Hovind: "And as you can see #35459, if you look at how complex we are..."
Bubba: "My name's Bubba bitch! Now STFU and keep sucking my d*** while I shove 20 Heroin balloons up your ass! You cost me 4 packs of cigarettes and I'm expecting my money's worth!"
Go Hovind! Evolution is the dumbest theory, it cannot prove anything. The world cannot create itself, it's too complex and amazing and goes against the laws of nature
@hughesjd83 What law of nature prevents self-replicating organisms from changing over time and being selected for on the basis of their ability to survive in various environments? Because that's all that evolution is. Claiming that basic process is impossible is akin to saying its impossible for gravity to be the reason why apples fall from trees. Its unequivocally true and if you knew anything about the "complexity" of life that you speak so highly of you would know it.
@tobyw87 i said that the world creating itself out of nothing goes against the laws of nature. the missing link hasn't been found for a reason because there is none. I was created by God as a human being in God's image. evolution has no proof. why arent there half man half apes? what came first the chicken or the egg? how did DNA evolve if it needs Protein, but protein needs DNA to work. the chance they randomly evolved together is impossible no matter how much time.
@hughesjd83 Wow are you serious? Do you actually believe the abject nonsense you just spouted or is this some kind of joke? You sound like a Kent Hovind robot.
The world didn't create itself out of nothing... it was formed from something resembling a giant dust cloud that was our proto-solar system and gravity.
Evolution has no proof? Where's God's proof? It takes "faith" does it now? Hmm that doesn't sound like an insane double standard.
@hughesjd83@hughesjd83 Ever heard of Australopithecus afarensis , Homo heidelbergensis Homo habilis, or Homo erectus (just to name a few)? Those aren't "half man half apes" because such a thing is impossible under evolutionary theory (but you wouldn't know that). However, these species are certainly transitional forms between what we would think of as a more ape-like primate and a human.
@tobyw87 yeah and a lot of those were either fragments from a pig tooth or they had arthritis in there back. a lot of it is lies. scientists make up all kinds of stuff.
@tobyw87 if you look it up you can find the research on neanderthal man and how it was a huge fraud. scientists make up imaginary artwork create this huge fantasy to make us believe that we evolved from apes. The neanderthal man was proven that they were human just like us but had bad knees from a joint infection and caused them to have a sort of bent appearance. Creationists don't need to lie because God really did create the universe. There simply is no other way period.
@hughesjd83 Care to send me a link to any reputable source that can back that up? And please explain to me how the DNA extracted from Neanderthal hair clearly differentiates them from extant humans to a degree far greater than any living humans alive today. And not only that, we have hundreds of Neanderthal specimens... all of them are pathogenic humans? If so why are they isolated to only Europe and parts of Western Asia? Shouldn't we find them everywhere?
@tobyw87 I said creationists don't need lie about creationism and science. I didn't say they don't lie generally. I think everyone in this world tells a lie at some point. What I was saying is that creationists don't need to make up lies like evolutionists to support their theory.
@hughesjd83 so you're telling me that scientists are conspiring against humanity, having found a colony of humans who all had knee infections they decided it would be a good idea to say they are a race we evolved from. what do they gain from this?
and you make the statement "the world creating its self out of nothing goes against the laws of nature" yet you believe that some supernatural entity created the entire universe out of nothing and made just 1 earth with people on it...
@CigarStudLasVegas Instead of calling me names and getting angry like all of you atheists do when someone intelligent disproves your ridiculous religion, why don't you say something useful? Usually that's what happens though, because evolution is full of contradictions and has nothing to back it up, it's hard for you to support it. So the only thing left is for you to get angry and call me names as if that's helping your case any.
@hughesjd83 hahah god creat the universe dont make me laugh you fucktard because you say scientist lie about evolution they must be lying about how computors work and how cars work soo stop useing your computors and cars
@hughesjd83 gravety is still caleed a thoery everythink in science is called a theory beacuse there open to what they have said beeing false no not all of science you can observe for example protons in atoms they can be obsereb like black holes can be obsereb but we know they exist beacuse of math matics science is all about finding out things we do not know about. the universe is govend by maths you dont have to obsereb it to know what it is
@bellyzbad If your religion is fact why so angry and name calling? You got it all backwards, not all scientists are evolutionists. Evolution IS full of lies and contradictions. Science is when you can actually study and observe, no one has seen an animal evolve into a completely different animal. All you can do is make assumptions and theories, but it's not fact. I am not against science, I'm against evolution because it goes against science.
@hughesjd83 hahah god create the universe dont make me laugh you fucktard because you say scientist lie about evolution they must be lying about how computors work and how cars work soo stop useing your computors and cars
@hughesjd83 So because we don't know all the answers we should discard what every iota of evidence tells us. Explain why the fossil record shows more simple organisms at lower strata and more complicated organisms at higher ones universally all over the world? The "smarter ones" escaped to higher ground?
Why do birds have genes for teeth? Whales and Snakes genes for legs? Why a nested hierarchical nested structure to all life on earth?
@bellyzbad i never said evolution had to do with cosmology, you must of read it wrong. my main point was that you believe the universe created itself and animals evolved from non living matter which is impossible. I was talking about 2 different subjects.
Any scientific theory that contradicts the bible is refereed to as evolution and any scientist that supports that theory is an ''evolutionist''. As far as creationists are concerned any cosmologist that can't define evolution but claims that light from some start took billion years to reach us then he is an evolutionist. Look, basically any person with thoughts is an evolutionist.
Also the organ thing. If a doctor cut open several different people and found that their orgasns were in different places from eachother, that would actually be a point in creations favour, and devistating to evolution theory: It would suggest that we dont have common ancestors. So Hovind hasn't made a good point there.
hahah the salmon thing "there are variaties of salmon, but they're limited to the same kind of creature. They're still fish. They're still salmon." Well obviously, they have a common ancestor... They can only evolve so far given the amount of time, give them longer and the "limits" will stretch futher. By the way, whats the video of?
The application is to re-route the nature of science once evolution is seen as silly. That save a fortune in wasted cash in evolutionary biology and areas of science where peer review simply means 'backing each other up' in belief.
Its important creationists realise the damage they can cause by advocating for unsicence in science. We rely on the method to treat Disease.
America will lose its prestige as the great Technological and Scientific super power if people like Kent get too big.... I promise you that. It will even affect your economy
@benjijkmusic He has nothing to explain. How many times does he need to be stomped out? He has been refuted and proven wrong on every single point he has ever made, yet he comes back with same false the arguments. He's like a fucking cockroach!
... but Kent wouldn't answer the question ... all he tried to do was deflect. The caller had a right to have his question answered and push the issue if he didn't get that answer.
The question was a simple one. Name one practical appliction you could get from "creationist science" and Kent could not answer.
At 2:49 "There's a variety of salmon, err, ahh" WTF? Hovind is a douchebag. Hey Kent here's a practical application for you. How about using "creation science" to divinely turn one fish into thousands, then you could feed multitudes. And they want to rewrite textbooks for fuck sakes.
