I'd like to think Sasha simply used an illogical argument against the bone head christian's usual premise of arguing (through illogical non sequiturs).
On top of all his other deceptions and moronic misunderstandings and distortions of reality, Hovind is also a PRO-NAZI ANTISEMITE!
Hovind has been criticized for selling and endorsing discredited, socially harmful books such as 'Fourth Reich of the Rich' and 'In Caesar's Grip', and recommending 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion', a notorious antisemitic hoax which was a major catalyst for the Nazi Holocaust of WWII.
That was the perfect question to ask Kent. I think it gave him a taste of what people arguing for the reality of evolution have to put up with constantly.
This banana theory is a fallacy. I celery and carrots does that mean I evolved from a European hare (Lepus europeus) which has also 46 chromosomes. Ridiculous and stupid, but pretty funny how Kent was sorta stumped lol. But he was trying to give his case why not and the guy shut him off. Unfair debate, I disagree with so I won't let u speak. Hovind might be in jail guys but their are honest followers of God. Just like their are good and bad atheist. We are human beings and no1 is perfect.
@ElCantanteIntrepete it's not even a real debate, the whole thing is a comedy show...don't you know who Ali G was? He's the same guy who did Borat lmao. I guess you don't know Sacha Baron Cohen enough..and btw, evolution theory is not a debate about atheist vs theist. There are actually more theists who accept evolution theory compared to those who don't. You are the minority here, even among theists. So don't make it sound like it's a battle between atheist vs theist, it's not.
@Casshyr Actually U R in the minority more people around the world believe in a deity than not. 2nd yea I knew that, but it was still satire and propaganda to make it seem like that's the way to debate about it. And you didn't really just say the everyone speech, if everyone jumped off a bridge would you do it to. Just because majority says it true it doesn't mean it is. Further research might debunk the theory. Leeches. Einsteins theory that the speed of light or whatever was debunked.
@ElCantanteIntrepete lmao guess what dude, i'm not an atheist. Don't make such presumption simply because I accept evolution, alright? And I'm not saying majority is correct (that would be an example of false authority). What I'm telling you is simply don't link evolution theory with atheism, cuz the two are not the same. The Pope accepts evolution theory, yet he is not an atheist. I don't think I need to give any better example...
@Casshyr Are you religious? If so, how much of the bible do you accept? Do you conveniently ignore the parts about rape, slavery, murder of non believers and other atrocities "being okay"?
@BaylorBear1028 that's not correct, a scientific theory doesn't become a fact, nor does it get promoted to a law. It will remain a scientific theory regardless of the evidence supporting it. A theory is already as high as it can go in science. This is why cell theory remains a theory, and same goes for germ theory.
@BaylorBear1028 "Hence it is referred to as a theory." This is the one sentence that forced me to question creationism more than any other. It is so incredibly incorrect when uttered by non-science trained people that it should be laughed at, but if they have even a modicum of science training then they should be castigated for their lie.
"there is no proof for evolution. Hence it is referred to as a theory."
So you don't believe gravity exists i guess? Or germs? Or cells? Or molecules? Or even atoms? Wow! That's ridiculously ignorant! There's a big difference between a philosophical theory, and a scientific theory. Scientific theories are built from empirical data, not speculation.
................... that was the dumbest thing I have ever heard on a debate about evolution, because we eat bananas, then we MUST have come from monkeys? We eat a lot of shit.
@resdudeornardude it's a comedy show lol. Ali G is not even a real person, it's personated by the same guy who did Borat. The whole thing is a parody, although I doubt the 3 guests there were aware of it
@JohnO318 Titus 1 : 11 They must be silenced, because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain.
13 Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith 14 and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth.
16 They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.
1. Whenever I don't completely understand how something works, assuming it must involve supernatural magic is generally the most reasonable hypothesis.
2. The existence of an invisible supreme creator of everything who wrote a book and cares what I think is a product of magical thinking.
Does Hovind really think that a chimp one day gave birth to a human? I agree. That proposition is crazy, but that proposition is not evolution. I like how people like Hovind completely ignores all the skeletons of human esque species that are NOT human, but appear much like humans (some of which used tools, crafted jewelry, buried their dead etc). I'm talking about H. ergaster, H. erectus, H. heidelbergensis, H. Erectus, Neanderthals and Denisova hominin just to name a few.
@pvtspartan The issue for me is not so much how Mankind was formed. Whatever way it happened would be fine by me. The real issue is that in order to make their insane doctrine, YEC's twist and corrupt the meanings of the Bible so much it looses some of its purpose as a spiritual guide.
Hovind nothing more than a scam artist that harms the Church and Mankind more than help it.
The guy has some serious repenting to do. Hopefully 10 years in prison will give him time to do it.
"I'm surprised at how illogical your question was..." - WOW! I'm surprised at how illogical his theory is... "Oh cos monkeys aren't giving birth to humans, that's the reason evolution doesn't exist..." - how did this man get ANY qualifications...?
@button4boy "how did this man get ANY qualifications...?"
He got them from non-accredited schools like Midwestern Baptist College and Patriot University (a non-accredited correspondence school). And his "qualifications" from these non-accredited schools include a "Bachelor" of Religious Education and "master's degree" and "doctorate" in Christian Education. Note that NONE of his phony degrees involve any sort of science education.
@button4boy To show you how easy it is, Skeptoid-host Brian Dunning has created non-accredited online Thunderwood College where you can go to the website and print out a pretty shiny degree of your choosing for free. Check it out - it's fun.
Macro evolution has never been proven and is not a fact! I'd like the link to when the scientific method was used to prove it. There are enough lies about missing links to last a life time. Nebraska man, neanderthal man etc. All disproved or frauds. I still don't have as much faith as an atheist who believes everything came from nothing possibly many times. I could move mountains if I had the faith to believe humans are descended from non-living rocks.
@DocReasonable neanderthal man was a man with vitamin d deficiency. He was still a man, and even the scientists believe he inbred with other men. only same species can procreate.
@water2gashawaii 'interspecific hybrids do not prove evolution'
Only you just said that different species COULD NOT reproduce ('only same species can procreate') you stupid lying cowardly bastard...LOL!!! at you fucking hypocritical RETARDS!!
You lying anti-intellectual scum deserve every insult you get.
@water2gashawaii ''interspecific hybrids'' Do you mean transitional fossils? Like fish with necks, dinosaurs with feathers, half-reptile half-mammals? They have them all.
@stillresist "Macro evolution has never been proven and is not a fact"
Uh, macro-evolution is simply micro-evolution over time. So if you believe in micro, then you believe in macro. It's like saying you accept the existence of the numbers 1, 2, 3 up to a few thousand, but you don't believe in the number five trillion, because nobody has ever counted that high.
@stillresist "I'd like the link to when the scientific method was used to prove it."
There are many points of evidence that are sufficient to prove it. But here's one: watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk explained in fairly simple terms.
"There are enough lies about missing links to last a life time. Nebraska man, neanderthal man etc"
Nebraska Man turned out to be a false - but I would point out that it was discovered to be false by scientists - demonstrating that they only accept real evidence.
@stillresist "There are enough lies about missing links to last a life time. Nebraska man,"
Nebraska Man turned out to be a false - but I would point out that it was discovered to be false by scientists - demonstrating that they only accept real evidence.
