A video critiquing controversial speaker Kent Hovind and his theories. Brings to light the fallacies in many of his arguments. Includes clips from his lecture series as well as his interview on the Ali G Show.
This video is a satirical glimpse of some of the more outrageous statements made by Mr. Hovind. If you wish to see the refutation of Mr. Hovind's nonsense, please see our critical analysis videos. If you are going to complain, support yourself with evidence; otherwise, you will be banned.
@MrRichardQED Saying that Jesus and Siddartha didnt exist because you dont believe in their spiritual qualities, is like dening the existance of horses because unicorns dont exist. "which in nature automatically leads to better chances of producing offspring" - Priesthood doesnt often give you higher social status, and in Catholicism, they're not even ALLOWED to produce offspring. Fasting is the same way, same with prayer. None of that leads to producing offspring.
GermanConquistador08 1 day ago
@MrRichardQED It really is ignorant. The first sighting of unicorns, were in India by historian Ctesias who was describing Indian animals such as the Oryx or rhinos. Eventually, they got warped into greek mythology. A good example of this would be the myth of the jackalope in the Old West, how real animals can be warped into mythologies. But Jesus and Siddhartha, were REAL historic figures. To deny their existance because of their religious qualities you dont agree with, is like dening the rhino
GermanConquistador08 1 day ago
@MrRichardQED "its actually having as much offspring as possible" -Again, why? Why does evolution have a purpose in the first place (assuming it does) and if it does than does evolution, somehow, implant the purpose of its process into the psyche of all organisms, however unadvanced? If that is the case, how do you justify that scientifically? "I am pretty sure if i go through all the sagas i find more sightings of unicorns then say buddha or jesus." -Thats just an ignorant statement.
GermanConquistador08 1 day ago
@MrRichardQED Is sharing similar traits with animals evidence of evolution, or just relatibility through other means, like having similar creators? But again, humans can only understand these animal traits, using their own more advanced traits. To say that we can tell an animal has psychological damage, feels sadders etc. is only OUR observation, usually substitution OUR OWN emotions to that of the animal, who might be feeling something completely different.
GermanConquistador08 1 day ago
@MrRichardQED "Well your question was" -Hold on, stop right there. You cut my quote COMPLETELY out of context, that was not my question. Answer my question or concede that you cant but dont twist it around like that, its childish. "a lot of it is also governed by education, social pressure " - My question again was, if the goal of survival being survival is a human construction, and our willpower can overrid evolutionary traits, than how can it be evidence for evolution.
GermanConquistador08 1 day ago
@GermanConquistador08 Often the causal relations between certain factors and evolution itself can be quite complex and demand a quite extensive research into the matter. Sometimes behaviors look at first sight like a big disadvantage, but after extensive research you see its quite the opposite. So be careful with quick judgements in an animal as complex as a great ape.
MrRichardQED 1 day ago
@GermanConquistador08 "experiments" with new mixes of genes and with new mutations. Since both are "guided" by randomness you also get a lot of failed experiments.
You also sometimes need to think about the survival/procreation of a group vs survival/procreation of each member. A good example is homosexuality, its a catastrophe for the procreation of the homosexual individual, but it can be a big advantage for the procreation of the group (extra babysitter etc.)
MrRichardQED 1 day ago