Added: 3 years ago
From: Trin80ty
Views: 18,719
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (292)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • @TheMike5790

    Evolution is a fact of our existence and Ross is only a slightly lesser moron than hovind.

  • Kent Hovind is the biggest moron i have even listened to.

  • @ianthegodking then you should hear what the evolutionists have to say

  • @ianthegodking and you are the biggest stupid

  • wow... at about 6:40, Kent Hovind says he knows an astronomer tht thinks th earth is about 6,000 years old. Ross scoffs, and responds, "Yeah. Based on th Bible."

    WHAT??? I thought this was a Xian debate? Of course it's based on th Bible! How can he claim to be a Xian leader if he scoffs at th Bible???

  • @jadabrnrd you missed the point, he meant the astronomy isnt showing him any sign of 6000, just the bible.

  • @jadabrnrd he meant based on bible geneaology

  • first time Ive watched a debate between old-earth and young earth creationists. Ive been told emphatically that Ross is 'cleverly deceptive' .. but Kent seems to be using tactics I dont like much, like ridiculing the use of numbers from probability, then talks about chromosome counts.. chromosome counts is terrible for him to have used to illustrate because he ignored their potential huge ranges of length.. pls correct me if Im wrong.

  • Dr. Hovind is arrogant, annoying, and close-minded. Now imagine having a debate with a person like that. You're a nice guy Dr. Ross. 

  • @lawino84 don't be judging mate...

  • Comment removed

  • Hugh Ross never makes any sense.

  • @pomeranian112233

    Really? I feel like he is the one who makes the most sense. I also like him because he seems humble and Hovind comes off really arrogant.

  • Can Kent debate without using scores of logical fallacies?

  • Kent is one inch away from a full on rant and foaming at the mouth....

  • am i the only one here you thinks Kent Hovind is getting a bit annoying?

  • @RaniFma  nope... i do too

  • am i the only one here you thinks Kent Hovind is getting a bit annoying?

  • DUST particles, Stars, Moons, Planets and Nebulas are not uniform in size nor are the spread out in space EVENLY. Some places have a lot some places have less. Patches of more block more light. Patches of less allow more light to pass. How can you possibly measure the distance of light form a star by the dust particle color shift method...when you CANNOT measure the amount of particles there is between earth and that star? Show me a device that counts particles billions of miles away.

  • Other than the fact that Ross does not believe in evolution (which, while I believe it he doesn't have to), I love what he is saying. He is showing that science is not the opposite of religion, or that they are enemies. Rather, he is saying that Religion is saying God did it, and Science is explaining how God did it.

  • the creation account is very clear and took six days according to the bible, obviously people believe otherwise because they believe in the science aswell, they are both beliefs, alot of assumptions go into scientific theories yet people trump it as fact, the creation account gives no room for millions of years, it is very straightforward about literal days, Hovind stood his ground well.

  • biggest dumby ever! hes NEVER been a teacher in his life.

  • the speed of light is now been proven to be slowing down over the last 200 years. and therefore was faster before, its believed that it was many time fast in adams day, so the light from the distant star was moving faster, the red glow around the stars was thought to be the stars moving away, but now it may prove to be the light slowing down.

  • The speed of light is subject to change, light can be sped up or stopped, therefore light is not an accurate way judge distance.

  • @HolyRevelation how can the speed of light be sped up? lol

  • @Elitest2 Did you even watch this video?

    In Jun of 2000, Princeton physicist Lijun Wang broken the Speed-of-Light Barrier.

    Researchers said it is the most convincing demonstration yet that the speed of light - supposedly an ironclad rule of nature - can be pushed beyond known boundaries, at least under certain laboratory circumstances.

  • @HolyRevelation Did you even watch Hugh Ross's reply?

  • where is part 9 disc 2of 2

  • kent is annoying, right or wrong

  • Kent! do not pick up the soap!

  • God loves Kent, and God loves Hugh; Kent loves God, and Hugh loves God: do Kent and Hugh love each other? I don't know. Debate isn't evidence of non-love, but I think there is a danger here. Jesus said "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." (Jn 13:34-35). We must all be careful to put this command first, and to live it.