Mr. "Molecular Geneticist" is the biggest blow-hard I've ever heard. He's incredibly rude and knows if Ken could get a word in edgewise he would have to hear some wisdom that he obviously eschews.
Problem is Hovind couldn't get a word in edgewise for the same reason a 5 year old kid can't get a word of edgewise about maths with a mathematician. Hovind is the 5 year old. Molecular geneticist is the mathematician.
creation claims a thicker atmosphere before the flood and so you'd get a lot more oxygen as well as other gases in one breath. thicker = more mass in the air = higher pressure.
what is the effcts of hyberbaric chambers? produce grow huge, humans' and animals' regernative properties go way up, healing scare way faster and preventing the need for amputation. more oxygenation is a no brainer too. this is a reproducible expeirment. no hi-pres atmosphere acc to evolution.
lol fuckin guy school his lame ass. kent hovind, what a joke. can anyone tell me what the video on this is from and what it is? it looks really cool and id love to see what it is.
So, I failed at discrediting the idea because I didn't understand the claim, because Kent here used the wrong word. Right. I'm not sure how fish are fossilised arched, maybe the pressure build up caused their spine to arch during the fossilisation process. That will probably be wrong, but I guarantee it cannot be half as wrong as creationism.
Oh, and whilst you're on "discrediting an idea without understanding it", could you possibly give explaining how evolution works a go, just to see if you actually know what you're talking about.
evoloution is a theory it cannot be proved. so is creationism. both have valid arguments study them before you bash them this sham is exacly the kind of thing evolotionist look for to bash creationism and the bible. so i will say it a a believer in creationism Kent Hovind is an idiot and should not be allowed to speak any more on creationism and young earth theory because he is a stupid idiot. the irs proved it in court...
Uh, wow, maybe you should go educate yourself before "bashing" a theory. We can prove evolution and you, just like so many other creationists, once again show that they have no idea of what a scientific theory is. And I am yet to hear a VALID scientific argument for creationism as it is meant my Christians.
Just another educated science person destroying his opponents based on science and facts. You know the same people who gave you thermodynamics and the theory of gravity. Except for technology and progressive thinking, what do they know. Who do they think they are!
The molecular geneticist cites at 4:37, as an example of an "application" resultant from evolution, genetic engineering. But since ENGINEERING requires intelligence, it is actually an application of Intelligent Design!
big bang contstruct and they must acknowledge the possibiilty of a creator/designer/god, perhaps the god of the Bible.
True science attests to the truth. there is more than ample evidence for a global flood which gets censored in schools, and at the top govenrment agency levels swept under the rug through extremely criminal means.
*sigh* pleas tell me you are joking, how on earth could any one cover up some thing as big as a "global" flood? Show me the evidence, and i will show you it is about as true as flying pigs.
evolved with that nostril to bodysize/oxygen need and living just fine. this is a problem for evolutionists b/c then they have to acknowledge catastrophism and abandon uniformitarianism. but even so they are hypocritical already b/c they are willing to acknowledge a meteor, or a massive volcano, or any other catastrophy EXCEPT a global flood whose waters came from the subterranean depths underneath the shell. if so then they must answre why was there water there? it doesnt fit into the big ba
Now, see, the issue is that there is evidence of the Volcanoes, of the Meteorites (not a meteor, once it enters the Earths atmosphere it is meteorite). We have videos of Volcanoes, we find evidence of them in stratigraphy. We have video taped meteorites, hell, you can buy pieces of meteorites. But where is the evidence of this global flood? That's right, there isn't any. Only in your bible, well that and the Epic of Gilgamesh where the story ACTUALLY comes from anyways.
theoretical side, evolutionists claim in one of many hypothese of how the dinosaurs died ,is that they died of oxygen deprivation b/c their nostrils compared to their body size and oxygen needs was too small. higher density air resulting from higher air pressure would answer this. but dinosaurs dying cz they couldn't breath isn't a serious theory and theres many many problems with it. even if it they did die of that cause, it could only result from a sudden change, since they would have
the total mass of the atmosphere, resulting in a significantly higher air pressure globally. so one puts two and two together and thinks "would higher air pressure conditions make life flourish better?"
The answer is yes, and we have evidence, tests, and actually done experiments for this.
plants grown in hyperbaric chambers result in huge growth. hyperbaric chambers medically heals all sorts of ailments, even preventing the need for amputation. thats documented and proven. for the more
how do we get a hold of this molecular geneticist?
kent hovind does not answer the application question very well at all i must say.
I have an applicatin of creation, however.
premise: creation says things were very well designed in the beginning and things have been getting worse, including life, health, regenerative power. Creation says there was a mist that arose from the earth that watered all the plants and no rain. kent hovind alludes to a water canopy. either way, both increase
It is really sad if anyone really believes much of what Kent says. Just do a little research on him, he's kind of a fraud. This doesn't mean evolution is true, but it does mean Kent Hovind certainly isn't telling the truth.
Yes, a geneticist thrashing a creationist using morality. This guy is seriously articulate. I reckon it was God on the other end of the phone, just to show up Hovind. I've heard he does that sort of thing...
One could even speculate that the more impressionable minds that these "sciences" indoctrinate could, in some way, improve society. Just think. An ideal paradise based on a lie. Of course the Christians would have to hunt down and murder every other opposing dogma. Plus, we'd all be living in tents and caves.
There is a practical application to the pursuit of young earth creationism and intelligent design...
More advanced techniques to indoctrinate the children through processes like the Accelerated Christian Education. The discovery institute IS making the art if perpetuating a lie into an applicable science. LMFAO
Loved it! Serious can of whoop-ass and pwnage there.
Ken's question asking how many peer reviewed articles are published in Iran, was a stupid question, (and he was answering a question with a question) as the caller was asking a ligitimate question about the use of the word science in his organisation. I would have asked him how many institutions in Iran use the word science in the description of their organisation or mission?
awsome interview. its a simple uestion hovind is asked here. and hes trying to paddle away like there is no tommorrow. not one anwser has to do with the subject. hes straight away tryin to steer the subject over to religion and islam. wtf? and ppl still listen to this guy. that is damn scary. please ppl listen to this interview and listen to the guy who actually studyes this.
Responding to Hovind's appendix example: If the designer (automatically assumes it is God) did such great job designing the human body, why does a surgeon have to go in and perform an appendectomy? The percentage of its occurance in the general population over a lifetime is 7%.
So practical application of believing in creation, is the variability to quantify er classify these animals by the same kind. Which is what the whole classification system is about: trying to put things together."
"I think we'll find in yer, in yer field of salmon, that ahh, there's a variety of salmon out there, from the Cohoe to the (all) Atlantic salmon, but they're always salmon. I think a practical application is, there are varieties of salmon, but they're limited to the same kind of creature; they're still a fish, they're still a salmon, they're still recognizable as a salmon. And, that the variation--though they're pretty bizarre sometimes, are limited."
I think the bottom-line point made here is if there are creationist genetic applications, Hovind and company should be able to make lots of money and become self-funded.
And so here is the challenge: if creationism is so powerful at explaining life and is a credible alternative to natural selection, then lets see the new research directions with resultant applications--rather than just throwing out bad analogies or empty, pre-rehearsed statements.
