right up.

  • Dont any of the christians here realize most (or all) arguments Hovind has against evolution in this lecture can also be used against him. It really amazes me people actually agree with this man. To me he is just a comedian (and a criminal).

  • Certainly makes the big bang look stupid.

  • Imagine one of the kids on the roundabout was holding a simple machine, two wheels and a rip chord. When you pull the rip chord the two wheels spin in opposite directions. After the kid goes flying off the roundabout he pulls the rip chord, you therefore have something spinning the opposite direction. Bang goes Ken's theory.

    Also he seems to have forgotten about the force of gravity. Bodies in space are pulled together by gravity so they can indeed collide.

    etc.

    duh..

  • so this jesus dude is a motherfucker as he raped his own mother to beget himself

    now thats science

  • Congratulations! You've lower the IQ of over 19,000 people!

  • Of course everyone knows "God did it!" Scientist just make stuff up all the time. I mean God has a book. What does science have?

    So scientist should just stop trying to figure stuff out and trust in the fact that god did/does everything.

  • @galbijoe lol

  • I dont believe in evolution when I listen to this guy. It's clearly not working if this *sshole's genes survived. What an excuse for a human...

  • Why is it that they make fun of (what they think scientists claim) we came from nothing or whatever, when the bible says God created Adam from shit

  • So at the beginning of time, there just happened to be an all powerful creator. That seems like some pretty good CHANCE to me!

  • @rationalanarchy really? when did they legalize murder? I need to get out more and kill some people then... Hope I run into you!

  • Brainwashed people can not change after one vidio....they stay like that for a long time... see Noah's Ark-.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y5OR­pMTebI, if that is not enough, then stay in the shadow of the BIGBANG, see Atacama. Don't talk bad about something/someone you don't know or understand.

  • No where in the bible does it say the earth is flat! Actually it says it's round! Scriptures like ...The circle of the earth etc

  • @Kelly14377 Yeah, a circle you moron, not a round or sphere, a circle, that sits ON PILLARS. The bible is useless, oh wait, that's not true, I can wipe my ass with it.

  • He is very smart, & has a way with words! Wether he's right or not I'd hate to have to debate him! I just hope he helps bring ppl to God, that's really all that matters!

  • Small bodys ie planets can change rotational direction by colliding with another body that's true! But what about galaxies? I know galaxies collide but I don't see how the galaxie itself would stop & start rotatiing in the oposite direction bc of a collision!? If some1 has an explaination for this I'd Like to hear it! Thx :-D

  • Love the Emperor, For he is the salvation of Mankind. Obey His words, for He will lead you into the light of the future. Heed His wisdom, for He will protect you from evil. Whisper His prayers with devotion, for they will salve your soul. Honor His servants, for they speak in His voice. Tremble before His majesty, for we all walk in His immortal shadow.

  • Did he just deny the existance of gravity?

  • Kids fly off merry go round spinning in same direction UNTIL they meet resistance like a tree! In other words until they collide with something. They will also fly in an ARC patern. Different size particles exploding from a spinning source will do the same as the kids. However Different size particles will travel at different speeds, Thus colliding with eachother and causing a change of rotational direction. Thats why things in the universe rotate in different directions. VERY BASIC SCIENCE.

  • @dswguitars well yes they would fly faster, but that has nothing to do with the direction that they fly

  • @dswguitars do you know what a galaxy is? It isn't a physical entity in and of itself... It is a composition of stars and planets. Collisions wouldn't do that.

  • remember that at the time the bible was written (until the middle ages) they still believed that the earth was flat and that to say otherwise is heresy im a good christian i believe the earth is flat no matter what proof i am given god knows all it is not my providence to think about these things anyway all i have to do is be a sheep

  • I like Kent, unlike Atheist, he actually says facts. It is frustrating, once you actually look for the proof ,you find that the Lord of the bible, the God of the bible, you find it. If everyone was actually looking for the real prove, they would consider everything, rather than just looking for things to prove they are right. Of course atheist have proven nothing so that pretty much narrows it down

  • @abcdefg5347 hahahahahahahahahahhhahahahaha­hahahahahahahhahahahahahahahah­ahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahah­ahahahahahahhahahah

    oh my god, thanks for the laugh

    hahahahahahahahahahahahahhahah­ahahahahahahahahahahhahaahha

  • @abcdefg5347 agreed

  • Kent you are a moron! The big bang IS NOT the same thing as evolution.

