Dr Kent Hovind debate one vs three scientist P.h.d 2-15
Top Comments
Video Responses
All Comments (110)
-
@magnetmantalkstoyou lmao if you see one, let me know, cuz that would be proof AGAINST evolution, NOT FOR IT.
-
For all of you who are to stupid to understand, answer this question for me... If Evolution is true, shouldn't there be creatures and humans that are half evolved today? How come we don't see a half man, half monkey walking around?
-
@Encryptsan I wouldn't say anything about common sense because clearly you can never throw a grenade and by its explosion create something. Just sayin.
-
My information is from scholarly articles, not books written by people with credentials from diploma mills.
Please see: every example of evolution I have mentioned in the comments section of this video. There are several fairly good examples.
Scientists harness the power of evolution to combat the Flu every year.
Universities use forced evolution in fruit flies as teaching examples for biology students. Such changes are observable over very short time periods.
-
@Encryptsan No they haven't. Where are you getting this information? They tried to recreate evolution and failed horribly.
-
Hovind should have used an academic textbook/journal/book to define science and the scientific method, not a dictionary.
-
An atheist debated four Christians - does that mean that God is not glorious?
-
Yes all three groups all agree but all three groups are wrong...
-
Finally I shall mention dogs as being a good example.
"if... it could be shown that the greyhound, bloodhound, terrier, spaniel and bull-dog, which we all know propagate their kind truly, were the offspring of any single species, then such facts would have great weight in making us doubt about the immutability of the many closely allied natural species" -Charles Darwin
Funnily enough we know today that all dog species are the result of selective breeding from the Gray Wolf.
yeahh HOVIND Good debate!!!
BonoBonoify 11 months ago 7
@theaccousticaddict
You are also still not realizing that fossils are not the primary source of evidence. There is also more genetic data than you can poke a stick at and actual observations of rapid evolution in lower forms of life (which reproduce fast).
Scientists *have* been able to recreate evolution, and observe it actually happening.
When a religious person can recreate creation out of nothing then I'll believe it, until then common sense says to believe those who have proof.
Encryptsan 1 year ago 5