Yeah, Hov. If there's an "intelligent" designer, then why's my penis so bent? I damn near fuck myself every time I sit down. So, intelligent design? Nah, I think random evolutionary mutation is more likely.
Hovind did answer the question, he said "all salmon are salmon (paraphrased)" thats not a practical application. A practical application would be like -I can use the principals of creationism/ID to discover the causes of certain genetic anomalies. Opening something up and seeing that the guts are all in the same place is NOT a practical application either.
This reminds me of the Wave vs. Particle theories of light argument.
It doesn't matter why you are looking at the data really. Who cares what you are trying to prove. Show me some evidence or shut the hell up.
Chromosome 2 is the best evidence yet i have seen for apes being related to man. But that still doesn't prove it happened by chance is all. It actually begs more questions.
Um, there couldn't possibly be any debris in that water, maybe it was quick moving, wrong pH, Sea vs. Salt water. Yeah fish can "drown" in water if they can't get the oxygen out of it.
I love this clip... I love how Hovind can't provide a single legit answer to the simple question regarding the applications for creation science. A "Ph.D." that taught years of "science" would answer this question in a heartbeat... yet he can't provide an answer.
Kent has no grasp of science he doesn't even know how sexual reproduction occurs. How can people listen to his arguments to disprove evolution, when he doesn't even know the extreme basics of biology.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The Salmon expert didnt even give Hovind a chance to reply, he kept interupting. Hovind was trying to say "God did it....and since a bridge looks like another bridge an organism must have been designed by God, Jehovah God." Clearly the Salmon expert was ignoring Hovinds answers because hes afraid of the truth.......lol.
Kent Hovind brought nothing new to the table. His display only proved once again that he is an idiot and is incapable of making a coherent thought that doesn't involve his religion. If you look at the data with an unbiased mindset, do you really think you would come to the conclusion that creationism is true??? No, it is QUITE clear which idea is the victor in the scientific arena. And its NOT creationism.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
how is kent a idiot again i cant understand your agruement?
the salmon expert was david de rothschild and he wasnt a salmon expert he is the youngest boy of the rothschild family hates kent hovind for destroying there brainwashing technique's and he isnt even listening to kent at all and he wasnt letting him talk listen again
I've addressed these particular points, and why Hovind has specifically avoided answering David's questions, in the video that I've posted as a response.
Your 'specific' example of a practical application to creation science is total nonsense. Know that all organs are in roughly the same place from person to person is not something that was discovered through 'creationism' but through simple straight forward scienific inference. People as early as Da Vinci were performing autopsies on people trying to understand the function of their internal organs.
Their hard work can in no way be attributed to 'creationism...'. Kent Hovind essentially pulled that example out of his ass and its pretty damn obvious. The way Kent Hovind snickers at real true evidence for evolution (Such as high levels of genetic variability in salmon) is really disgusting. He doesn't even care to listen to it. His dogmatism shows him for what he is. Not a scientist. But a religious zealot. Anyone with a brain can see this.
To reiterate. There is NO functional difference between micro and macro evolution. The only difference is the time scale that the processes occur on. Both processes are observed, documented, and quite clearly phenomenon inherent life on earth. There is simply no evidence to suggest otherwise.
Diseases, genomics, antibiotics, and the history of life are impossible to understand or even explain without a detailed understanding of evolutionary processes. Evolution has ENDLESS applications. Just study the history of evolution and science and this is clearly visible. Evolution is essentially the backbone of modern biology. Without it everything falls apart and nothing makes sense.
There is absolutely no evidence for Hovind's pretty idea about the flood. Evidence is what makes science go. And since when we look at the fossil record its clear that species are not pilled all together, but appear at different intervals over time, a global flood is impossible.
Also, what mechanism does Hovind suggest for evolution to be limited to microevolution? In other words what would prevent something that is small from becoming large over time? The answer is... nothing. Kent Hovind just likes to play around with words. There is no evidence to even remotely suggest this. Speciation has been documented time and time again. Take a science class!
Yes this is true. So I ask you WHAT mechanism prevents changes in a dog from building over time to cause speciation to occur and for a new species to form? Wolves and dogs are completely different species yet it is quite clear that they evolved from one another. Changes over time are clearly visible and there is nothing to prevent them from occurring. All you need is time. And the geologic record provides plenty of that.
I tell you what I will come back to this when I get the opportunity, and I will document the questions vs answers since some ignorant ppl think the entire time david asked for an application.
One of the main problems with your video you responded with is that the stuff Hovind was talking about when interrupted was going to explain the limits on research using the creation theory. So suddenly David runs the debate and Hovind can't explain a single point because david asks so many questions, or makes so many comments.
David asked a specific question. Hovind's responsibility is to answer it, not use diversionary tactics. I wouldn't have let him get away with it either.
Also, Hovind said for application when we examine something looking at it as a design, we can determine things about other things designed by the same creator. interrupted by david
Well you can claim that if you want, but the reality is that Hovind tried to evade his questions in a pathetic and cowardly way, and David saw right through it.
Hovind was blatantly trying to avoid questions that David was putting to him. The questions had NOTHING to do with whether Hovind felt he could get published, and EVERYTHING to do with proving his Creationist ideas. He asked, very clearly, Hovind to name ONE application for Creationism, and even then, Hovind could not give a straight answer.
"He tried to explain christians founded the very forms of science that david was talking about. interrupted by david "
Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's a lie. Even Galileo had to fight AGAINST the dogmatic oppression of his Christian fellows in order to get the theory of the Solar System revealed. He may have told others he was Christian and disbelieved his theories but that was through pain of death. In the end, Hovind's claim that Christianity has helped science is another lie.
what? Hovind clearly said "ok, if a doctor cuts someone open they can expect for the appendix to be found in the same spot on every human because of them all having the same design"
"Hovind clearly said "ok, if a doctor cuts someone open they can expect for the appendix to be found in the same spot on every human because of them all having the same design""
That was not answering David's question. Frankly, if I was David and asking the question, I wouldn't have allowed such blatant evasiveness from someone who claimed to have a PhD either. Hovind was and is a fraud.
fs3d, Hovind is either REALLY stupid and doesn't understand what "application" means, or he knows they don't have any and is dodging the question. Although insane, I don't think he's stupid and thus is blatantly ignoring the question, because he knows creation science isn't producing anything applicable to society. Anyone who can argue that either has no conscience whatsoever or is very dim.
That. Is. Not. An. Application. The question meant, what kind of contribution has "creationist science" made as far as developing something that can be used back in the real world (ie: a project). Your quote actually points out how little he actually knows about science and how he tried to dodge the question. He's talking out of his ass and anyone who's read a science book past 6th grade can easily realize this. (continued).
David just does not want an answer. He just talks and interrupts Hovind the entire time. As soon as Kent starts to prove a point though discussing an existing example David interrupts him.
Man that guy is some piece of work, could he be more of an asshole?
Hell even I can give you an application for creationist science; milking millions from unsuspecting, thick headed, educationally challenged, intolerant, clueless christians out of their money.