  • @njrob87 he never said it was... He said (not quoting) that they are different branches on the same tree

  • I am not a christian, however I haven't seen anyone credibly disprove this guy on most of his illustrations.

  • @rationalanarchy that we found it is my ultimate evidence

  • @rationalanarchy wy are you saying all this stuff are you to lazy to just go on google lol

  • just type noahs ark found on google go on the first website thats al you have to do

  • "you believe in he beginning dirt" that says so much against his argument. it shows that they believe in christianity because they are so arrogant that they cant believe anything that doesn't make hem feel good, even if it is very logical.

  • who wants to email me and tell why you aren't a complete retard for being a creationist?

  • @rationalanarchy theres nothing to debate you about noahs ark has been found look it up do your research

  • Someone said "I wish Carl Sagan would come back to life and kill this man!"

    ...FOR WHAT?!

    For legitimately introducing people to evidence that they are never shown in pro-New World Order schools?!

  • i think its an insult to retards to call kent hovind a retard so i might as well just call him completely and utterly worthless, a waste of recourses. glad he's in jail.

  • the guy knows nothing about science... the big bang happened 13.7 billion years ago not 20 billion... WTF

  • Comment removed

  • gregrutz-

    first of all noahs ark was found so you cant say there wasn't a flood 4400 because they scientifically proved the date ok. and Dr. hovind in this video has debated 87 times not lost once... now im shure he has won much more, so please im not trying to argue im just stating the facts or the obviouse

  • @0nonwo0 it's OBVIOUS that you are a retarded person.

  • @limeinthekwokwonut its obvouse your gnorant

  • jesus-fucking-CHRIST! we can talk about ignorance when you learn how to spell the word.

  • @limeinthekwokwonut you can talk about ignorance when you know what ignorace means

  • professional stupidity. AND YES "DR. HOVIND" the correct spelling is PROFESSIONAL not PROFFESIONAL!

  • There is no debate, science does not argue with IDiots like this. He has been show he is wrong and keeps lying.

  • @gregrutz

    Science shows the truth. Evolution is a LIE that is contradicted by all honest science.

  • @herbs814

    Sorry, but Biology is a science.

    Evlolution is a fact, there is a theory that shows how it happened.

    Geology is a science. They have know for 200 years that the earth is millions of years old.

    Nuclear Chemistry is a science. They say the earth is 4,566 million years old,

    + or - 2 million years.

    Paleontology is a science, They can date the earth and many layers of rock, just because they know the fossil record so well.

    It all matches. Scientists accept evolution.

  • Honest science being... only the science that you "agree with"? LOL!

  • that would actually disprove the theory of evolution which is based on gradualism

  • Macro evolution is micro evolution happening over a much longer period of time.

  • @Phyerbyrd

    The long period of time is a fraud that evolutionists invented to pretend their entire idea wasn't completely bogus.

  • Incorrect, there is no geological evidence of a flood and we only date rocks that haven't been weathered, underneath several layers of solid rock. Nothing can speed up the decay rates of isotopes, all instances of them coming into contact with what you say does has had no effect. You're the one with bogus evidence

  • @Phyerbyrd

    The Grand Canyon is proof of a flood. You are so desperate to ignore the evidence. Shame.

  • @herbs914

    No it isn't, this is a crappy argument. Just watch thunderf00t's why do people laugh at creationists where he completely destroyed that idea.