  • @ShITYouWannaKNO And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day." "THE FIRST DAY" if you can read and comprehend what is written here, it shows your claim is false. Creation was a literal 6 day creation, why? Because that's what the Bible says, That's how God did it.

  • Tree rings go back unbroken 13,000 years, Kent is wrong.

    The earth is 4,545 Million years old, + or - 2 Million years.

    Kent thinks he is smarter than Einstein.

  • Hugh ross just said at 2:25 that we can see 14.5 billion light years ,yet just a few videos ago he said that we could only see 6 billion light years to the edge of the cosmos......Double talk nonsense

  • @parrishstuckey1 Lol! When he mentions 6 billions light years, he was referring to a luminous quasar, not the distance of the universe. You misunderstood him.

  • I don't really care to argue on the internet. winning an argument online is like winning the special olympics cuz you're still retarded. And I didn't say "it doesn't work." I'm implying that you are not an expert and really don't know enough to make a well informed decision either way about the validity of the subject, yet you stick your neck out in blind acceptance...remember, many many experts in columbus's day independently concluded the world is flat to be factual using different methods...

  • Kent is screwed when he faces a real scientist.

  • Ray Comfort saw Kent get educated in this video and now he only talks to street people.

  • God made the light before the entities that give light,so it God made light already being seen from Earth and then made the stars,there's no problem.The universe is also being spread out like a curtain as we speak.The red shifts also shows everything is moving away from the Earth,at what speed,we don't know.Soil is another problem for evolutionists.Where did the trillions of dead things come from to make soil,to sustain life for the first life?

  • @CBALLEN Soil is not a problem for scientists, the first life started in the oceans, it didn't need dirt.

    Let there be light . When did God make the other force carrying BOSONS?

  • OOPS, Kent meet a real scientist.

  • Adam was created, then Kain and Abel were born, then Eve was created after a loooooooooooooooong period of time... when Adam was alredy dead... :D

  • yes i do take him as my lord and saviour

  • Hovind is really making a schmuck out of himself here, I'm sorry to say.

  • 9:21 LOL, Hovind has no idea of what he is talking about! hi just sits there and nods

  • lol the difrents between this 2 guy is:

    Kent - refers to Bible and GOD every time!!!!

    Hugh - refers to his budys "people"

    NOW you all smart people tell me hwo is rith?

  • @kievdnipro exactly!! cant argue with the creator!!

  • Dr. Hovind sound too uneducated.

  • Hovind, please don't try to argue science with an actual physicist, it just proves how ignorant you are. Good entertainment though.

  • @jondabill um, no you're misunderstanding that verse.

    It's saying avoid what is so falsely called "science." Example, when people say "oh evolution is all science, religion is anti-science." When people say things are scientifically proven (like evolution is said to be) even though they haven't been, that is what he is referring to as "false science." It's interesting also that this is even included in the Bible. As if they knew there would be a time when "science" tried to disprove God?...

  • I believe that the media is strongly influenced by antichrists. Notice how from time to time when Kent Hovind speaks, the camera would film an audience member that seems upset or is shaking their head, making it looks like the majority is disagreeing with Hovind. However, whenever Ross speaks the camera rarely film the audience's reaction to what he said. From how this is setup, it would also be no surprise to me if this was done in an intentional purpose to make Hovind look disagreeable.

  • @kellile7788 listen and think about what is being said.Hugh Ross is a scientist and a devout orthodox christian.Kent Hovind is a fast talking diverter.He is also malicious and arrogant in this debate.He has shown himself to be an extreme egoist!.Pray and don't look for fearful conpiracy's .This subject is not easily understood take your time! Thank you

  • oaktownraider34 , you are totally incorrect. Understand the theological aspect of the different views before you start making comments. Secondly go Google where Ken Hovind is now, as well as his wife. Can you not see the attitude in the guy back in this debate? I have never met a person like this guy that made me want to change my life to Christianity. Hugh Ross displays the demeanor of a Christian, not Hovind.