After all can you think of any other application for this pseudoscience?
Because Kent Hovind dodges and hides whenever the scientist asks him a direct question. Kent Hovind interrupted him just as much. The point remains... there are no applications for creationism. Evolution saves lives. Its simple as that.
This video was reposted, Kent Hovind's most common tactic is to dodge questions. This molecular geneticist held his feet to the fire. Again... evolution saves lives. Not. thing Kent Hovind or anyone else says will change this fact.
Come on Sable even you have to admit his salmon application answer was pulled directly from his ass. He never answered the question. Seems to be an ongoing thing with creationists and theists in general.
Kent Hovind isn't even peer reviewed, he wont allow anyone to see his doctoral thesis. The man is a joke and he proved it here.
Get over your hate for atheists and anything that doesn't fit your flavor of religion, it just adds to the stereotypes of christians.
kent wins again!
alvinl1957 8 months ago
I'm so glad Hovind is behind bars.
Hovind: "And as you can see #35459, if you look at how complex we are..."
Bubba: "My name's Bubba bitch! Now STFU and keep sucking my d*** while I shove 20 Heroin balloons up your ass! You cost me 4 packs of cigarettes and I'm expecting my money's worth!"
June28July 11 months ago
I could listen to this 1000 times. Brilliant! Whomever that caller is... well done. I wish I could buy you a pint right now.
Jillygupple 1 year ago
Wow... Kent Hovind... pwned, pwned, pwned. It was a great pleasure listening to that man squirm.
Jillygupple 1 year ago
Go Hovind! Evolution is the dumbest theory, it cannot prove anything. The world cannot create itself, it's too complex and amazing and goes against the laws of nature
hughesjd83 1 year ago
@hughesjd83 What law of nature prevents self-replicating organisms from changing over time and being selected for on the basis of their ability to survive in various environments? Because that's all that evolution is. Claiming that basic process is impossible is akin to saying its impossible for gravity to be the reason why apples fall from trees. Its unequivocally true and if you knew anything about the "complexity" of life that you speak so highly of you would know it.
tobyw87 1 year ago
@tobyw87 i said that the world creating itself out of nothing goes against the laws of nature. the missing link hasn't been found for a reason because there is none. I was created by God as a human being in God's image. evolution has no proof. why arent there half man half apes? what came first the chicken or the egg? how did DNA evolve if it needs Protein, but protein needs DNA to work. the chance they randomly evolved together is impossible no matter how much time.
hughesjd83 1 year ago
@hughesjd83 Wow are you serious? Do you actually believe the abject nonsense you just spouted or is this some kind of joke? You sound like a Kent Hovind robot.
The world didn't create itself out of nothing... it was formed from something resembling a giant dust cloud that was our proto-solar system and gravity.
Evolution has no proof? Where's God's proof? It takes "faith" does it now? Hmm that doesn't sound like an insane double standard.
tobyw87 1 year ago
@hughesjd83 @hughesjd83 Ever heard of Australopithecus afarensis , Homo heidelbergensis Homo habilis, or Homo erectus (just to name a few)? Those aren't "half man half apes" because such a thing is impossible under evolutionary theory (but you wouldn't know that). However, these species are certainly transitional forms between what we would think of as a more ape-like primate and a human.
tobyw87 1 year ago
@tobyw87 yeah and a lot of those were either fragments from a pig tooth or they had arthritis in there back. a lot of it is lies. scientists make up all kinds of stuff.
hughesjd83 1 year ago
@tobyw87 if you look it up you can find the research on neanderthal man and how it was a huge fraud. scientists make up imaginary artwork create this huge fantasy to make us believe that we evolved from apes. The neanderthal man was proven that they were human just like us but had bad knees from a joint infection and caused them to have a sort of bent appearance. Creationists don't need to lie because God really did create the universe. There simply is no other way period.
hughesjd83 1 year ago
@hughesjd83 Care to send me a link to any reputable source that can back that up? And please explain to me how the DNA extracted from Neanderthal hair clearly differentiates them from extant humans to a degree far greater than any living humans alive today. And not only that, we have hundreds of Neanderthal specimens... all of them are pathogenic humans? If so why are they isolated to only Europe and parts of Western Asia? Shouldn't we find them everywhere?
tobyw87 1 year ago
@hughesjd83 Creationists don't lie? Wow... well there's at least one lying creationist. How do you think Kent Hovind got into jail anyway?
tobyw87 1 year ago
@tobyw87 I said creationists don't need lie about creationism and science. I didn't say they don't lie generally. I think everyone in this world tells a lie at some point. What I was saying is that creationists don't need to make up lies like evolutionists to support their theory.
hughesjd83 1 year ago
@hughesjd83
But they do lie and make up evidence. And they're pretty bad at it too.
berniebay 1 year ago
@tobyw87 He got to jail because some BAD people did not like his lies ! He is a good man with a good soul!
dar1e 1 year ago
@hughesjd83 so you're telling me that scientists are conspiring against humanity, having found a colony of humans who all had knee infections they decided it would be a good idea to say they are a race we evolved from. what do they gain from this?
and you make the statement "the world creating its self out of nothing goes against the laws of nature" yet you believe that some supernatural entity created the entire universe out of nothing and made just 1 earth with people on it...
JPdab 1 year ago
@hughesjd83 Well you're full of shit.
yourmomswallowsmycum 1 year ago
@hughesjd83 you are an idiot!
CigarStudLasVegas 1 year ago
@CigarStudLasVegas Instead of calling me names and getting angry like all of you atheists do when someone intelligent disproves your ridiculous religion, why don't you say something useful? Usually that's what happens though, because evolution is full of contradictions and has nothing to back it up, it's hard for you to support it. So the only thing left is for you to get angry and call me names as if that's helping your case any.
hughesjd83 10 months ago
@hughesjd83 ok, I can do that: Kent Hovind is NOT INTELLIGENT! there you go!
CigarStudLasVegas 10 months ago
@hughesjd83 hahah god creat the universe dont make me laugh you fucktard because you say scientist lie about evolution they must be lying about how computors work and how cars work soo stop useing your computors and cars
bellyzbad 10 months ago
Comment removed
hughesjd83 10 months ago
Comment removed
hughesjd83 10 months ago
@hughesjd83 gravety is still caleed a thoery everythink in science is called a theory beacuse there open to what they have said beeing false no not all of science you can observe for example protons in atoms they can be obsereb like black holes can be obsereb but we know they exist beacuse of math matics science is all about finding out things we do not know about. the universe is govend by maths you dont have to obsereb it to know what it is
bellyzbad 10 months ago
@bellyzbad If your religion is fact why so angry and name calling? You got it all backwards, not all scientists are evolutionists. Evolution IS full of lies and contradictions. Science is when you can actually study and observe, no one has seen an animal evolve into a completely different animal. All you can do is make assumptions and theories, but it's not fact. I am not against science, I'm against evolution because it goes against science.
hughesjd83 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hughesjd83 hahah god create the universe dont make me laugh you fucktard because you say scientist lie about evolution they must be lying about how computors work and how cars work soo stop useing your computors and cars
bellyzbad 10 months ago
@hughesjd83 So because we don't know all the answers we should discard what every iota of evidence tells us. Explain why the fossil record shows more simple organisms at lower strata and more complicated organisms at higher ones universally all over the world? The "smarter ones" escaped to higher ground?