"neanderthal man"
Neanderthal man isn't a lie - it's a large collection of fossilized proto-human cousins of ours. Why do you think they are a lie?
@stillresist You really dont understand atheism or evolution. Evolution is explanation of the origin of species, not origin of life or the universe, Thats a huge difference. You can't really group atheists together as you can people of a certain religion. Atheists share only 1 common thought: god doesnt exist, christians share a whole belief system.
@stillresist BTW macro evolution has been "proven". Two strains of fruit flies lost the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring in a lab over a 4-year span ... i.e. they became two new species. (Easily repeated experiment.) A new plant species (a type of firewood), was created by a doubling of the chromosome count from the original stock. Anyway nothing in science has "proof", there is evidence.
@doubledutch6rudder your argument is invalid. those fruit flies didn't evolve in to a different species, after all they are still fruit flies and the tree is still a tree.
@banannaninja You do realize that changes like he described piled on top of each other would eventually make it so the "fruit fly" could no longer be classified as a "fruit fly" right? Dude an experiment over 4 years produced results like that... now make that billions of years and what do you get? The oldest fossil found was 3.5 billion years old so if that was the only species to exist and there was only 1 change every 4 years that's still 875 million changes!
@devo85x You are wrong. That's 875 million changes in a laboratory. Those fruit flies were kept alive and maintained in optimal conditions for life. If a change like that were to happen in the "wild" the flies that cannot breed would die off in a heartbeat. There is no current proof of macro evolution because macro evolution is not possible not even in a laboratory. The example @doubledutch6rudder posted is micro-evolution "adapting to the environment".
@banannaninja Triple it [the time] for the wild and you still have hundreds of millions. And a genetic mutation is "micro-evolution" so you are blind if you can't see that it exists. Saying it doesn't exist because one example would cause death is just plain silly.
@banannaninja "If a change like that were to happen in the "wild" the flies that cannot breed would die off in a heartbeat" => got any peer-reviewed evidence to SPECIFICALLY back this sentence up? Either back it up or retract and apologize.
@pvtspartan lmao like what? and don't change the topic either, otherwise i'm gonna assume you have no evidence to support that claim, which makes you a liar.
@pvtspartan "no im responding to what the evolutionist said." => no evolutionist ever said "If a change like that were to happen in the "wild" the flies that cannot breed would die off in a heartbeat". You responded to an evolutionist by making up that claim. Those are your EXACT words. Now either back this claim up with evidence, or retract it.
@pvtspartan no problem. It's ok to make criticisms, but make sure you make assertions that are supportable by peer-reviewed science, otherwise claiming that as part of science is same as blasphemy. Only information from peer-reviewed journals count as scientific evidence, everything else, including info on atheistic or theistic websites, don't count.
@banannaninja There is no current proof of macro evolution because macro evolution is not possible not even in a laboratory.
Define macro evolution. Usually it means that a species becomes a different species, and for that we have lots of cases in the wild and in the laboratory. You see once a species splits into 2 new species, you can´t have any more exchange of genetic material which drives them further and further apart, and given enough time has to lead to new families etc.
@banannaninja after all they are still fruit flies and the tree is still a tree.
Neither fruit fly nor tree is a term for a single species, both is the term for a whole range of species. So at least inform yourself what you are talking about, and do some research, before you blindly attack those who did their research and know quite a lot more then you do on this subject. We have directly observed the creation of hundreds of new species, just google "observed speciation "
how can a self proclaimed science teacher have made the mistake that a monkey could give birth to a fully formed human baby! Kent you don't know the first thing about the evolution of the human species of great ape.
@shredful "If that is what is considered stumping Hovind it really does show how stupid evolution is."
So wait, you think this video is a debate between Kent Hovind and evolution? You do realize that Hovind demonstrates in every video that he doesn't even understand what biological evolution is or how it works? Yes, that includes this video.
@BailiffQuimby LOL ok your just arguing to hear yourself talk now. If you want to be saved it is Christ Alone your works will not get you there but I understand why your about Jesus and salvation since you were a former catholic.
Let me ask you folks if your kid went too school the teachers was teching creation instead of evolution would you pay taxes forthat teching.......yes or...no......explain why
Da Ali G's argument involves circular reasoning: If monkies and humans both eat fruit, this proves evolution. Monkies and humans both eat fruit therefore evolution is true.
But to be fair Hovind engaged in reducto ad absurdum/strawman attack about monkies having babies...
@BeholdTheExtinction "Da Ali G's argument involves circular reasoning: If monkies and humans both eat fruit, this proves evolution. Monkies and humans both eat fruit therefore evolution is true."
LOL. You think Ali G is actually trying to make a real argument here? He's a comedian. He was just throwing Hovind's stupidity back at him. The actor Sacha Baron Cohen attended Cambridge, so I'm sure he knows the real evidence that proves evolution.
Do you think that the fact that you're not aware of the evidence for evolution means it doesn't exist? Or are you convinced that you know everything in the universe?
@Jesussave1979 remember that Hovind is a criminal. He evaded the law. He is in Jail. You don't think that hurts his credibility? He wasn't falsely accused or framed. He knowingly committed these crimes. He is a wolf in Sheep's clothes and a false prophet. Earth 6000y/o? That is a worthless debate. The Bible was off by 4.5 billion years. I won't debate that the sun produces heat, ice is cold, the Moon is not cheese or the Earth is 6,000 y/o. Pitiful and pathetic.
Okay, if you're going to say he gets "stumped" then he actually has to get stumped. He wasn't allowed to put any information in with that sad excuse for a person (Da Ali G) interrupting him and speaking when he's trying to speak. Anything can eat a banana, such as a dog for example. Does that mean the dog was a monkey because he likes the banana? Nope.
@jesussave1979 The fact that you champion a convicted fraud demonstrates the lack of importance creationists put on things like facts, truth and integrity. Scared of this man what a joke
@BailiffQuimby There is no doubt that God says to take evil out but since most do not subscribe to a set standard of morality tolerance has got best of us and we are suffering as a result. Even christians get confused.. the bible says thou shalt not kill.. yeah thats right but if do you should die as punishment..eye for an eye..Radical muslim terrorist even admit that they hate weakness and desire to kill that type person or country more. They respect strength..We should give them what they want
@hightech346 "There is no doubt that God says to take evil"
This is irrelevant to your god condoning, commanding, and sometimes committing mass genocide.
"yeah thats right but if do you should die as punishment..eye for an eye"
Yet, the bible says we shouldn't judge - we should leave the judging to god. Consequently, even if somebody DOES kill, it's not up to us to judge him and kill him, but it's up to God. At least according to your twisted immoral theology.
@BailiffQuimby The verse your talking about is not a blanket statement of not judging people. If you read on it says to judge with righteous judgement meaning concern for someones soul. This no judgement attitude is why we have so much trouble today because we don't judge evil or anyone who commits it properly. The eye for an eye solution works. Alot of non evil innocent people would be alive today if we judged evil and got rid of it. Eventually God takes over and He does not play games.
@hightech346 "The verse your talking about is not a blanket statement of not judging people"
Who gets to decide which statements in the bible are blanket statements and which do not have to be followed to the letter? Are you in charge of that?
"If you read on it says to judge with righteous judgement "
Verse # in which Jesus tells us to judge people?
"The eye for an eye solution works."
Then why does Jesus teach us to turn the other cheek rather than hit back?