  • Ross is trying to make the Bible fit science, not science fit the Bible. This is how evolutionists misinterpret the Bible in order to lead Christians astray, and to claim their salvation by riding the fence. They want to bring evolutionists, and Christians to the same meeting point, and it cannot be!

  • I don't know what video some of you watched?, but Hovind SMASHED Ross right out of the gate. I guess you have to be a BIBLE BELIEVER/READER to get it? I think alot of the comments here are based on your elementary school science teachers belief. You can make god out to be a Liar if YOU want to. Christ's Command was NOT for you to study your elementary school science teachers text book, BUT IT WAS COMMANDED that YOU study the BIBLE, ie. "Study to shew thyself approved unto GOD!" Lets do that!

  • @jalsante75 hey man, I'm sorry to break it to you but Kent Hovind is wrong. Hugh Ross's opinion of the Bible and our creation is by far the most scientific and accurate. One way to know? The whole argument, Hugh is using science and mathematical fact. Kent is using anti-science. Half the time Kent is just attacking Hugh saying he doesn't even worship the same God!

    Hugh is credible because he is analyzing the physics of the universe, and proving them with the Bible

  • @joshuaspolar

    i very much agree with your comments, "Hugh is credible because he is analyzing the physics of the universe, and proving them with the Bible".. the side of young earth creationism is simply just not plausible.. and there's absolutely nothing wrong with old earth creation, its does not in any way contradict the Bible!

    One thing that really bugged me though, through out this whole debate, Mr. Hovind kept saying "the God I worship".. that statement could not have been anymore wrong!

  • @JusJuiceIt Men often become fools by professing themselves to be wise. The bible warns us of this. Yet you ASSUME Ross is credible because...well, he cites alot of man-issued knowledge. That is to say, everyday SCIENCE discovers that yesterday they were wrong about something. So wouldn't using an extreme amount of science literally be relying on something that is proven wrong daily??

  • @JusJuiceIt also, I do believe that God turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt which...drum roll please...defies ALL aspects of physics. along with walking on water, parting the waters, making the sun stand still for Joshua's army...considering all these things, it seems overwhelmingly foolish to "analyze physics" and restrict GOD to the man-made interpretations of physics, which he is obviously not bound to. How fucking dumb.

  • @JusJuiceIt CONTINUED - in fact, that's quite possibly the most unintelligent thing any human being could possibly attempt to concieve. IF THERE IS A GOD...how fucking dumb to you have to be to try to define the possibilities of said God. That's the mathmatical equivalent of assigning a number to represent infinity. Not only is it super stupid and assonine, but it almost cancels out all of the wisdom that Dr. Ross would otherwise demonstrate. Holy fucking dumbshit. What an ass. Damn.

  • @kfcguy1999

    ok.. well i kind of found it hard to understand your comment, i see you were being sarcastic, could you please explain.. you said you believed in the story of lots wife, walking on water etc, basically taking the Bible literally.. were you kidding or do you take the Bible literally?

    my comment was simply saying, i believe in an old earth.. and that doesn't at all contradict the Bible! because the Bible doesn't say anywhere, how old the earth or universe is!.. and as a Christian

  • @kfcguy1999

    i do take the Bible literally!.. as any true Christian should..

  • @JusJuiceIt I take the bible literally. While I won't go as far as Hovind does (being tacky is his ultimate flaw as a debater) as to say anyone is a heretic for believing/teaching something that could possibly be interpreted multiple ways...no i disagree. But I DO agree with Hovind with regard to Ross's implication of "evidence of age." for instance Ross uses the elements withing stars as "proof" that billions of years are needed because thousands would leave us with only 2 elements...

  • @kfcguy1999 which brings me to Hovind's defense on his "the God I worship..." "are we talking about the same God..." comments he keeps saying.  If Ross's God cannot create lithium, then he is NOT omnipotent and therefor NOT a God. I'm sorry but if you're one of those christians out there laughing at Hovind for his seemingly outlandish remarks, u might want to reconsider. If you're smart enough to comprehend where he's coming from, he suddenly makes more sense than anyone else on the subject.