Why do birds have genes for teeth? Whales and Snakes genes for legs? Why a nested hierarchical nested structure to all life on earth?
Too many questions need evolution to answer.
tobyw87 1 year ago
@hughesjd83 your fucktard evolution has nothink to do with cosmology
bellyzbad 10 months ago
@bellyzbad i never said evolution had to do with cosmology, you must of read it wrong. my main point was that you believe the universe created itself and animals evolved from non living matter which is impossible. I was talking about 2 different subjects.
hughesjd83 10 months ago
@bellyzbad
Any scientific theory that contradicts the bible is refereed to as evolution and any scientist that supports that theory is an ''evolutionist''. As far as creationists are concerned any cosmologist that can't define evolution but claims that light from some start took billion years to reach us then he is an evolutionist. Look, basically any person with thoughts is an evolutionist.
OptimalElement 4 months ago
Hovind
lmhjs1000 1 year ago
Kent Hovind vs a real scientist ... that was never going to end well for Kent.
He couldn't even win the theological argument.
bustermk2 1 year ago
these creationists are in denial. major denial.
Misunderstood246 1 year ago
Also the organ thing. If a doctor cut open several different people and found that their orgasns were in different places from eachother, that would actually be a point in creations favour, and devistating to evolution theory: It would suggest that we dont have common ancestors. So Hovind hasn't made a good point there.
censurabass 1 year ago
hahah the salmon thing "there are variaties of salmon, but they're limited to the same kind of creature. They're still fish. They're still salmon." Well obviously, they have a common ancestor... They can only evolve so far given the amount of time, give them longer and the "limits" will stretch futher. By the way, whats the video of?
censurabass 1 year ago
The application is to re-route the nature of science once evolution is seen as silly. That save a fortune in wasted cash in evolutionary biology and areas of science where peer review simply means 'backing each other up' in belief.
TaSwavo 1 year ago
I fucking loved that Geneticist bloke!
Its important creationists realise the damage they can cause by advocating for unsicence in science. We rely on the method to treat Disease.
America will lose its prestige as the great Technological and Scientific super power if people like Kent get too big.... I promise you that. It will even affect your economy
markgg1 1 year ago
ridiculous... let Kent explain... stupid moron won't even let him talk!
benjijkmusic 1 year ago
@benjijkmusic He has nothing to explain. How many times does he need to be stomped out? He has been refuted and proven wrong on every single point he has ever made, yet he comes back with same false the arguments. He's like a fucking cockroach!
censurabass 1 year ago
@benjijkmusic
... but Kent wouldn't answer the question ... all he tried to do was deflect. The caller had a right to have his question answered and push the issue if he didn't get that answer.
The question was a simple one. Name one practical appliction you could get from "creationist science" and Kent could not answer.
bustermk2 1 year ago
At 2:49 "There's a variety of salmon, err, ahh" WTF? Hovind is a douchebag. Hey Kent here's a practical application for you. How about using "creation science" to divinely turn one fish into thousands, then you could feed multitudes. And they want to rewrite textbooks for fuck sakes.
1961mojo 1 year ago
no contest
popeymike 1 year ago
Kent Hovind may resent his tax dollars being spent to promote science, but I resent my tax dollars being spent incarcerating him for tax evasion...
paxson001 2 years ago 3
Mr. "Molecular Geneticist" is the biggest blow-hard I've ever heard. He's incredibly rude and knows if Ken could get a word in edgewise he would have to hear some wisdom that he obviously eschews.
dryblasticeblasting 2 years ago
@dryblasticeblasting Why do you hate scientists?
They have given you so much!
pointmanzero 2 years ago
@dryblasticeblasting
Problem is Hovind couldn't get a word in edgewise for the same reason a 5 year old kid can't get a word of edgewise about maths with a mathematician. Hovind is the 5 year old. Molecular geneticist is the mathematician.
OptimalElement 4 months ago
this video is the best hovind ownage vid on the tubes.
eddie2042 2 years ago
no, kent alreayd has an example in his videos, even tho he wasn't able to answre the question here.
applicatino of creation is hyperbaric chambers
gwho 2 years ago
how so?
creation claims a thicker atmosphere before the flood and so you'd get a lot more oxygen as well as other gases in one breath. thicker = more mass in the air = higher pressure.
what is the effcts of hyberbaric chambers? produce grow huge, humans' and animals' regernative properties go way up, healing scare way faster and preventing the need for amputation. more oxygenation is a no brainer too. this is a reproducible expeirment. no hi-pres atmosphere acc to evolution.
gwho 2 years ago
lol fuckin guy school his lame ass. kent hovind, what a joke. can anyone tell me what the video on this is from and what it is? it looks really cool and id love to see what it is.
OrGaZmO666 2 years ago 4
... he thinks you'd find fish fossils who drowned in the flood? Fish... who... drown?
666satanification666 2 years ago 3
in order to discredit an idea, you first have to understand what is claimed.
in the flood there would have been turbulous mud, massive amounts of earth, since mountains were moved, etc.
drowned is completely the wrong word. agreed. it's more like they get trapped in earth/mud.
i'd like to see evolutionists to explain how fish get fossilized arched, with the spine bent.
gwho 2 years ago
So, I failed at discrediting the idea because I didn't understand the claim, because Kent here used the wrong word. Right. I'm not sure how fish are fossilised arched, maybe the pressure build up caused their spine to arch during the fossilisation process. That will probably be wrong, but I guarantee it cannot be half as wrong as creationism.
666satanification666 2 years ago
Oh, and whilst you're on "discrediting an idea without understanding it", could you possibly give explaining how evolution works a go, just to see if you actually know what you're talking about.
666satanification666 2 years ago
i couldnt help laughing at hovind's ignorance and sheer stupidity.
DemonBird 2 years ago
evoloution is a theory it cannot be proved. so is creationism. both have valid arguments study them before you bash them this sham is exacly the kind of thing evolotionist look for to bash creationism and the bible. so i will say it a a believer in creationism Kent Hovind is an idiot and should not be allowed to speak any more on creationism and young earth theory because he is a stupid idiot. the irs proved it in court...
Nightvision616 2 years ago
Uh, wow, maybe you should go educate yourself before "bashing" a theory. We can prove evolution and you, just like so many other creationists, once again show that they have no idea of what a scientific theory is. And I am yet to hear a VALID scientific argument for creationism as it is meant my Christians.
rylraven13 2 years ago
creationists 0, evolutionists 1,000,000
FlanowaJHopper 2 years ago 5
Just another educated science person destroying his opponents based on science and facts. You know the same people who gave you thermodynamics and the theory of gravity. Except for technology and progressive thinking, what do they know. Who do they think they are!
landesdesign 2 years ago
The molecular geneticist cites at 4:37, as an example of an "application" resultant from evolution, genetic engineering. But since ENGINEERING requires intelligence, it is actually an application of Intelligent Design!
zyle1972 2 years ago
hovind is brilliant, he realized that creationists are retarded, so he stole as much of their money as he could until he got busted
wheresthebody 2 years ago 3
big bang contstruct and they must acknowledge the possibiilty of a creator/designer/god, perhaps the god of the Bible.