  • It's not as big as you think, it's actually very small when compared to other land formations. If the flood made that, why don't we see grand canyons everywhere? And the sediments that make up the canyon had to have been laid down in still water, yet we find fossils you say only the flood created in them.

  • Please put forward evidence for your assertion. As we both know you clearly have no EVIDENCE to support your claim, we both know it's bogus.

    To date, there hasn't been a single shred of evidence found to support a world-wide catastrophic flood.

    The idea is so riddled with problems to begin with it is a laughable idea - where did all the animals go, what about salt-water fish? Where did the water come from, and where did it go? Why would a benevolent god choose to commit global genocie?

  • there are mass graves all over that couldn't have just been by chance

    they mocked cursed and were evil towards Him

    the water possibly came from a canopy of water in the atmosphere, and im not making this up its in genesis if you look closely it says there was land between the waters plural

  • The fossils record does not support a big flood event, we see specific and consistent patterns in where types/ages of fossils will be found.

    And as for the "grand canyon was formed by the great flood" argument, that really doesn't need a whole lot of debunking as it defies logic to argue that it was a quickly formed river bed.

  • I know that, you probably misunderstood my comment.

  • it defies logic to say rivers flow uphill and the exit point from the Colorado r to the ocean is higher than the entry point of the river, the exit point is between 6900-8500 ft(might be 8000 i forget) the entry point was around like 2900 ft that means that the Colorado river couldn't have formed the grand canyon

    also how come there are no erosion marks between the layers food for thought

  • 1 Please provide your source stating that the water must flow uphill, otherwise it`s simply another creationist lie.

    2 Since this IS a slowly formed canyon, there are other factors at work including wind erosion.

    what is better food for thought is the clear display of the strata of the earth, including fossils from different time periods.

    If this is all you have to support your claim then you are basis for your argument is terrible - perhaps consult Answers in Genesis some more first.

  • @venmon619

    Someone did some research and claims the Col. river is only 4-5 million years old, and the Col. platau was raised up at the same time as the rockies Mts., 20 million years ago. And you are using this data to prove the earth is 6000 years old.

    Egyptians and Chinese were getting started 6000 years ago, NO flood 4400 years ago.

  • @herbs814

    The Coconino Sandstone was laid down in a desert by Wind. The Redwall limestone has slow growing coral formation.

    The Grand Canyon proves there was no flood and the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Read a geology book.

  • @Phyerbyrd

    NO EVIDENCE FOR A FLOOD? HAHAHA

  • You realize that the required water pressure to create all of the topographic and geological features we see today in 40 days would have pulverized a small wooden boat and 100% of the fish population. That means all of the fish would be extinct and there would be no fossils. Also, the rocks you say were eroded by the flood were already layered and already had fossils in them. Sediment doesn't get laid down until the water stops moving, so there would have to be more than one flood.

  • Another thing, we observe heavier, coarser sediment layers on top of lighter, finer ones. Sediments laid down at the same time form into distinct layers with the heaviest, coarsest minerals at the bottom and the lightest, finest sedimentary layers at the top. What were you laughing about again?

  • @Phyerbyrd if you can get the word the word queen using only the letters found in the word "christmas" i'll believe in macro evolution

  • You do realize that that analogy is very far off correct? Gene sequences are not codes, blueprints or sentences. It's much more akin to a chemical formula than anything else. The different genes transcript into RNA, then to proteins, which when applied to a cell causes it to grow and divide in different ways.

  • Then there's the fact that mutations do not work in the way described in the analogy. Most variations in organisms is caused by more or less of the same gene sequences that have either been copied or deleted, thereby increasing the effect they have on the organism, for example an extra copy of a sequence that contributes to muscle growth will cause muscles to grow larger. When and where the protein is introduced is also a contributing factor.

  • @Phyerbyrd Exactly, Micro Evolution = DNA changing a little, Macro Evolution = DNA changing alot!

  • @Phyerbyrd Only it doesn't have any evidence... when theres expected to be thousands of transitional fossils...