  • @kfcguy1999

    ok thank you, i see what your saying now.. and you simply put it in the best way, although i dont agree that the world is young and it is my opinion that its old because of the majority of Christian scientist, along with philosophers and historians also say its old, im no scientist, nor do i have the capabilities to do what they do to try and see how old the earth is, so my opinion is completely based on the majority decision! and yes i completely understand the majority decision

  • @kfcguy1999

    doesnt mean its the right decision.. but they are Christian just like me, and most of them if they are true Christians, do take the Bible literally!..

    in a direct response to your comments, i do agree with you and you've informed me on a couple things i wasn't aware of so i thank you, such as:

    "they both have flaws. Most of Ross's interpretations are indirectly(unintentionally?) insulting God and his OMNIPOTENTCY."

    yes i see that now, your correct!

  • @kfcguy1999

    i must stress though, and would like your opinion.. i have gone to several, pastors, youth pastors and observed many debates on this topic, and have also read the Bible.. and it simply doesn't say how old the earth/universe are.. so i think its un fair for a yec, to say, no you have to believe its young, thats what the Bible implys!.. NO, thats simply wrong.. and not fair.. old earth creation, does not in any way, contradict the BIble.. and people like mr Hovind, need to understand

  • @kfcguy1999

    that.. and i hope you do too, if you believe the world is young, im not trying to offend you!

    anyways, give me your opinion on that, and also im going to send you a message in your personal messages, please read it and reply!

  • @JusJuiceIt i'm not saying the earth HAS to be young...but consider the fact that satan knows every word of the bible in every language. He tried to erradicate the bible's existence but God won't let him do that. So how could the 2nd most intelligent being use the bible against its purpose? well this is entirely unsubstantiated, granted, but I think it's foolish to think he wouldn't lead us to misinterpret it using false assumption of science since satan knows everything about science too...

  • @kfcguy1999

    i couldn't agree more with you! and your right, satan could very well be using the age of the earth as a means to misinterpret the Bible.. but my point is lol how is it misinterpreting when the book your trying to misinterpret says nothing of that which your misinterpreting! lol do you understand what im saying? there is absolutely nothing wrong with believing the earth and universe are billions of years old, not only does the evidence show that, but God is outside of time

  • @JusJuiceIt If the world is young, well everything scientifically contradicting the bible goes out the window. That's why it's a big deal. Macro evolution isn't needed because my God doesn't make mistakes.  MicroEvolution is a fancy word for "diversity among species" which is irrelant because Earth was made for us, not insects or animals...and humans are instructed to take care of their poor/sick/unprivaledged...inst­ead we tax the shit out of them. EVERYTHING about modern society is antibible.

  • @kfcguy1999

    ok wait.. like what? please give me some reasons to that, in your first sentence you basically said the world needs to be young for the Bible to be true, am i not correct.. well give me some reasons.. and be specific when you mentioned evolution, i no the difference between micro and macro and there meanings, but are you assuming i accept evolution? i dont.. thats not a Christian true to the word of God, Genesis 1:1 makes that clear! but what is amazing, you said in your last

  • @JusJuiceIt let me reexplain...I believe the age of the earth is irrelevant. it doesn't HAVE to be young. but being old opens doors for scientist to create scenarios in which God isn't needed. SATAN WOULD KNOW THIS. Evolution = life created itself naturally. so be careful there...i don't know what you belive in, not making assumptions...and i meant "MY God becaue he's my personal savior. Not implying anything about you. sorry for the confusion

  • @kfcguy1999

    thats ok bro.. i apologize if i was being a little rude, believe my i wasn't! and im glad for your discussion, it allows me to understand and learn more about the faith!

    but could i ask you a question my friend, i take it from your last comment your a Christian.. am i correct?

  • @kfcguy1999

    comment... "my God".. please tell me why you would say that? are you trying to say we worship, accept and repent two different deity's? please tell me thats not what you think, all because we have different opinions on how old the universe is!