True science attests to the truth. there is more than ample evidence for a global flood which gets censored in schools, and at the top govenrment agency levels swept under the rug through extremely criminal means.
gwho 2 years ago
*sigh* pleas tell me you are joking, how on earth could any one cover up some thing as big as a "global" flood? Show me the evidence, and i will show you it is about as true as flying pigs.
Gorrath1Goyarack 2 years ago
evolved with that nostril to bodysize/oxygen need and living just fine. this is a problem for evolutionists b/c then they have to acknowledge catastrophism and abandon uniformitarianism. but even so they are hypocritical already b/c they are willing to acknowledge a meteor, or a massive volcano, or any other catastrophy EXCEPT a global flood whose waters came from the subterranean depths underneath the shell. if so then they must answre why was there water there? it doesnt fit into the big ba
gwho 2 years ago
Now, see, the issue is that there is evidence of the Volcanoes, of the Meteorites (not a meteor, once it enters the Earths atmosphere it is meteorite). We have videos of Volcanoes, we find evidence of them in stratigraphy. We have video taped meteorites, hell, you can buy pieces of meteorites. But where is the evidence of this global flood? That's right, there isn't any. Only in your bible, well that and the Epic of Gilgamesh where the story ACTUALLY comes from anyways.
rylraven13 2 years ago
theoretical side, evolutionists claim in one of many hypothese of how the dinosaurs died ,is that they died of oxygen deprivation b/c their nostrils compared to their body size and oxygen needs was too small. higher density air resulting from higher air pressure would answer this. but dinosaurs dying cz they couldn't breath isn't a serious theory and theres many many problems with it. even if it they did die of that cause, it could only result from a sudden change, since they would have
gwho 2 years ago
the total mass of the atmosphere, resulting in a significantly higher air pressure globally. so one puts two and two together and thinks "would higher air pressure conditions make life flourish better?"
The answer is yes, and we have evidence, tests, and actually done experiments for this.
plants grown in hyperbaric chambers result in huge growth. hyperbaric chambers medically heals all sorts of ailments, even preventing the need for amputation. thats documented and proven. for the more
gwho 2 years ago
how do we get a hold of this molecular geneticist?
kent hovind does not answer the application question very well at all i must say.
I have an applicatin of creation, however.
premise: creation says things were very well designed in the beginning and things have been getting worse, including life, health, regenerative power. Creation says there was a mist that arose from the earth that watered all the plants and no rain. kent hovind alludes to a water canopy. either way, both increase
gwho 2 years ago
owned. was that a direct call to kent hovind in prison?
MWcrazyhorse 2 years ago
Drowned fish...
DROWNED
FISH
Eldeecue 2 years ago 2
I'm sorry, but does anyone else who listened this think that it is utterly beautiful?
Especially tthe remarks on TAX DOLLARS? I laughed my arse off!
Hovind is SUCH a fool... Hilarious. Although I'm English, I LOVE the Irish. Especially this Irishman!
LordMacBeth79 2 years ago 2
It is really sad if anyone really believes much of what Kent says. Just do a little research on him, he's kind of a fraud. This doesn't mean evolution is true, but it does mean Kent Hovind certainly isn't telling the truth.
socceruci 2 years ago
Didn't Kent understand the word application? i mean, thats a pretty common word...
Also wheres the clip from?
bogcom 2 years ago 2
Yes, a geneticist thrashing a creationist using morality. This guy is seriously articulate. I reckon it was God on the other end of the phone, just to show up Hovind. I've heard he does that sort of thing...
R0SECR0IX 2 years ago 2
anyone know who this geneticist is? he's pretty dam good at explaining things for us normal rational folk
mambuduomally 2 years ago
The new Carl Sagan?
SirPwn4lot 2 years ago
One could even speculate that the more impressionable minds that these "sciences" indoctrinate could, in some way, improve society. Just think. An ideal paradise based on a lie. Of course the Christians would have to hunt down and murder every other opposing dogma. Plus, we'd all be living in tents and caves.
knethrea 2 years ago
There is a practical application to the pursuit of young earth creationism and intelligent design...
More advanced techniques to indoctrinate the children through processes like the Accelerated Christian Education. The discovery institute IS making the art if perpetuating a lie into an applicable science. LMFAO
knethrea 2 years ago
Loved it! Serious can of whoop-ass and pwnage there.
Ken's question asking how many peer reviewed articles are published in Iran, was a stupid question, (and he was answering a question with a question) as the caller was asking a ligitimate question about the use of the word science in his organisation. I would have asked him how many institutions in Iran use the word science in the description of their organisation or mission?
bettySwollox 2 years ago 2
Fantastic, complete ownage.
Can I ask - what is the video clip you used? It looks very cool, whatever it is.
rasmusfribble 2 years ago
awsome interview. its a simple uestion hovind is asked here. and hes trying to paddle away like there is no tommorrow. not one anwser has to do with the subject. hes straight away tryin to steer the subject over to religion and islam. wtf? and ppl still listen to this guy. that is damn scary. please ppl listen to this interview and listen to the guy who actually studyes this.
slywinkl 2 years ago
When put on the spot, he has no answer. He needs a stage with a script and only gullible Creationists watching.
olasonn 2 years ago 12
he mentions the words "paying taxes" a lot
ironic
laffizzle 2 years ago
Responding to Hovind's appendix example: If the designer (automatically assumes it is God) did such great job designing the human body, why does a surgeon have to go in and perform an appendectomy? The percentage of its occurance in the general population over a lifetime is 7%.
crocaduck 3 years ago 2
Hovind's answer cont.
So practical application of believing in creation, is the variability to quantify er classify these animals by the same kind. Which is what the whole classification system is about: trying to put things together."
crocaduck 3 years ago
Comment removed
crocaduck 3 years ago
Hovind's answer at 2:46
"I think we'll find in yer, in yer field of salmon, that ahh, there's a variety of salmon out there, from the Cohoe to the (all) Atlantic salmon, but they're always salmon. I think a practical application is, there are varieties of salmon, but they're limited to the same kind of creature; they're still a fish, they're still a salmon, they're still recognizable as a salmon. And, that the variation--though they're pretty bizarre sometimes, are limited."
crocaduck 3 years ago
I think the bottom-line point made here is if there are creationist genetic applications, Hovind and company should be able to make lots of money and become self-funded.
And so here is the challenge: if creationism is so powerful at explaining life and is a credible alternative to natural selection, then lets see the new research directions with resultant applications--rather than just throwing out bad analogies or empty, pre-rehearsed statements.
crocaduck 3 years ago
Yeah, Hov. If there's an "intelligent" designer, then why's my penis so bent? I damn near fuck myself every time I sit down. So, intelligent design? Nah, I think random evolutionary mutation is more likely.