@BailiffQuimby Sir just read what ever your reading in context a few verses down it says to judge with righteous judgement. It was talking about people judging out of hypocracy.
That the high standard he sets for mankind but most everyone will not put up with that for long.. If some tries to hit me in the face I'm going to do everything I can to hurt them. Sorry I'm not Jesus..
@BailiffQuimby John 7:24 "Do not judge according to appearance,but judge with righteous judgement" Matthew 7:1 is talking about judging someone for some sin that you are doing yourself. You know like the men in the Bible who were going to stone a woman to death for adultery until Jesus came along and started writing down all of their sins on the ground..People get offended and often say someone is judging them when the judgement is on the sin and not them personally.
@hightech346 "John 7:24 "Do not judge according to appearance,but judge with righteous judgement" "
Firstly, this isn't even the same book as the verse to which I referred. Secondly, you're the one who says you need to read the bible in context. Jesus in your passage is addressing an angry mob who want to kill him, saying not to pass judgement against HIM. Person-to-person judgement is addressed in Matthew.
@hightech346 "Matthew 7:1 is talking about judging someone for some sin that you are doing yourself."
No, it's talking about judging someone for their sins (of any kind) if you yourself have committed sins (of any kind). And according to you, we all sin. So no human is fit to pass judgement on any other human according to your theology.
@BailiffQuimby Sir according to the bible christians are to judge the sin. The reason people are always quoting Matthew 7:1 is because it makes them mad that people don't approve of the sin..and it's usually getting drunk and having sex with everybody and using drugs etc. Honestly most people who don't believe in God could care less if someone is judging them & most christians are not sitting around worrying about what non-christians are doing they don't hang out together so no worries be happy
@hightech346 "most christians are not sitting around worrying about what non-christians are doing they don't hang out together so no worries be happy"
@hightech346 "People get offended and often say someone is judging them when the judgement is on the sin and not them personally. "
But your definition of "sin" is arbitrarily taken from an immoral manual on genocide. I don't accept when you call me a sinner, because things you call sin are not necessarily immoral. Also, you don't threaten the "sin" with hell. You threaten the person with hell.
@BailiffQuimby Well since you don't believe in hell why are you so worked up about it? And yes the Bible says that most will go to hell because they will not accept Christ. But maybe you will just go back into a singularity somewhere and start all over again. If you don't believe in something relax and ponder the singularity and do whatever you please. You should'nt have any problems with the Bible Thumpers and if you do just call the ACLU and have them sued and put in jail...
@hightech346 "Well since you don't believe in hell why are you so worked up about it?"
I'm not. I'm just pointing out that you threaten PEOPLE with hell - you don't threaten SINS with hell. People are the ones you are judging. Don't pretend otherwise. You'll embarrass yourself further.
"And yes the Bible says that most will go to hell because they will not accept Christ."
More evidence of the immorality of the character of god in your bible.
@hightech346 "Don't worry...I promise not to send you or anyone else to hell."
I'm relieved that you wont' be sending me to your imaginary place of punishment. Was worried there. Regardless of your flippancy, you did not argue against my point, so I'm calling this another win. You DO judge people rather than sins.
@hightech346 "You should'nt have any problems with the Bible Thumpers"
I wouldn't, if they would keep their beliefs to themselves. If they keep out of my laws and school and if they pay taxes like everyone else and aren't given undeserved respect, then I'm fine with whatever nonsense you care to believe.
@BailiffQuimby Judging verses (1 Timothy 5:24,25 Romans 2:1-3 Luke 6 :36-38 Romans 14:1-4 Romans 14:10-13 Luke 6:36-38 1 Corinthians 4:3-5 James 4: 11,12 Leviticus 19:15. Christians and everyone else has to make judgements. For the Christian we have to judge sin and stay away from people not only will not even try to do right but become offended when someone points out that the particular sin will harm them.
@hightech346 "people not only will not even try to do right but become offended when someone points out that the particular sin will harm them. "
You never point out the practical harm of a sin. You say "my sky-god will punish you for doing X because it says so in this book." That's not a way the sin will harm them. That's a way you fantasize that your sky-god will harm them. There's a difference.
@BailiffQuimby LOL...Ok since you don't believe in God it obvious that the more a person does what God clearly says not to do it doesn't work to well for them. You can see the end result of living a low life so I would choose not to do it anyway even if I did'nt believe in God. So people can blame God or blame the singularity...whatever..the sinful lifestyle does not work and people whining and complaining about someone judging their sin have issues..but with that crowd stupidity is encouraged
@hightech346 "it obvious that the more a person does what God clearly says not to do it doesn't work to well for them."
Alright, let's put it to the test. God says that if your child is disobedient, you should stone him to death. Let's find 20 parents who have done this and 20 parents who have not done this, and compare how well things are working out for them.
@BailiffQuimby Oh it works very well..We had a detailed teaching of this tried and true method at church last sunday..TV special is coming soon. Be sure to watch...I think its on CNN
I'm sure it works great - fewer children would be disobedient and the few who are would soon be dead. So if your goal is to have a high level of obedience, then your god's policy of stoning children for disobedience is great. But from an objective moral standpoint, any rational person would say to your god, "What the F***?!?!"
@hightech346 "You can see the end result of living a low life so I would choose not to do it anyway even if I did'nt believe in God"
A "low" life? I'm not even sure what that means. Here, you want to find empirical evidence that your morality is better than mine - let me help you. First, pick a moral that you and I do not agree on. Then we examine an unbiased selection of people, half of whom follow your rule and half of whom follow mine. Which moral shall we pick?
@BailiffQuimby I think its imoral for the Spagetti Monster to fly around young children who are getting stoned to death. He should only fly after the children are buried.
@hightech346 "...I think its imoral for the Spagetti Monster to..."
No, I'm serious. If you DO believe your morality is objectively better than mine, let's pick a real moral that you and I disagree on. If you don't give me one, I'll assume you concede that my morality is superior.
@BailiffQuimby So if you read everything about judging in the Bible for the christian we are to judge the sin and stay away from people who continue in darkness. And concerning other christians they are to be judged personally and confronted with the issue.. if they continue in darkness you are to walk away from the because they will be a negative influence on you..
@BailiffQuimby Your the ones asking the questions sir. I know what I believe. Your trying to convince me to convert to your religion of evolution/big bang. I already told you that I was not trying to convert you.
@hightech346 "Your trying to convince me to convert to your religion of evolution/big bang"
No, I gave up on that when you acknowledged that you don't care whether your beliefs are true or not. That's when I switched to simply pitying you. And your kids. Oh dear, your poor poor children...
@BailiffQuimby Thank you for your concern...Children are doing well. They are having homemade Spagetti and Meatballs and are being good little Bible Thumpers..
@BailiffQuimby Thank you for your concern...Children are doing well. They are having homemade Spagetti and Meatballs and are being good little Bible Thumpers..
@BailiffQuimby Already gave you the verses and again its about the judgement of sin but no matter.. people get mad if you judge them or the sin itself. Non-believers do not like to be judged period. They will however judge many christians only.. The catholic church and muslims along with people who do bad things are given a pass.. The focus on judgement for the athiest/non-believer is on the church. So in the secular world the only ones that can judge are them..Ha!
@hightech346 "and again its about the judgement of sin"
Which one goes to hell, the sin or the person?