  • @JusJuiceIt consider the bible warns us of "the great falling away" during the end times. I propose that a few hundred years of misleading information among the heathen(nonbelievers...aka athiest "experts of science") will eventually lead to the final "scientific evidence" proving the bible to be silly, ex. --Cdating>million yr old fossils > old earth>evolution is possible>Godless explanation of life. or local flood>now we have to explain geological column> must take millions of

  • @kfcguy1999

    oh believe me my friend.. i completely agree with you, and you couldn't have said it better.. but you must understand, we need to get one thing straight first.. because if we dont, we cant move on, you need to come grips with the fact that the age of the earth no matter how old, does not in any way contradict the Bible!.. Kent hovind is 1 out of the hundred thousands scholars that know the Bible who thinks the age matters.. but it doesn't! and saying it does, is ignorant!

  • @kfcguy1999

    so that being said.. in response to the rest of your comment.. yes your right but this is referring to the ignorant, the ones that lack the knowledge to know better, its those types of "christians" that will lose there so called faith if they let satan manipulate them like that!.. and the mistake your doing is putting the age of the earth in that category, which simply isn't right!

  • @JusJuiceIt well wait, the BIBLE said that the great falling away WILL happen. undebatable. All we can do is try to find each and every possible way that could happen...and I believe (i could be wrong i just believe...) that old earth but MOSTLY evolution is the highway down that path. If the science community boosted Evolution THEORY to Evolution LAW because of new "evidence"...that may very well be the catalyst. I'm just skeptic of anything that puts God's existence into question.

  • @kfcguy1999 also worth noting, if the bible isn't clear on the age then 1- it's irrelevant because God doesn't stutter lol and 2- Satan would know this and it doesn't take a phd to figure out how beneficial this would be to his agenda. Just food for thought lol

  • @kfcguy1999

    ahahahaha yeah.. thats funny!

  • @kfcguy1999

    so my friend, i take it your a Christian right, you believe in Jesus, and take him as your Lord and saviour?

  • @kfcguy1999

    ok.. well its good your skeptic of that kind of stuff, i just disagree that the earth being billions of years old allows evolution to play in the process.. because of one simple reason, the age of the earth doesn't contradict the Bible, evolution does.. and thats the difference!.. and plus my friend, there are many evidences to show the earth is not young, even though i agree with some of the thoughts and proofs being brought from the young earth side.. theres plenty more from the

  • @JusJuiceIt i agree, there is a lot of suggestive evidence out there. But the concept of "circular reasoning" applies. Which is why it isn't called "conclusive evidence." If evidence A relies on B and B relies on C and C relies on D and D relies on E which relies on A...well that COULD be how you get independent studies with similar results, but they are all lacking verication from an independatly verfiable source. doesn't prove anything but be careful what you fall for.

  • @kfcguy1999 There is no 'circular reasoning''. The fossils are used to date the rocks only because the dates they were on the earth are so well known it works backwards. The rocks can be dated with other methods which cross check each others. The fossils are in order oldest on the bottom anyway.

  • @gregrutz "only because the dates...are so well known" this statement literally means that a method works because we already have the results?? how else are they "so well known" prior to figuring out how old they are? This is mathmatically an impossible statement. May I have your permission to use this sentence at my next honors colloquiem meeting and video my colleagues as they laugh at me for displaying such ignorance. I'msorry you have a good sense of logic, it's just not being applied here

  • @kfcguy1999 We do have the results. We know when the dinosaurs lived, if we find a dinosaur bone fossil in a layer we know when the rock layer was made. If there is a layer of rock dated 100,000,000 years we know there are dinosaur fossils in it. Some people are so stupid they can't figure this out and call it circular reasoning.

  • @gregrutz 1use of reason in which the premises depends on or is equivalent to the conclusion, a method of false logic by which "this is used to prove that, and that is used to prove this"; 2•Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise. ...you need to understand EXACTLY what Circ. Reas. is and how to identify it. Your comment is a textbook definition of it

  • @kfcguy1999 Ash layers are dated with radiometric dating methods and I don't care that you don't think it works.

  • @kfcguy1999

    old earth side!

  • @JusJuiceIt continued --- that is to say, God is incapable of creating other elements. I don't know if he realizes he's saying this, but Ross is literally denying God's ability to create any element past helium. That alone is a) astronomically arrogant and B) entirely contradictory to who God ALMIGHTY, the creator of the universe, is. I respect both men, and as all humans, they both have flaws. Most of Ross's interpretations are indirectly(unintentionally?) insulting God and his OMNIPOTENTCY.