Boy192 3 years ago 2
That sux. lol
kubush 2 years ago
This is class listening to this twit reciting his memorized script, thinking it passes for an answer to the guys question.
aiyic 3 years ago 2
Old Kent just proves that he has just memorized a script.
aiyic 3 years ago 2
Hovind couldn't give a straight answer but the caller never gave him a chance to either.
The answer he prob should have given was:
"As a creationist looking for design, I could examine DNA and it's structure to find logical reasons why it's ordered as it is."
Not much diff from:
As an evolutionist examining mutations and change, I could examine DNA and it's structure to find ways randomness causes success."
Grumblingone 3 years ago
you put creationist and logic in the same sentence? lolz..
bwones 3 years ago
Hovind did answer the question, he said "all salmon are salmon (paraphrased)" thats not a practical application. A practical application would be like -I can use the principals of creationism/ID to discover the causes of certain genetic anomalies. Opening something up and seeing that the guts are all in the same place is NOT a practical application either.
greenzen80 2 years ago
This reminds me of the Wave vs. Particle theories of light argument.
It doesn't matter why you are looking at the data really. Who cares what you are trying to prove. Show me some evidence or shut the hell up.
Chromosome 2 is the best evidence yet i have seen for apes being related to man. But that still doesn't prove it happened by chance is all. It actually begs more questions.
Grumblingone 3 years ago
fucking schooled!! i love that geneticist guy!
ProfessorDemetri 3 years ago 3
I would love to have a conversation with this person (the geneticist). We have a lot in common, opinion-wise.
Maxstate 3 years ago
Fish died from the flood theory? Kent, you are a complete moron, and that is not an attack, it's just the truth.
Maximuslnfidelis 3 years ago 4
no doubt. last time i checked, the flood had to do with a ton of water.... and fish.. you know, breathe fucking WATER...
ProfessorDemetri 3 years ago 5
Classic
gobsbsdvfas 3 years ago
Um, there couldn't possibly be any debris in that water, maybe it was quick moving, wrong pH, Sea vs. Salt water. Yeah fish can "drown" in water if they can't get the oxygen out of it.
Get off your high horses folks.
Grumblingone 3 years ago
Hovind is a muppet, and oh yeah a fraud he's in jail now...
smitmick 3 years ago 2
Man lots of Hovind suckoffs around here. It scares me anyone can listen to that quack at all, let alone defend him.
captainmutiny 3 years ago
How does not making a coherent point help Hovind's point? Hovind is an idiot.
imperialgoat 3 years ago 3
David interrupts him 17 times. You would get schooled if the other person just talked the whole time too lol.
bajatmerc 3 years ago
I love this clip... I love how Hovind can't provide a single legit answer to the simple question regarding the applications for creation science. A "Ph.D." that taught years of "science" would answer this question in a heartbeat... yet he can't provide an answer.
Kent has no grasp of science he doesn't even know how sexual reproduction occurs. How can people listen to his arguments to disprove evolution, when he doesn't even know the extreme basics of biology.
imnepal 3 years ago 6
because a large portion of the American public are not just ignorant but proud to be. i hate to say that but it is true.
'evolution is just a theory not a fact'
and that pretty much says it all. when they can't even understand the basic definitions of theory versus fact in science.
addmoreice 3 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The Salmon expert didnt even give Hovind a chance to reply, he kept interupting. Hovind was trying to say "God did it....and since a bridge looks like another bridge an organism must have been designed by God, Jehovah God." Clearly the Salmon expert was ignoring Hovinds answers because hes afraid of the truth.......lol.
UcanbeGOD 4 years ago
Kent Hovind brought nothing new to the table. His display only proved once again that he is an idiot and is incapable of making a coherent thought that doesn't involve his religion. If you look at the data with an unbiased mindset, do you really think you would come to the conclusion that creationism is true??? No, it is QUITE clear which idea is the victor in the scientific arena. And its NOT creationism.
tobyw87 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
how is kent a idiot again i cant understand your agruement?
the salmon expert was david de rothschild and he wasnt a salmon expert he is the youngest boy of the rothschild family hates kent hovind for destroying there brainwashing technique's and he isnt even listening to kent at all and he wasnt letting him talk listen again
freedomlvr 4 years ago
I don't think he was letting him talk because Kent was trying to differ the questions rather than actually answering them.
socceruci 2 years ago 12
yeah i don't think he would let kent talk because he did not want to hear the answers
freedomlvr 2 years ago
you missed what socceruci was saying.
Kent wouldn't answer the question, but tryed to differ the subject.
If you really feel Kent Hovind(jail bird) makes any sense, I apologize, and I feel sorry for you.
hellasweet4twizzle 2 years ago 2
sorry you must not use common sense much
freedomlvr 2 years ago
That's all you got?
Wow..that was easy.
Here I thought you'd have something semi-intellegent to say, or at least a subject.
hellasweet4twizzle 2 years ago
Kent wasn't even attempting to answer the question, he didn't even understand the question.
greenzen80 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
you'll know come judgement day.
jordanxxx 4 years ago
at least you will all be taken to heaven, looking forward to that!
smitmick 3 years ago
6:42 explicit example of a practical application to creationism
David interrupts trying to deny it.
8:30 self funded program
9:00 any group of people with common beliefs can support each other, its why it's hard to get creation science published
bajatmerc 4 years ago
I've addressed these particular points, and why Hovind has specifically avoided answering David's questions, in the video that I've posted as a response.
fs3d 4 years ago
Your 'specific' example of a practical application to creation science is total nonsense. Know that all organs are in roughly the same place from person to person is not something that was discovered through 'creationism' but through simple straight forward scienific inference. People as early as Da Vinci were performing autopsies on people trying to understand the function of their internal organs.
tobyw87 4 years ago
Their hard work can in no way be attributed to 'creationism...'. Kent Hovind essentially pulled that example out of his ass and its pretty damn obvious. The way Kent Hovind snickers at real true evidence for evolution (Such as high levels of genetic variability in salmon) is really disgusting. He doesn't even care to listen to it. His dogmatism shows him for what he is. Not a scientist. But a religious zealot. Anyone with a brain can see this.
tobyw87 4 years ago
Precisely. I'm putting together a video in the hopes of wiping out some preconceptions that Hovind and his ilk are propagating.
fs3d 4 years ago
by that logic what did evolution develope?
bajatmerc 4 years ago
macro evolution not micro
bajatmerc 4 years ago
To reiterate. There is NO functional difference between micro and macro evolution. The only difference is the time scale that the processes occur on. Both processes are observed, documented, and quite clearly phenomenon inherent life on earth. There is simply no evidence to suggest otherwise.
tobyw87 4 years ago 4
Diseases, genomics, antibiotics, and the history of life are impossible to understand or even explain without a detailed understanding of evolutionary processes. Evolution has ENDLESS applications. Just study the history of evolution and science and this is clearly visible. Evolution is essentially the backbone of modern biology. Without it everything falls apart and nothing makes sense.
tobyw87 4 years ago
22 sec not using tax dollars
45 sec publishing issue
1:16 theory given to prove flood
2:07 examples of applications - all branches
3:01 example of application predictable fish
salmon are limited to micro evolution
5:22 salmons variation question, unanswered by david
bajatmerc 4 years ago
There is absolutely no evidence for Hovind's pretty idea about the flood. Evidence is what makes science go. And since when we look at the fossil record its clear that species are not pilled all together, but appear at different intervals over time, a global flood is impossible.
tobyw87 4 years ago
Also, what mechanism does Hovind suggest for evolution to be limited to microevolution? In other words what would prevent something that is small from becoming large over time? The answer is... nothing. Kent Hovind just likes to play around with words. There is no evidence to even remotely suggest this. Speciation has been documented time and time again. Take a science class!
tobyw87 4 years ago
objects can become larger over time through micro evolution.