"Non-believers do not like to be judged period"
I've been judging you for being a dick, and you seem to take exception to it. The difference is, I accuse you of being immoral and can demonstrate that you're immoral. You accuse me of being immoral, and all you've got for evidence is your sacred book.
@hightech346 "Non-believers do not like to be judged period."
To be more precise, non-believers don't like to be judged by the arbitrary standards of believers. Likewise, believers don't like to be judged by the rational and demonstrable secular standards of the non-believer. So we're in the same boat - except for that little thing where I can support my views with evidence and you can't.
@hightech346 "The catholic church and muslims along with people who do bad things are given a pass"
There you go again, inventing reality as you go along. I hold everyone accountable for their actions. Just yesterday, an atheist aquaintance of mine was extraordinarily rude, and I called her on it. If a muslim blows up a building, I hold that person accountable. If a catholic priest molests a child, I hold him accountable. If you're a dick, I hold you accountable.
@BailiffQuimby Good heavens!! An athiest being rude?? You need to get her in for an evaluation soon.. I have never heard of such a thing. These are troubling times indeed.
Ali G needs to practice forming arguments...... (facepalm, should-a had a V8)
ssriggs 4 hours ago
I wonder how prison is treating Mr. Hovind's behind...
Montaignely 9 hours ago
I'd like to think Sasha simply used an illogical argument against the bone head christian's usual premise of arguing (through illogical non sequiturs).
inEarthCEO 22 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
On top of all his other deceptions and moronic misunderstandings and distortions of reality, Hovind is also a PRO-NAZI ANTISEMITE!
Hovind has been criticized for selling and endorsing discredited, socially harmful books such as 'Fourth Reich of the Rich' and 'In Caesar's Grip', and recommending 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion', a notorious antisemitic hoax which was a major catalyst for the Nazi Holocaust of WWII.
DocReasonable 1 day ago
Ali G. gotcha, give him the friggin money, you prick.
Eckendenker 2 days ago
What show is this? Anyone help x|
DJSRF 3 days ago
@DJSRF It is called the "Ali G show"
MrRichardQED 2 days ago
That was the perfect question to ask Kent. I think it gave him a taste of what people arguing for the reality of evolution have to put up with constantly.
CrimsonVoid 3 days ago
If most American's ancestors came from Europe, how come there are still Europeans?
FaganRoberts 4 days ago 8
@FaganRoberts Probably the best analogy I've read on this topic!
johndivy 2 days ago
@johndivy Thank you. It cuts right to the point.
FaganRoberts 2 days ago
Kent is such a tool
smallpotatoes989 4 days ago
This banana theory is a fallacy. I celery and carrots does that mean I evolved from a European hare (Lepus europeus) which has also 46 chromosomes. Ridiculous and stupid, but pretty funny how Kent was sorta stumped lol. But he was trying to give his case why not and the guy shut him off. Unfair debate, I disagree with so I won't let u speak. Hovind might be in jail guys but their are honest followers of God. Just like their are good and bad atheist. We are human beings and no1 is perfect.
ElCantanteIntrepete 5 days ago
@ElCantanteIntrepete it's not even a real debate, the whole thing is a comedy show...don't you know who Ali G was? He's the same guy who did Borat lmao. I guess you don't know Sacha Baron Cohen enough..and btw, evolution theory is not a debate about atheist vs theist. There are actually more theists who accept evolution theory compared to those who don't. You are the minority here, even among theists. So don't make it sound like it's a battle between atheist vs theist, it's not.
Casshyr 5 days ago 5
@Casshyr Actually U R in the minority more people around the world believe in a deity than not. 2nd yea I knew that, but it was still satire and propaganda to make it seem like that's the way to debate about it. And you didn't really just say the everyone speech, if everyone jumped off a bridge would you do it to. Just because majority says it true it doesn't mean it is. Further research might debunk the theory. Leeches. Einsteins theory that the speed of light or whatever was debunked.
ElCantanteIntrepete 4 days ago
@ElCantanteIntrepete lmao guess what dude, i'm not an atheist. Don't make such presumption simply because I accept evolution, alright? And I'm not saying majority is correct (that would be an example of false authority). What I'm telling you is simply don't link evolution theory with atheism, cuz the two are not the same. The Pope accepts evolution theory, yet he is not an atheist. I don't think I need to give any better example...
Casshyr 4 days ago
@Casshyr Are you religious? If so, how much of the bible do you accept? Do you conveniently ignore the parts about rape, slavery, murder of non believers and other atrocities "being okay"?
inEarthCEO 22 hours ago
This is hilarious! This is only way you could "stump" Dr. Hovind.
snatchUfromfire 6 days ago
there is no proof for evolution. Hence it is referred to as a theory. You think ali g is the missing link? He eats bananas.
BaylorBear1028 1 week ago
@BaylorBear1028 that's not correct, a scientific theory doesn't become a fact, nor does it get promoted to a law. It will remain a scientific theory regardless of the evidence supporting it. A theory is already as high as it can go in science. This is why cell theory remains a theory, and same goes for germ theory.
Casshyr 1 week ago
@BaylorBear1028 "Hence it is referred to as a theory." This is the one sentence that forced me to question creationism more than any other. It is so incredibly incorrect when uttered by non-science trained people that it should be laughed at, but if they have even a modicum of science training then they should be castigated for their lie.
ozowen 1 week ago
@BaylorBear1028
"there is no proof for evolution. Hence it is referred to as a theory."
So you don't believe gravity exists i guess? Or germs? Or cells? Or molecules? Or even atoms? Wow! That's ridiculously ignorant! There's a big difference between a philosophical theory, and a scientific theory. Scientific theories are built from empirical data, not speculation.
Mattm1986 6 days ago
This videos retarded. If eat a cow (steak) and dogs eat a dead cow does that prove i was created from a dog? or vice versa
TheScreamChild 1 week ago
This asshole is in jail now
gnome95 1 week ago
da ali g question was not as stupid as hovind's why don't monkeys give birth to humans.
alltiedup217 1 week ago
If u think that kent hovind is the one that got stumped...u need some help.
petersushch 1 week ago
................... that was the dumbest thing I have ever heard on a debate about evolution, because we eat bananas, then we MUST have come from monkeys? We eat a lot of shit.
resdudeornardude 1 week ago
@resdudeornardude it's a comedy show lol. Ali G is not even a real person, it's personated by the same guy who did Borat. The whole thing is a parody, although I doubt the 3 guests there were aware of it
Casshyr 1 week ago
He only invited him to tell him to speak to the hand :D
r0galik 1 week ago
Right, we eat bananas because monkey's eat bananas. I guess that means we eat tree beetles, too.
livingbytheson 1 week ago
@livingbytheson It's a piss take. Comedy. Same guy who is Borat and Bruno. Grow a brain.
chestypants78 1 week ago
@chestypants78 I know that; it's funny. I was being funny, too. Defensive?
livingbytheson 1 week ago
comedy or not - the 2 guys are defending the therory of evolution & disagree with Kent, while he's trying to dialog with them 4 the sake of truth -
JohnO318 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JohnO318 Titus 1 : 11 They must be silenced, because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain.
13 Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith 14 and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth.
16 They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.
redddbaron 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If humans were created in the image of God, why isn't Hovind invisible instead of looking like a hairless monkey?
a0eoj 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
TRUE or FALSE:
1. Whenever I don't completely understand how something works, assuming it must involve supernatural magic is generally the most reasonable hypothesis.