  • @jalsante75 how about you go kill yourself, you fucking blind retarded dipshit.

  • why do they use the number 13 so often, besides its magical and occult implications?

  • Hovind is NUTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Start this video at 6:30 and you have hovind say that there is an astronomer who says the earth is only six thousand years old and Ross replies, "Yes, based on the Bible, BUT if you look at the astronomical evidence you have no case." It just seems to me that he puts more faith in science than in the Bible. In my opinion, this is breaking the first of the 10 Commandments where God said, "HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME".

  • @nbidnm

    "It just seems to me that he puts more faith in science than in the Bible."

    Wrong. What you're forgetting is that he takes the Bible literally. He's studied the original hebrew and it shows that the word for day, in the Genesis context, means "long period of time". His beliefs are based on obeying the command to love God with all your mind: he studies the rationally designed universe and he knows his Hebrew. YEC is based on ignorance and 21st C linguistic assumptions.

  • @crabsyman, humans didn't change the speed of light. Humans changed what they thought the speed of light is. And it may still be wrong. Truth is one, and it doesn't care what you think it is. Truth will not adapt to your interpretation of it.

  • GOD BLESS HOVIND....

  • Hovind is such a jackass. He continually uses the the dumb ass argument of "interpretation of the observation". Hey dipshit, every obersvation results in an interpretation, and yours are fucked up!

  • since scientists changed the speed of light, couldn't God? just asking

  • @crabsyman God can do anything. even what humans can :)

  • how does evolution explain death?

  • Dated March 1, 2010, the age of the earth estimated at 13.75 billion years, +/- .17 billion.

    So, Hovind is correct. Ross now looks silly. Ross said the age is 4.6 billion +/- 10 percent. That is more than 9 billion years wrong. But, Ross spoke confidently that the number is "within ten percent".

  • @KnowJesusKnowPeace Wrong. He said 14.9 billion +/- half a billion. Pretty close to the current number.

  • @KnowJesusKnowPeace

    The age of the Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old. The age of the universe is 13.75 million years old. Way to go on the research

  • @KnowJesusKnowPeace

    "the age of the earth estimated at 13.75 billion years, +/- .17 billion."

    That's the age of the universe you dipshit.

  • @Birdieupon How do you get to think someone else is STUPID?...Oh, I forgot, you were there during the creation of this world...DUH!

  • hahaha, hovind appears to have no clue about what dr ross is saying so immediately switches the topic over and over

  • Wow @ Kent not knowing what Light is! Fail!

  • 'my god isn't limited by stuff like that'.

    Basically Kent just admitted his God is just an ad hoc tool that doesn't stand up to reality

  • Kent is right, scientists are government funded priests.

  • @StopNWO11 uuuh the diffrence is that these "priest" atleast give medicine and treat cancer with real instruments, and not just prayers which doesnt seem to work.

  • @quezcatol Strange then how cancer treatments more often fail then work. The cause of cancer is the diet, additives that these satanists are feeding us. Cancer for instance was rare just a hundred years ago.

  • @StopNWO11 thats not true.

    Many forms of sickness which they couldn't diagnose was probably cancer, for ex bloody mary probably died of a tumor, her stomach swollen up and they had no idea why. today we know what it was.

    Cancer isnt just about diet, its also about mutations,viruses and defect cells. however all of these can happen easier if you doesnt take care of your body and do wrong things.

  • @quezcatol In any case the "priests" I am referring to are found in cosmology and promoting the fallacy evolution, that our beautiful minds, all these complex animals and biology "evolved" frrom a fucking rock. With no evidence, sure microbes can adapt, but claiming everythind did on this basis is ludacris and nothing but religion. How do they explain dinosaur depicions on ancient artwork, socrates wrote there were flying reptiles in africa... the list of accounts of dragons is loong..