Macro evolution implies that some day a dog will become something else.
bajatmerc 4 years ago
Yes this is true. So I ask you WHAT mechanism prevents changes in a dog from building over time to cause speciation to occur and for a new species to form? Wolves and dogs are completely different species yet it is quite clear that they evolved from one another. Changes over time are clearly visible and there is nothing to prevent them from occurring. All you need is time. And the geologic record provides plenty of that.
tobyw87 4 years ago
I tell you what I will come back to this when I get the opportunity, and I will document the questions vs answers since some ignorant ppl think the entire time david asked for an application.
bajatmerc 4 years ago
I was intending to do the same thing. We'll see how it compares shall we?
fs3d 4 years ago
One of the main problems with your video you responded with is that the stuff Hovind was talking about when interrupted was going to explain the limits on research using the creation theory. So suddenly David runs the debate and Hovind can't explain a single point because david asks so many questions, or makes so many comments.
bajatmerc 4 years ago
David asked a specific question. Hovind's responsibility is to answer it, not use diversionary tactics. I wouldn't have let him get away with it either.
fs3d 4 years ago
Also, David only asked 2 questions... He had to ask them repeatedly again and again, because Hovind refused to answer them directly.
fs3d 4 years ago
Ultimately though, if you don't believe in evolutionism you can't lose.
If you don't believe in creation well, they don't serve breakfast in hell.
bajatmerc 4 years ago
That would be because Hell doesn't exist, except right here on Earth.
fs3d 4 years ago
Also, Hovind said for application when we examine something looking at it as a design, we can determine things about other things designed by the same creator. interrupted by david
bajatmerc 4 years ago
Argueing with this guy is like argueing with a puppet. There's no point!
supersmash43 4 years ago
yah, david just doesn't reason
bajatmerc 4 years ago
Well you can claim that if you want, but the reality is that Hovind tried to evade his questions in a pathetic and cowardly way, and David saw right through it.
fs3d 4 years ago
what?
Hovind was explaining how hard it is to get published if you don't believe in evolutionism. interrupted by david
He tried to explain christians founded the very forms of science that david was talking about. interrupted by david
bajatmerc 4 years ago
"What?"
I'll say it again.
Hovind was blatantly trying to avoid questions that David was putting to him. The questions had NOTHING to do with whether Hovind felt he could get published, and EVERYTHING to do with proving his Creationist ideas. He asked, very clearly, Hovind to name ONE application for Creationism, and even then, Hovind could not give a straight answer.
fs3d 4 years ago
"He tried to explain christians founded the very forms of science that david was talking about. interrupted by david "
Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's a lie. Even Galileo had to fight AGAINST the dogmatic oppression of his Christian fellows in order to get the theory of the Solar System revealed. He may have told others he was Christian and disbelieved his theories but that was through pain of death. In the end, Hovind's claim that Christianity has helped science is another lie.
fs3d 4 years ago
what? Hovind clearly said "ok, if a doctor cuts someone open they can expect for the appendix to be found in the same spot on every human because of them all having the same design"
bajatmerc 4 years ago
"Hovind clearly said "ok, if a doctor cuts someone open they can expect for the appendix to be found in the same spot on every human because of them all having the same design""
That was not answering David's question. Frankly, if I was David and asking the question, I wouldn't have allowed such blatant evasiveness from someone who claimed to have a PhD either. Hovind was and is a fraud.
fs3d 4 years ago
fs3d, Hovind is either REALLY stupid and doesn't understand what "application" means, or he knows they don't have any and is dodging the question. Although insane, I don't think he's stupid and thus is blatantly ignoring the question, because he knows creation science isn't producing anything applicable to society. Anyone who can argue that either has no conscience whatsoever or is very dim.
podunkest 4 years ago
That. Is. Not. An. Application. The question meant, what kind of contribution has "creationist science" made as far as developing something that can be used back in the real world (ie: a project). Your quote actually points out how little he actually knows about science and how he tried to dodge the question. He's talking out of his ass and anyone who's read a science book past 6th grade can easily realize this. (continued).
podunkest 4 years ago
That's exactly what I've been trying to tell this bajatmerc. I don't think Hovind is either stupid or a fraud... He is both stupid AND a fraud.
fs3d 4 years ago
david asked about the peer publishing of creationists. then when the answer came he interrupted
bajatmerc 4 years ago
I think mr hovind very skillfully proved the theory that he could talk out of his ass...
Cerdocabeza 4 years ago
David just does not want an answer. He just talks and interrupts Hovind the entire time. As soon as Kent starts to prove a point though discussing an existing example David interrupts him.
bajatmerc 4 years ago
That's because David knows that Hovind is talking a pile of rubbish.
fs3d 4 years ago
David is probably of that opinion as he interrupted Kent 17 times, and the host 4 times.
bajatmerc 4 years ago
Man that guy is some piece of work, could he be more of an asshole?
Hell even I can give you an application for creationist science; milking millions from unsuspecting, thick headed, educationally challenged, intolerant, clueless christians out of their money.
After all can you think of any other application for this pseudoscience?
thequantumflux 4 years ago
lol that bitch got pwned!!!
OriginalHamster 4 years ago
There was not one time that this Molecular Geneticist did not interrupted Kent Hovind's sentance.
sablechicken 4 years ago
Because Kent Hovind dodges and hides whenever the scientist asks him a direct question. Kent Hovind interrupted him just as much. The point remains... there are no applications for creationism. Evolution saves lives. Its simple as that.
tobyw87 4 years ago
Come on why was Kent Hovind even in this video? He was Totally interrupted this is the nameless Molecular Geneticist not letting him get a word in.
sablechicken 4 years ago
This video was reposted, Kent Hovind's most common tactic is to dodge questions. This molecular geneticist held his feet to the fire. Again... evolution saves lives. Not. thing Kent Hovind or anyone else says will change this fact.
tobyw87 4 years ago
I agree. David saw that Kent was trying to avoiding his question and he stopped him.
Falling100 4 years ago
Come on Sable even you have to admit his salmon application answer was pulled directly from his ass. He never answered the question. Seems to be an ongoing thing with creationists and theists in general.
Kent Hovind isn't even peer reviewed, he wont allow anyone to see his doctoral thesis. The man is a joke and he proved it here.
Get over your hate for atheists and anything that doesn't fit your flavor of religion, it just adds to the stereotypes of christians.
thequantumflux 4 years ago