2. The existence of an invisible supreme creator of everything who wrote a book and cares what I think is a product of magical thinking.
a0eoj 1 week ago
I hate bananas TAKE THAT!! Lolz
BiggerthanthA 1 week ago
I like bananas, therefore Evolution must be real..
pvtspartan 1 week ago
@pvtspartan Dumbass.
VonTavast 1 week ago
@VonTavast My point exactly
pvtspartan 1 week ago
Does Hovind really think that a chimp one day gave birth to a human? I agree. That proposition is crazy, but that proposition is not evolution. I like how people like Hovind completely ignores all the skeletons of human esque species that are NOT human, but appear much like humans (some of which used tools, crafted jewelry, buried their dead etc). I'm talking about H. ergaster, H. erectus, H. heidelbergensis, H. Erectus, Neanderthals and Denisova hominin just to name a few.
red666111 1 week ago
so..... i really dont like bananas... DID I JUST DISPROVE EVOLUTION?
pvtspartan 1 week ago
Give me this guy's number, I could use a quarter of a million dollars.
willaspencer12 1 week ago
Give him the money!
GreedyCapybara7 1 week ago
Not too surprised it's coming from a man that also thinks the jkv is the only credible version.
Jamesishful 1 week ago
Just stupid!
dreadiel 1 week ago
It's funny that even in the satire of Sacha Baren Cohen there exists more logic than Hovind's entire serious argument.
fistfulofknowledge 1 week ago
the host looks and acts like in dumbass
pvtspartan 2 weeks ago
@pvtspartan he`s a comedian
xLoneWolfICP 2 weeks ago
@pvtspartan
He has a degree from Cambridge University.
Tlevids 2 weeks ago
@Tlevids its kinda hard to believe he think he won the argument with that silly question.... :P
pvtspartan 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pvtspartan "its kinda hard to believe he think he won the argument with that silly question.... :P"
Who? Borat? or Hovind?
I thought it was funny, and since the scientist got the joke and Hovind didn't LOL D'oh
I don't generally even like his humor, but this truly was funny. (and just about on the same level of intelligence as Hovind's false doctrines)
redddbaron 2 weeks ago
@redddbaron that he likes bananas?
pvtspartan 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pvtspartan The issue for me is not so much how Mankind was formed. Whatever way it happened would be fine by me. The real issue is that in order to make their insane doctrine, YEC's twist and corrupt the meanings of the Bible so much it looses some of its purpose as a spiritual guide.
Hovind nothing more than a scam artist that harms the Church and Mankind more than help it.
The guy has some serious repenting to do. Hopefully 10 years in prison will give him time to do it.
redddbaron 1 week ago
@pvtspartan its a character, the guy is a comedian. Its the same guy who did Borat
doubledutch6rudder 2 weeks ago
Evolution may not have all the answers yet.. But saying we're here because of fairies genies or gods doesn't get us any closer to an answer
USMCNIM5 2 weeks ago
oh yeah, WHAT AN ARGUMENT FOR EVOLUTION! dumbasses...
espeoninvincible 2 weeks ago
Oh Ali G, best fictional character troll ever!
Check out the Ice Cream Glove one, it's a great example of an Elevator speech.
Shinhaquro 2 weeks ago
Okay I am NOT, again NOT a Kent Hovind fan. But that banana question was so stupid it almost made Kent Hovind look smart
coyoteself 2 weeks ago
@coyoteself ali g is a comedic figure? his questions are supposed to be funny. you make ali g loo smart.
jjjoooeee97 2 weeks ago
@jjjoooeee97 That was funny? Okay, but people like you, who can't correctly manage three, six word sentences, make me look like a frickin genius.
coyoteself 2 weeks ago
@coyoteself yep youre definitely a genius.
jjjoooeee97 2 weeks ago
"I'm surprised at how illogical your question was..." - WOW! I'm surprised at how illogical his theory is... "Oh cos monkeys aren't giving birth to humans, that's the reason evolution doesn't exist..." - how did this man get ANY qualifications...?
button4boy 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@button4boy "how did this man get ANY qualifications...?"
He got them from non-accredited schools like Midwestern Baptist College and Patriot University (a non-accredited correspondence school). And his "qualifications" from these non-accredited schools include a "Bachelor" of Religious Education and "master's degree" and "doctorate" in Christian Education. Note that NONE of his phony degrees involve any sort of science education.
BailiffQuimby 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@button4boy To show you how easy it is, Skeptoid-host Brian Dunning has created non-accredited online Thunderwood College where you can go to the website and print out a pretty shiny degree of your choosing for free. Check it out - it's fun.
BailiffQuimby 2 weeks ago
@button4boy Actually he doesent, he is a doctorate in theology, but his graduation paper has ben critizised as lacking content and originality.
Sweddude 2 weeks ago
Look at the beady eyes on that inbred creationist FUCKtard!
DocReasonable 2 weeks ago
The host is self-deceived.
JohnO318 2 weeks ago
@JohnO318 you do realize this is comedy and the host is a fictional character played by sacha baron cohen right?
MrSawyer88 2 weeks ago
Macro evolution has never been proven and is not a fact! I'd like the link to when the scientific method was used to prove it. There are enough lies about missing links to last a life time. Nebraska man, neanderthal man etc. All disproved or frauds. I still don't have as much faith as an atheist who believes everything came from nothing possibly many times. I could move mountains if I had the faith to believe humans are descended from non-living rocks.
stillresist 2 weeks ago
@stillresist
Neanderthal man is NOT a fraud, you fucking idiot -- what rock did YOU crawl out from under??
DocReasonable 2 weeks ago
@DocReasonable neanderthal man was a man with vitamin d deficiency. He was still a man, and even the scientists believe he inbred with other men. only same species can procreate.
water2gashawaii 2 weeks ago
@water2gashawaii human
water2gashawaii 2 weeks ago
@water2gashawaii 'neanderthal man was a man'
So what, asshole? Who says he wasn't??
'only same species can procreate.'
Bullshit, lions and tigers can interbreed.
FAIL.
DocReasonable 2 weeks ago
@DocReasonable interspecific hybrids do not prove evolution, and insults are the last resort of the ignorant.
water2gashawaii 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
DocReasonable 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@water2gashawaii 'interspecific hybrids do not prove evolution'
Only you just said that different species COULD NOT reproduce ('only same species can procreate') you stupid lying cowardly bastard...LOL!!! at you fucking hypocritical RETARDS!!
You lying anti-intellectual scum deserve every insult you get.
DocReasonable 2 weeks ago
@water2gashawaii ''interspecific hybrids'' Do you mean transitional fossils? Like fish with necks, dinosaurs with feathers, half-reptile half-mammals? They have them all.
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
@water2gashawaii DNA proves Neanderthal were a different kind of human, not us.
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stillresist "Macro evolution has never been proven and is not a fact"
Uh, macro-evolution is simply micro-evolution over time. So if you believe in micro, then you believe in macro. It's like saying you accept the existence of the numbers 1, 2, 3 up to a few thousand, but you don't believe in the number five trillion, because nobody has ever counted that high.
BailiffQuimby 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stillresist "I'd like the link to when the scientific method was used to prove it."
There are many points of evidence that are sufficient to prove it. But here's one: watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk explained in fairly simple terms.