  • Kent should have lived 1000 years ago, he would have been a great priest with power... and probably excuted everyone of us :P

  • How can Kent and other young Earth creationists claim that the Earth is only 6,000 years old when we have Sumerian artifacts from 10,000 B.C.? Make no sense... the Earth is very Old and Yahweh had a lot of fun playing around with it before he made us! :-D

  • Hi im kent hovind, I take information and render it so I can win debates.

  • Yeah this Christian is right! The other is an idiot...uh wait, that's not very loving.

  • @FatalKnight

    To which Christian do you refer?

  • You can see the host looking at Kent like he's insane. LOL

  • Kent Hovind is awesome

  • Hugh Ross just messed up. He said light travels faster through a vacuum. he just proved Kent is right. Space is nothing but a giant vacuum. What an IDIOT!

  • "we don't know what light is, is it a wave, a particle, a photon?, give me a jar of it, paint it red" ...I'm speechless

  • KENT! PUNCH HIM IN THE FACE!

  • I agree with Kent most of the cases, but I think he shouldn't get into the argument about stars being lightyears away, because he says they probably are. I think he should explain that God CAN and DID make the universe. He could have done it in a nano-second. But He did it in six days, because it is His signature. His order. He made Adam a full grown man. Made animals full grown. He made the stars to show us His glory. So WITH their light reaching us, otherwise we would not be able to see them.

  • ken hovin THINKS HE KNOWS MORE THAN ALL THE SCIENTISTS IN FIELDS IN WHICH HE IS NOT A SCIENTIST.THE BIBLE SAYS IT ,MUST AGREE WITH MY INTERPRETATION.CIRCULAR REASONING,CIRCULAR REASONING,AROUND AND AROUND!

  • I don't believe in a God, BUT I wear Mormon undies just in case. I wish they would come in different colors.

  • Hahahaha --- Dumb vs Dumberer

    (BTW, Hovind is the Dumberer)

  • 7:13 Hugh Ross is using an appeal to the masses logical fallacy. Just because some huge group of people believe something, it must be true. This is a logical fallacy. Hitler once had a huge following, does that mean he had the right ideas? Nope.

  • @Haekel68 your suppose this is mass logical fallacy.while mr hovind has no I say no proof against the majority of scientists .its not just a conspiracy.you can't be arrogant enough to say your view is the only valid view those scholars don't know anything .delusional.Pray for clarity

  • Description says 'for answers to Hovind's misinformation see bla bla bla talkorigins.

    RED FLAG - talkorigins is a rabid anti-Creation website that isn't objective and full of misinformation. For rebuttals to the garbage on talkorigins see trueorigin org.

  • Hovind totally shows his ignorance when he says that nobody knows what light is. That is just total bullshit. We have known what light is and what it's composition is for a LONG time. What a fucking dipshit.

  • (...continuation) When you take 100% truth, the Holy Word of God, and mix it with lies, the big bang theory, you have lost the 100% truth. You know have 50% truth, and 50% lies, which you simply can't trust. You have to take the Bible as it is. You have to have faith like a little child. Of course a little child won't understand 'science', they would take it as it is: 6 literal days. Changing the Holy Word of God to fit our limited understanding of the creation account is foolish. It's 6 days.

  • Six days....you're a fucking idiot.

  • You may think that insults me, but honestly, I feel sorry for you. I pray that one day you, and everyone like you, will experience the truth of God's word for themselves, and truly accept Jesus Christ as Savior. Also, before posting another comment like this, I challenge you to read the Bible for yourself, without trying to morph it into what you think is true. God bless man, and never forget, Jesus loves you!

  • Hahahahaha --- And I feel sorry for you. You have been indocrinated into fairy tale land and you earnestly believe this bullshit.

    Think about this. What you believe is there is an invisible man who lives in the sky and he has ten things he doesn't want you to do, and if you do any of things he will send you to hell for eternity. BUT he LOVES you. He loves you and HE NEEDS MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    What a fucking joke. Get a clue dude.