  • No, there aren't. Fossils only form in specific conditions, and if a population of organisms does not encounter those condtions the species will have no fossils representing them in the record. We also have not found all of the fossils in existence, so there are most likely numerous species that have been fossilzed but have not been discovered. The fossils we have today are most likely a tiny fraction of the number of species that have existed in earth's past.

  • A transitional fossil shares homologous features with two or more taxons of animals. Going by the general rule in biology that homology and relatedness are corellated, it stands to reason that a fossil as described above is related to the two groups. For example, Archaeopteryx has many traits associated with birds, including feathers, wings, talons, ect. but also has traits that are distinctly non-avian, such as teeth, a lack of a beak, no fused clavicals and a long, bony tail.

  • creationism is based on a bunch of biblical fairytales

    now go suck hovind's dick

  • did i misunderstand something?i am unable to think rational?

    is it me or you who thinks the earth is 6000 years old and a some guy called noah carried all animals on his self made boat??

    the theory of evolution can be seen as a fact

    do yourself a favour and read "why evolution is true"......this will open your eyes

    and btw there was a time when i(pandheist) doubted the theory

    but now i know the full evidence which backs the theory up and so i accept it so should you

  • article?? he wrote a book...it's quite ok...not brilliant but convincing enough^^

    come on try to convince me of ID

    give me the evidence for ID and the evidence against evolution and i will convert to your religious cult......i'm dead serious

  • and that's why creatards are the laughing stock of the scientific community.

  • looks like 99.999% of ALL scientists (including the ones that believe in god) "denies the truth."

    fucking retard

  • Really, so only 200-300 obscure scientists that have done nothing but try and fail to prove the bible out of several thousand that have made incredible breakthroughs and inventions are real scientists? Creationists that have actually done something for the benefit of man are few and far between. Kent hovind doesn't even have a degree in any scientific field, just a bogus doctorate in "christian education" from an unaccredited diploma mill.

  • What evidence?

  • 300 scientists? they're lucky if they even have 3.

  • Oh, wait, that was religious scientists, not creationists. Actually, I can't think of any creationists that have produced anything useful.

  • Dinosaurs. Facepalm.

  • "It does not change the fact that you have no idea what the truth is. You need to understand the difference between God and false gods"

    LOL, you can't prove which gods are true, and which are false. It's a matter of faith, not a matter of fact.

  • Scary? WTF are you talking about. I said that you can't prove which gods are true, and which are false. It's a matter of faith, not a matter of fact.

  • You can't have it both ways, young man. It's a matter of faith, not a matter of fact.

  • I called you that because of the way you talk, the fact that you don't know the difference between 'except' and 'accept', or the difference between 'you're' and 'your', and the fact that you're an ignorant and deluded bigot. You're not a man yet, you're still a boy. Maybe someday you'll grow up, and learn to respect other world cultures and religions, and acknowledge their equality. For now, you're just like a spoon fed child.

  • @JohnEdwardIAF well there is one way to prove it but its kinda hard to reveal the findings when your dead.

  • @JohnEdwardIAF actually, the Bible states there will be false prophets and false religions. So by that every other religion is false except Christianity. Non of the other religions says you will definately be saved, they say you MIGHT be saved or reincarnated. Evangelism says you can definately be saved through Jesus.

  • @kagato0110

    Uh, yeah because the people who wrote the bible were obviously aware of the fact that it would be questioned and compared to other mythologies. They new people would make the observation that Christianity and Judaism are just man-made mythologies like all other religions, and they wanted to invalidate those religions by boldly asserting that "there will be false prophets and false religions."

  • @JohnEdwardIAF The Bible proved everything before science did, its all recorded man. Read it.

  • @JohnEdwardIAF WRONG.

  • Dear youtube,

    Please take this propaganda down now, it's insulting to our species.

    Thanks.