"There are enough lies about missing links to last a life time. Nebraska man, neanderthal man etc"
Nebraska Man turned out to be a false - but I would point out that it was discovered to be false by scientists - demonstrating that they only accept real evidence.
BailiffQuimby 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stillresist "There are enough lies about missing links to last a life time. Nebraska man,"
Nebraska Man turned out to be a false - but I would point out that it was discovered to be false by scientists - demonstrating that they only accept real evidence.
"neanderthal man"
Neanderthal man isn't a lie - it's a large collection of fossilized proto-human cousins of ours. Why do you think they are a lie?
BailiffQuimby 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stillresist "All disproved or frauds"
A small handful have turned out to be frauds or mistakes. Hundreds of thousands have proved to be genuine. Hardly compelling.
"I still don't have as much faith as an atheist who believes everything came from nothing possibly many times"
I've never met an atheist who thinks this, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.
BailiffQuimby 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stillresist "I could move mountains if I had the faith to believe humans are descended from non-living rocks. "
Don't you believe that humans came from dirt? That's what your bible says, anyhow.
BailiffQuimby 2 weeks ago
@stillresist You really dont understand atheism or evolution. Evolution is explanation of the origin of species, not origin of life or the universe, Thats a huge difference. You can't really group atheists together as you can people of a certain religion. Atheists share only 1 common thought: god doesnt exist, christians share a whole belief system.
doubledutch6rudder 2 weeks ago
@stillresist BTW macro evolution has been "proven". Two strains of fruit flies lost the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring in a lab over a 4-year span ... i.e. they became two new species. (Easily repeated experiment.) A new plant species (a type of firewood), was created by a doubling of the chromosome count from the original stock. Anyway nothing in science has "proof", there is evidence.
doubledutch6rudder 2 weeks ago
@doubledutch6rudder Was that the experiment that Rice and Salt did?
letsgocaps8 2 weeks ago
@doubledutch6rudder your argument is invalid. those fruit flies didn't evolve in to a different species, after all they are still fruit flies and the tree is still a tree.
banannaninja 1 week ago
@banannaninja You do realize that changes like he described piled on top of each other would eventually make it so the "fruit fly" could no longer be classified as a "fruit fly" right? Dude an experiment over 4 years produced results like that... now make that billions of years and what do you get? The oldest fossil found was 3.5 billion years old so if that was the only species to exist and there was only 1 change every 4 years that's still 875 million changes!
devo85x 1 week ago
@devo85x You are wrong. That's 875 million changes in a laboratory. Those fruit flies were kept alive and maintained in optimal conditions for life. If a change like that were to happen in the "wild" the flies that cannot breed would die off in a heartbeat. There is no current proof of macro evolution because macro evolution is not possible not even in a laboratory. The example @doubledutch6rudder posted is micro-evolution "adapting to the environment".
banannaninja 1 week ago
@banannaninja Triple it [the time] for the wild and you still have hundreds of millions. And a genetic mutation is "micro-evolution" so you are blind if you can't see that it exists. Saying it doesn't exist because one example would cause death is just plain silly.
devo85x 1 week ago
@banannaninja "If a change like that were to happen in the "wild" the flies that cannot breed would die off in a heartbeat" => got any peer-reviewed evidence to SPECIFICALLY back this sentence up? Either back it up or retract and apologize.
Casshyr 1 week ago
@Casshyr meanwhile you cant back up anything about evolution that hasnt already been disproved
pvtspartan 1 week ago
@pvtspartan lmao like what? and don't change the topic either, otherwise i'm gonna assume you have no evidence to support that claim, which makes you a liar.
Casshyr 1 week ago
Comment removed
pvtspartan 1 week ago
@pvtspartan "no im responding to what the evolutionist said." => no evolutionist ever said "If a change like that were to happen in the "wild" the flies that cannot breed would die off in a heartbeat". You responded to an evolutionist by making up that claim. Those are your EXACT words. Now either back this claim up with evidence, or retract it.
Casshyr 1 week ago
Comment removed
pvtspartan 1 week ago
@pvtspartan no problem. It's ok to make criticisms, but make sure you make assertions that are supportable by peer-reviewed science, otherwise claiming that as part of science is same as blasphemy. Only information from peer-reviewed journals count as scientific evidence, everything else, including info on atheistic or theistic websites, don't count.
Casshyr 1 week ago
@Casshyr it was a kent hovind video. and i dont need supportable replys when i wasnt trying to support anything -__-
pvtspartan 1 week ago
Comment removed
pvtspartan 1 week ago
Comment removed
pvtspartan 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@banannaninja There is no current proof of macro evolution because macro evolution is not possible not even in a laboratory.
Define macro evolution. Usually it means that a species becomes a different species, and for that we have lots of cases in the wild and in the laboratory. You see once a species splits into 2 new species, you can´t have any more exchange of genetic material which drives them further and further apart, and given enough time has to lead to new families etc.
MrRichardQED 6 days ago
@banannaninja after all they are still fruit flies and the tree is still a tree.
Neither fruit fly nor tree is a term for a single species, both is the term for a whole range of species. So at least inform yourself what you are talking about, and do some research, before you blindly attack those who did their research and know quite a lot more then you do on this subject. We have directly observed the creation of hundreds of new species, just google "observed speciation "
MrRichardQED 6 days ago
lol
MaaNonu123 2 weeks ago
how can a self proclaimed science teacher have made the mistake that a monkey could give birth to a fully formed human baby! Kent you don't know the first thing about the evolution of the human species of great ape.
MsOneiroi77 2 weeks ago
Hovind looks good in prison. If prison was punishment for deliberate stupidity, Bent Hovind would have been behind bars years ago.
allieron 2 weeks ago
If that is what is considered stumping Hovind it really does show how stupid evolution is.
shredful 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shredful "If that is what is considered stumping Hovind it really does show how stupid evolution is."
So wait, you think this video is a debate between Kent Hovind and evolution? You do realize that Hovind demonstrates in every video that he doesn't even understand what biological evolution is or how it works? Yes, that includes this video.
BailiffQuimby 2 weeks ago
@BailiffQuimby LOL ok your just arguing to hear yourself talk now. If you want to be saved it is Christ Alone your works will not get you there but I understand why your about Jesus and salvation since you were a former catholic.
hightech346 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hightech346 "LOL ok your just arguing to hear yourself talk now."
No, it's mostly to be amused at what ridiculous things you'll come up with in response.
"but I understand why your about Jesus and salvation since you were a former catholic."
*LOL* No, I was never a Catholic. I've never tied myself to any mythology. Never had anyone show me evidence that any of them were true.
BailiffQuimby 2 weeks ago
kent hovind wasn't stumped by the question.... how misleading lol
vivaramones1 2 weeks ago
I want Hovind out of jail!!! :D
BinaryBunyip 2 weeks ago
Is the guy with the yellow sunglasses (inside) a tad retarded?
JohnMuise 2 weeks ago
wow.doc dino is brilliant,isn't he?
siddharthjoshi91 2 weeks ago
@BeholdTheExtinction Of course Ali G (AKA Sacha Baron Cohen) used a poor arguement. He's a comedian. On his comedy show. Making jokes.
rufruf155 3 weeks ago
Let me ask you folks if your kid went too school the teachers was teching creation instead of evolution would you pay taxes forthat teching.......yes or...no......explain why
jesussave1979 3 weeks ago
@jesussave1979 No. Because it's not science.
canesrule96 3 weeks ago
@canesrule96.thats why he is in jail because of a lie that the government put in the text book
jesussave1979 3 weeks ago
Da Ali G's argument involves circular reasoning: If monkies and humans both eat fruit, this proves evolution. Monkies and humans both eat fruit therefore evolution is true.