  • You obviously have a very dull concept of true Christianity. He's not some old man in the sky, He's the creator of all. But your right, on my own I would deserve an eternity in hell. Thankfully, God sent his son to live the perfect life and take my place on the cross. He died so I don't have to live an eternity apart from him. I'm not perfect, and I don't claim to be. I know I'm a sinner, I've done things I regret. And you're also right, he does love me... and you. (continued)

  • You're wrong if you think the church is about money. I will admit that there are churches who claim to be Christian, and are far from it. But how can you say the church is all about money when so many churches are in financial dificulty BECAUSE they gave everything they could to help other countries, or those who are sick or those who are poor. However, I doubt anything I say will change you're mind. Someday you'll know the truth, and I pray it won't be one day too late.

  • Oh please..... You seriously don't think that all the Sunday church shows are all about raking in money? All of those pricks have private jets. They're screwing you and your brethen royally and laughing all the way to the bank. Get a clue...

  • I'm not saying there aren't people who put on a show just to get money, there are SO many people who claim to be Christians for their own benefit. I'm saying that's not what true Christianity is about. Those who have truly believe aren't like that, but I get your point... trust me, I'm sick of the way a lot of the "church" acts too. It's people like that that give Christians a bad name. It's stupid.

  • I like your new guitar. Really good looking guitar. I like Epiphones. They're way underrated guitars.

  • @obdami um. thanks haha. though, it actually ended up having a warped neck... so i got store credit and went with a PRS SE Custom 22. which was a bit more, but also better craftsmanship.

  • A PRS -- sweet....

  • Realize that when you use the "invisible man in the sky" cliche that is so often regurgitated by atheists and their idiotic websites, you are using a strawman logical fallacy and you aren't even talking about God in the first place. You can't say someone is indoctrinated into fairytale land when you are among people who actually believe that man is a distant relative of a field mouse. Now THAT is indoctrination. That flies against reality. God doesn't send people to hell, (cont...)

  • God wants us to live and have abundant life and God isn't willing that ANY perish but all come to eternal salvation thru Christ.

    You are using the same old tired worn out atheist cliches that are a dime a dozen and have absolutely no bearing on reality.

  • @Haekel68 -- And which cliches are those? The ones that point out that you are believing in make believe nonsense? The ones that compel people to fly planes into buildings? The ones that command you to stone children to death for disobeying their parents?

    Are those the ones you are referring to?

  • I just had to add my opinion to this whole debate. For those of you who believe that the "6 Days" are long periods of time, how did you come to that conclusion? My guess is you read your science book ( which was written by atheists) and then tried to morph what the Bible is really saying to fit what you think has been proven. Thing is, the big bang hasn't been proven, and long periods of time simply do not work (for several reasons). (continued...)

  • Hovind is so full of shit...

  • How so?

  • Hovind's seemingly incapable of staying on the same fucking point. He jumps around with anecdotes, silly jokes or simply insults the host/other guest. He's obviously deranged.

  • Hovind got totally owned in this debate. He doesn't offer anything other than "I disagree" and "Give this book to 5,000 people..." Why Ross (or anyone for that matter) bothered to debate Hovind is beyond me.

  • hahah omfg hovind wtf where u doing teaching fisics he doesnt even know what light is.

  • @tbcslayer

    lol, fisics?

  • Kent is kind of an idiot, but lol, Hugh isn't acknowledging that time is relative, meaning it isn't consistent everywhere in the universe, as it is understood on earth. And that is being deceitful.

  • Dr. Barbara Forrest hit the nail on the head when she stated that it was impossible to engage Hovind on a professional level due to his lack of training / education.

    Look at him making jokes, even Ross ( a guy who thinks that 'god' makes new Whales when they start going extinct ) is laughing at Kent's retardation!

  • I can clearly see who needs to study science to prove the interpretation of Atheist scientists wrong.

  • who won the debate! kent seems like he doesnt know shit

  • where's carl sagan when you need him.

  • The MC wont allow Kent to get his point across in most cases. Its too bad that Kent is having to battle folks who claim to be Christians. Still, Mr Hovind is whipping the pants off of both the MC and Ross. Mr Hovind you go right on believing that the Bible is the literal, infallible Word of God. God said what He meant and meant what He said.

  • Just like John 5 with the "angel of the lord" there and Moses killed the children.

  • Just like John 5 with the "angel of the lord" there and Moses killed the children.