It’s amazing to see how Kent has literally not changed a single one of his talking points for decades now. It’s the same here as it is in his most recent “debate”, the exact same.
"would either be open too change?" Kent response "yes I would" 🤦😂😂 he has lost every debate and never has any one been is so wrong about every thing yet he's still sprouts the same nonsense for 💰 Kent is a real pos.
Jesus Saves Well, I studied evolution in biology class, so evolution IS science by your own definition. :] On a side note, I never said that evolution is science (even though it is) I only asserted that believing in creation science is ignorant. Reading your reply, it makes me wonder if you actually comprehend the english language.
kamaka71 you studied the myth. That's fine. I think any neutral observer who listens to all the debates on this subject, can clearly see there is zero evidence for this stupid religion you call a science. It's not only stupid, it's a hindrance to science.
No, we don't. Creationists have never bothered to learn what evolution means. Everything you say about it is wrong, and when we correct your mistakes you accuse us of lying.
@@chucklesdarwinwaswrongevol9264 Oh spare me your vapid bullshit. You have no idea what it teaches. You assume you know it, but on another thread you have said the stupidest things and assumed they were what the Theory of Evolution teaches. Just because you think you are right doesn't mean you are right. Your assumptions are incorrect and repeating the claim that you understand it just makes you look like a cretin and likely a liar.
@@DavidLeeMenefee No, it's not. The nature of truth is to grow and become more precise. Our understanding of gravity has changed and improved. Our understanding of particle physics has improved. Our understanding of the lifespans of stars has improved. Religion does not do this.
@@SilientShadow The reality of change is a "FACT", Truth is transcendent of fact: fact (1 ): today you would say that it is raining, but the truth of the matter is that it does not rain every day.
@@DavidLeeMenefee Hovind doesn't know if it's raining or not. He read something 40 years ago that said there was weather, and he just spends his life telling everyone that he knows what the weather is.
Kent Hovind never comments the fact that you never find modern forms of fossils in the same layer as ancient forms. Never a giraffe was found next to a dinosaur. That fact alone destroys young creation theory.
Jeff Hart there is no fossil record. Also chicken prints and human footprints were never found the same rock strata. Does that prove humans never lived with Chickens? Your a pack of fools all of you
@@taegotkash yes there is. Also, human and chickens haven't been around long enough to have fossils. We *literally* created chickens by manipulating evolution.
He keeps clumping the "big bang" and abiogenesis with the theory of biological evolution . He does this a lot , WLC does it too, makes 20 points about vastly different subjects which makes it hard to answer him coherently. Good debating tactic when facts aren't an issue for you.
The most amazing thing with these people is that can argue their side based on a page or two in a 2000 year old book. In spite of the huge amount of evidence against it...AND... They absolutely love the sciences that work for them, but when it screws with that book of theirs, it becomes a scientific conspiracy against the tithe. That's what the debate is actually about.
I had to laugh when the radio host said, 'both of you have scientific backgrounds"....... Wrong! Genie Scott has a scientific background.......Kent Hovind received his "degree" from Patriot University which is a diploma mill that gives mail order courses in christian education..
+RuleofFive I'm so glad you said that. Kent Hovind's scientific background is a big hoax propagated by Ken Hovind himself and his poor brainwashed followers.
+kristabella222 I agree with you. He is a frustrating guy to listen to but because he's a good public speaker and humorous, Christians seem to ignore the fact that he doesn't have a clue as to what he's talking about.
+RuleofFive That's right! Saddle up, lil doggie! You're off to the wild, wild west! Into the glorious sunset of popularity, rather than intellectual sincerity! I've heard Genie Scott say that what she's cramming down peoples throats with vicious, unbridled, dogmatic human authority (not that you and many others like you don't have your eyes closed and your gullets wide open, while mama Genie regurgitates Daddy Darwin's pre digested Galapagos finches to you) is a scientific fact, rather than their accepted model of the origin and creation of every living thing! But it doesn't take a genius to figure out the fact that one kind of life must be able to transcend its kind and become a different kind in order for that to be true! So, if it's a fact? Not just a belief? Then name one instance of macro evolution! Man has been experimenting for years on just that subject! Yet here we are 100's of years later and all we've discovered is that it does not happen under any circumstances. You say it's a fact! And you may even believe it's a fact! But the fact is it doesn't happen! That makes you and your genius "scientific" Genie absurdly incorrect on the very thing they're heralding as the god's honest truth! That, my friend, is hypocrisy. And as for your ignorant assessment of what qualifies a teaching degree? The only reason you're saying that is because you heard it somewhere and it sounded good to you. So you assumed it was true! That's ignorant hypocrisy! That's where Genie Scott has led you, so far! Believing things that science has proven false 100's of years ago. Attacking those who are just trying to get you to think! And ending up an ignorant, pious hypocrite...Evidence does not lie!Write out the question of origins... the creation story in your own words! Think about what really had to happen for all of this to become a reality!Stop listening to people and start looking at the evidence with an open mind!What has the power to create everything from nothing?What has the power to arrange a vast amount of diverse molecules into a unique, fully equipped, procreative anatomical design, then breath a living conscious, intelligent life into it? Was the creator of humanity a single cell? If so, what scientific facts are you basing that on? Face it! You heard this stuff was true, so you just accepted it without ever really thinking about the glaring inconsistencies in their stories! You probably don't dare scrutinize what they're teaching. God forbid you realize the fatal flaws in their logic! Where would that leave you! If nature cannot explain your true origin? Then what does explain it!Of course, you already know the answer to that question. Life has explained that to you long ago! It is designed to elaborate on just that question! God's done His part to instruct your heart, mind and spirit everything you need to come to a saving knowledge of your Creator. But you have a physical, emotional and intellectual responsibility to align yourself with Truth. The Truth. And you know who that is, as well. You believe in evolution? Evolve! Act, by faith, on what you know to be true! Ignore what you're told is true! Then you will have the unique satisfaction of an objective foundation for your beliefs!