But to be fair Hovind engaged in reducto ad absurdum/strawman attack about monkies having babies...
BeholdTheExtinction 3 weeks ago
@BeholdTheExtinction "Da Ali G's argument involves circular reasoning: If monkies and humans both eat fruit, this proves evolution. Monkies and humans both eat fruit therefore evolution is true."
LOL. You think Ali G is actually trying to make a real argument here? He's a comedian. He was just throwing Hovind's stupidity back at him. The actor Sacha Baron Cohen attended Cambridge, so I'm sure he knows the real evidence that proves evolution.
BailiffQuimby 2 weeks ago
@BailiffQuimby There is no proof... So i bet he doesnt.
MrZpurd 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrZpurd "There is no proof"
Do you think that the fact that you're not aware of the evidence for evolution means it doesn't exist? Or are you convinced that you know everything in the universe?
BailiffQuimby 2 weeks ago
LOL Kent Hovind actually used "that is pure religion" as an INSULT! lololol
RighteousRebel430 3 weeks ago
@Jesussave1979 remember that Hovind is a criminal. He evaded the law. He is in Jail. You don't think that hurts his credibility? He wasn't falsely accused or framed. He knowingly committed these crimes. He is a wolf in Sheep's clothes and a false prophet. Earth 6000y/o? That is a worthless debate. The Bible was off by 4.5 billion years. I won't debate that the sun produces heat, ice is cold, the Moon is not cheese or the Earth is 6,000 y/o. Pitiful and pathetic.
paramattic70 3 weeks ago
Okay, if you're going to say he gets "stumped" then he actually has to get stumped. He wasn't allowed to put any information in with that sad excuse for a person (Da Ali G) interrupting him and speaking when he's trying to speak. Anything can eat a banana, such as a dog for example. Does that mean the dog was a monkey because he likes the banana? Nope.
az678910 3 weeks ago
Interesting that Hovind uses the phrase 'pure religion' as a criticism here.
MrMonkeyInk 3 weeks ago
LOL
lokenath123 3 weeks ago
HOW DID HE GET OWN ATHEIST ARE SCARED OF THIS MAN CAUSE HE IS RIGHT ABOUT CREATION
jesussave1979 3 weeks ago
@jesussave1979 lmao
OwNeD05 3 weeks ago
@jesussave1979 The fact that you champion a convicted fraud demonstrates the lack of importance creationists put on things like facts, truth and integrity. Scared of this man what a joke
youbetzler 3 weeks ago
@BailiffQuimby There is no doubt that God says to take evil out but since most do not subscribe to a set standard of morality tolerance has got best of us and we are suffering as a result. Even christians get confused.. the bible says thou shalt not kill.. yeah thats right but if do you should die as punishment..eye for an eye..Radical muslim terrorist even admit that they hate weakness and desire to kill that type person or country more. They respect strength..We should give them what they want
hightech346 3 weeks ago
@hightech346 "There is no doubt that God says to take evil"
This is irrelevant to your god condoning, commanding, and sometimes committing mass genocide.
"yeah thats right but if do you should die as punishment..eye for an eye"
Yet, the bible says we shouldn't judge - we should leave the judging to god. Consequently, even if somebody DOES kill, it's not up to us to judge him and kill him, but it's up to God. At least according to your twisted immoral theology.
BailiffQuimby 2 weeks ago
@BailiffQuimby The verse your talking about is not a blanket statement of not judging people. If you read on it says to judge with righteous judgement meaning concern for someones soul. This no judgement attitude is why we have so much trouble today because we don't judge evil or anyone who commits it properly. The eye for an eye solution works. Alot of non evil innocent people would be alive today if we judged evil and got rid of it. Eventually God takes over and He does not play games.
hightech346 2 weeks ago
@hightech346 "The verse your talking about is not a blanket statement of not judging people"
Who gets to decide which statements in the bible are blanket statements and which do not have to be followed to the letter? Are you in charge of that?
"If you read on it says to judge with righteous judgement "
Verse # in which Jesus tells us to judge people?
"The eye for an eye solution works."
Then why does Jesus teach us to turn the other cheek rather than hit back?
BailiffQuimby 2 weeks ago
@BailiffQuimby Sir just read what ever your reading in context a few verses down it says to judge with righteous judgement. It was talking about people judging out of hypocracy.
That the high standard he sets for mankind but most everyone will not put up with that for long.. If some tries to hit me in the face I'm going to do everything I can to hurt them. Sorry I'm not Jesus..
hightech346 2 weeks ago
@hightech346 "Sir just read what ever your reading in context a few verses down it says to judge with righteous judgement"
Nope. Try again. Verse please where Jesus tells us to judge others in any way. C'mon, bible-boy. Tell me where it says this.
BailiffQuimby 2 weeks ago
@BailiffQuimby John 7:24 "Do not judge according to appearance,but judge with righteous judgement" Matthew 7:1 is talking about judging someone for some sin that you are doing yourself. You know like the men in the Bible who were going to stone a woman to death for adultery until Jesus came along and started writing down all of their sins on the ground..People get offended and often say someone is judging them when the judgement is on the sin and not them personally.
hightech346 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hightech346 "John 7:24 "Do not judge according to appearance,but judge with righteous judgement" "
Firstly, this isn't even the same book as the verse to which I referred. Secondly, you're the one who says you need to read the bible in context. Jesus in your passage is addressing an angry mob who want to kill him, saying not to pass judgement against HIM. Person-to-person judgement is addressed in Matthew.
BailiffQuimby 2 weeks ago
@hightech346 "Matthew 7:1 is talking about judging someone for some sin that you are doing yourself."
No, it's talking about judging someone for their sins (of any kind) if you yourself have committed sins (of any kind). And according to you, we all sin. So no human is fit to pass judgement on any other human according to your theology.
BailiffQuimby 2 weeks ago
@BailiffQuimby Sir according to the bible christians are to judge the sin. The reason people are always quoting Matthew 7:1 is because it makes them mad that people don't approve of the sin..and it's usually getting drunk and having sex with everybody and using drugs etc. Honestly most people who don't believe in God could care less if someone is judging them & most christians are not sitting around worrying about what non-christians are doing they don't hang out together so no worries be happy
hightech346 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hightech346 "most christians are not sitting around worrying about what non-christians are doing they don't hang out together so no worries be happy"
Oh if only that were true.
BailiffQuimby 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BailiffQuimby Just pray to the Spagetti Monster and hide behind the singularity..you'll be safe there.
hightech346 2 weeks ago
@hightech346 "People get offended and often say someone is judging them when the judgement is on the sin and not them personally. "
But your definition of "sin" is arbitrarily taken from an immoral manual on genocide. I don't accept when you call me a sinner, because things you call sin are not necessarily immoral. Also, you don't threaten the "sin" with hell. You threaten the person with hell.