    <3

  • HAHAHAHAAHAAHA

  • I think everyone should also note that Georges Lemaitre was not only a professor of physics (Hovind has no credentials in physics), but also a Roman Catholic priest. So don't let these bible fanatics fool you into thinking that Big Bang cosmology is atheistic or anti-religious. It's not. It's a well-established scientific theory which is accepted by most theoretical physicists, as well as christian astronomers and cosmologists all over the world.

  • I don't care whether or not you consider catholics legitimate or not. The heart of my point is that they are all religious people. They believe Jesus was the son of god, they pray, they believe in god, they believe in an afterlife, they perform rituals, etc. They are NOT atheists or agnostic, they are not anti-religious. You believe evolution is "anti-christ," and catholics don't. It's a matter of opinion and faith, not a matter of fact.

  • You BELIEVE that is god's word. You don't know, and you can't prove it. You don't get to decide what other people can and cannot believe in terms of faith and religion. You don't get to decide whether or not their beliefs are valid. All world religions and cultures are equally valid since they are beliefs mixed with philosophy, and mythologies, none of which can substantiated with evidence. Christians are free to accept evolution and modern cosmology, whether you approve of it or not.

  • You're obviously a disgusting bigot if you think you can declare your religion is valid, and other world cultures and faiths are not.

    You said:

    "Your wrong. "

    You mean YOU'RE wrong right? You don't know the difference between 'your' and 'you're'?

    "Catholics are a dangerous group. They except evolution, aliens, and world government."

    They except evolution? You mean 'ACCEPT' right? You said you went to college? LOL, bigots like you are all the same. Idiots!

  • "Do you really think I care about how precise my grammar is when I type to you?"

    When someone doesn't know the difference between "except" and 'accept,' that's not a small grammatical error. You're obviously an intellectually incompetent person. That's very typical of bigots like you.

  • "They except evolution, aliens, and world government. You cannot site your comment and act like any true Christian can believe they way you say. A true Christian cannot except anything in regards to some big bang proposition or evolution."

    They EXCEPT evolution? You fucking moron. LOL LOL

    hahahhhahahahhahahaahhaa

    PWNED

  • LOL, Oh boy, you really are.....hahahahaha

  • "You could turn your life around if you really wanted. No one is beyond being saved. "

    Yeah I know. There's still hope for you. You're still not too old to go back to college and educate yourself. You can be tutored, learn to spell big words like 'accept.'

  • Planets and moons could spin different directions because of how they come into a gravitational field.

  • Evolution does not say a bear evolved into a horse nor anything of the sort. If you wanna argue against evolution, ya gotta learn about it.

  • Okay, firstly, the universe did NOT come from "dirt". Secondly, evolution is not a religion, and no one says everything came from nothing. Except creationists. Thirdly, CHRISTIANITY IS TAX-EXEMPT. Evolutionary biology is not. And lastly, there is overwhelming proof of evolution and not a speck of proof that god exists. I have no problem with religion, but when they stick their noses in the scientific arena with no evidence and say they have viable theories, I can't just ignore it.

  • Our nearly identical similarity in DNA with chimps, the over abundance of transitional fossils found, our vestigial anatomical structures (the tailbone, the appendix), the fact that speciation has been observed in laboratories, and thats just a little evidence. By the way, I'm a Christian and I believe the Bible is the is the inspired word of God nonetheless. I'm a theistic evolutioist. And I'm not one of those theistic evolutionists who say that Genesis 1 is all "poetic language" or "imagery".

  • Why did God make these separate hominids if they were just going to go extinct?

  • Sorry, I meant bipedal hominids (homo erectus)

  • Well I can only agree with one thing that you said. And that is that if the universe truly is only thousands of years old, then yes, macroevolution to the extent that it is seen by science is impossible. Yes there is evidence that the universe is millions, even billions of years old and a literary reading of Genesis 1-2 shows that it is supported by scripture. Don't you find it interesting that the time frame certain animals appear in the fossil record are congruent with the chronology of

  • Transition fossils, just a list. Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo sapiens, just to name a few. Evidence for this can be found called "Lucy" or "Ardi"