BailiffQuimby 2 weeks ago
@BailiffQuimby Well since you don't believe in hell why are you so worked up about it? And yes the Bible says that most will go to hell because they will not accept Christ. But maybe you will just go back into a singularity somewhere and start all over again. If you don't believe in something relax and ponder the singularity and do whatever you please. You should'nt have any problems with the Bible Thumpers and if you do just call the ACLU and have them sued and put in jail...
hightech346 2 weeks ago
@hightech346 "Well since you don't believe in hell why are you so worked up about it?"
I'm not. I'm just pointing out that you threaten PEOPLE with hell - you don't threaten SINS with hell. People are the ones you are judging. Don't pretend otherwise. You'll embarrass yourself further.
"And yes the Bible says that most will go to hell because they will not accept Christ."
More evidence of the immorality of the character of god in your bible.
BailiffQuimby 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BailiffQuimby Don't worry...I promise not to send you or anyone else to hell.
hightech346 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hightech346 "Don't worry...I promise not to send you or anyone else to hell."
I'm relieved that you wont' be sending me to your imaginary place of punishment. Was worried there. Regardless of your flippancy, you did not argue against my point, so I'm calling this another win. You DO judge people rather than sins.
BailiffQuimby 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hightech346 "You should'nt have any problems with the Bible Thumpers"
I wouldn't, if they would keep their beliefs to themselves. If they keep out of my laws and school and if they pay taxes like everyone else and aren't given undeserved respect, then I'm fine with whatever nonsense you care to believe.
BailiffQuimby 2 weeks ago
@BailiffQuimby Judging verses (1 Timothy 5:24,25 Romans 2:1-3 Luke 6 :36-38 Romans 14:1-4 Romans 14:10-13 Luke 6:36-38 1 Corinthians 4:3-5 James 4: 11,12 Leviticus 19:15. Christians and everyone else has to make judgements. For the Christian we have to judge sin and stay away from people not only will not even try to do right but become offended when someone points out that the particular sin will harm them.
hightech346 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hightech346 "people not only will not even try to do right but become offended when someone points out that the particular sin will harm them. "
You never point out the practical harm of a sin. You say "my sky-god will punish you for doing X because it says so in this book." That's not a way the sin will harm them. That's a way you fantasize that your sky-god will harm them. There's a difference.
BailiffQuimby 2 weeks ago
@BailiffQuimby LOL...Ok since you don't believe in God it obvious that the more a person does what God clearly says not to do it doesn't work to well for them. You can see the end result of living a low life so I would choose not to do it anyway even if I did'nt believe in God. So people can blame God or blame the singularity...whatever..the sinful lifestyle does not work and people whining and complaining about someone judging their sin have issues..but with that crowd stupidity is encouraged
hightech346 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hightech346 "it obvious that the more a person does what God clearly says not to do it doesn't work to well for them."
Alright, let's put it to the test. God says that if your child is disobedient, you should stone him to death. Let's find 20 parents who have done this and 20 parents who have not done this, and compare how well things are working out for them.
BailiffQuimby 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BailiffQuimby Oh it works very well..We had a detailed teaching of this tried and true method at church last sunday..TV special is coming soon. Be sure to watch...I think its on CNN
hightech346 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hightech346 "Oh it works very well"
I'm sure it works great - fewer children would be disobedient and the few who are would soon be dead. So if your goal is to have a high level of obedience, then your god's policy of stoning children for disobedience is great. But from an objective moral standpoint, any rational person would say to your god, "What the F***?!?!"
BailiffQuimby 2 weeks ago
@hightech346 "You can see the end result of living a low life so I would choose not to do it anyway even if I did'nt believe in God"
A "low" life? I'm not even sure what that means. Here, you want to find empirical evidence that your morality is better than mine - let me help you. First, pick a moral that you and I do not agree on. Then we examine an unbiased selection of people, half of whom follow your rule and half of whom follow mine. Which moral shall we pick?
BailiffQuimby 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BailiffQuimby I think its imoral for the Spagetti Monster to fly around young children who are getting stoned to death. He should only fly after the children are buried.
hightech346 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hightech346 "...I think its imoral for the Spagetti Monster to..."
No, I'm serious. If you DO believe your morality is objectively better than mine, let's pick a real moral that you and I disagree on. If you don't give me one, I'll assume you concede that my morality is superior.
BailiffQuimby 2 weeks ago
@BailiffQuimby So if you read everything about judging in the Bible for the christian we are to judge the sin and stay away from people who continue in darkness. And concerning other christians they are to be judged personally and confronted with the issue.. if they continue in darkness you are to walk away from the because they will be a negative influence on you..
hightech346 2 weeks ago
@hightech346 "if they continue in darkness you are to walk away from the because they will be a negative influence on you.."
And yet here you are, still bantering with me.
BailiffQuimby 2 weeks ago
@BailiffQuimby Your the ones asking the questions sir. I know what I believe. Your trying to convince me to convert to your religion of evolution/big bang. I already told you that I was not trying to convert you.
hightech346 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hightech346 "Your trying to convince me to convert to your religion of evolution/big bang"
No, I gave up on that when you acknowledged that you don't care whether your beliefs are true or not. That's when I switched to simply pitying you. And your kids. Oh dear, your poor poor children...
BailiffQuimby 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BailiffQuimby Thank you for your concern...Children are doing well. They are having homemade Spagetti and Meatballs and are being good little Bible Thumpers..
hightech346 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BailiffQuimby Thank you for your concern...Children are doing well. They are having homemade Spagetti and Meatballs and are being good little Bible Thumpers..
hightech346 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hightech346 "...and are being good little Bible Thumpers.."
But I'll wager 10:1 that they don't understand how to critically question claims.
BailiffQuimby 2 weeks ago
@BailiffQuimby Already gave you the verses and again its about the judgement of sin but no matter.. people get mad if you judge them or the sin itself. Non-believers do not like to be judged period. They will however judge many christians only.. The catholic church and muslims along with people who do bad things are given a pass.. The focus on judgement for the athiest/non-believer is on the church. So in the secular world the only ones that can judge are them..Ha!
hightech346 2 weeks ago
@hightech346 "and again its about the judgement of sin"
Which one goes to hell, the sin or the person?
"Non-believers do not like to be judged period"
I've been judging you for being a dick, and you seem to take exception to it. The difference is, I accuse you of being immoral and can demonstrate that you're immoral. You accuse me of being immoral, and all you've got for evidence is your sacred book.
BailiffQuimby 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BailiffQuimby Sir I think your a fine human being and I thank you for putting up with me..it has been an honor. God works in mysterious ways.
hightech346 2 weeks ago
@hightech346 "Non-believers do not like to be judged period."
To be more precise, non-believers don't like to be judged by the arbitrary standards of believers. Likewise, believers don't like to be judged by the rational and demonstrable secular standards of the non-believer. So we're in the same boat - except for that little thing where I can support my views with evidence and you can't.
BailiffQuimby 2 weeks ago
@hightech346 "The catholic church and muslims along with people who do bad things are given a pass"
There you go again, inventing reality as you go along. I hold everyone accountable for their actions. Just yesterday, an atheist aquaintance of mine was extraordinarily rude, and I called her on it. If a muslim blows up a building, I hold that person accountable. If a catholic priest molests a child, I hold him accountable. If you're a dick, I hold you accountable.
BailiffQuimby 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BailiffQuimby Good heavens!! An athiest being rude?? You need to get her in for an evaluation soon.. I have never heard of such a thing. These are troubling times indeed.
hightech346 2 weeks ago