+lederereddy Yes the scientific theory of evolution is an accepted fact. Genie Scott isn't the only one that says it.....any credible scientist knows its the basis for the study of biology. Now Kent Hovind doesn't understand it because he never studied science. There is no macro/micro evolution there is just evolution. Evolution amounts to small changes in organisms over time due to environmental pressures. If there's enough changes in one species then we would have speciation. The newest generation might not be able to mate with past generations. Homo Sapiens would not be able to mate with Homo Erectus yet we do have the DNA of Neanderthals. Kent Hovind is not trying to get people to think he's evangelizing and trying to get people to convert. Evolution is correct. If you take a vaccine then you've benefitted from human understanding of evolution. Viruses mutate and we know this and so vaccines must change to keep up with them or they wouldn't work. BTW I'm an atheist and immune to God threats.
RuleofFive Right, he's just a fast talking con man. I wonder if he really believes the crap that comes out of his mouth. He's making quite a nice living off the money of gullible people. He's either very shrewd and ruthless or so blinded by his delusions that facts are meaningless.
Shakespeare's last will and testament: "My Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ." Read Kent Hovind's 'One Blood.' Genetics/biology demonstrates that there is only one human race. Evolution teaches racism, that there are 'evolved' races and less evolved. Just a few years after Darwin's 'Origins' Australian Aboriginals were killed as species of 'missing links' and sent to England. One event: dozens of men, women, children were massacred by police. 45 skulls boiled down, and the best 10 sent to UK. Hitler applied Darwinism to his ideology of madness. The Bible records there is only one human race. Genetics proves that that first human male and females lived not more than 5,000 years ago: 1000 Human Genomes Project. This is a secular project, btw. This also demonstrates that with the 100 or so mutations passed to each generation resulting in eventual extinction of the human race, mutations cannot be the mechanism for 'evolving.' With each generation, the gene pool degrades. The very opposite of evolution's 'upward mobility.' The 2nd law of thermodynamics > entropy: order to disorder. There is no exception. Again, evolution teaches disorder to order. Contrary to this great scientific law. There is no evidence that species morph into others. All remain within their 'kinds' just as the Bible records. Just as true science proves. No exceptions. There is no evidence that chemicals or accidents, etc. create life. The law is life begets life. Pasteur and others proved this. There is no 'law of abiogensis' or spontaneous generation. Biogenesis is proven, again and again, no exception.
@@foreveragainOK Everything... EVERYTHING... you WROTE here is a lie. Go get aquanted with science and stop spouting lies, Hovind is a proven liar and a fraud. You didn't even research Shakespeare's will to check for his wording, you just did the Christian lying trick and made it up. You are in a sick cult and the likes of Hovind love you and your money.
foreveragainOK oh no don’t say one animal morphs into another the magic ingredient is that it took millions and billions of years for one animal to change into another. You’re making it seem less bullshit than it really is.
He doesn't. He makes himself look stupid by demonstrating how ignorant he is of basic biological processes. Each debate is an indictment of Kent's ignorance.
Aaron Kellett dude scientists believe life arose from non life. Abiogenesis aka spontaneous generation. Never had been observed. Your the one ignorant of biological processes if you think life came from a rock
Unless life has always existed it means that life from non-living materials is a logical necessity. If you are a Bible believing Christian you also believe in life from non-living materials. Adam being made from dirt is life from non-life.
It’s always great to hear Kent dumping on religion. He may misunderstand and misrepresent evolutionary theory but one thing we can all agree on is a religion is a belief in an unbelievable premise based on scant and poor evidence.
Oh, damn him, just his voice gets on my tits so much ... I can't listen to this after all. I was going to try, but at 00:11 seconds only I realised that nearly an hour of that smarmy self-satisfied twat wittering on is more than anyone can be expected to put up with. I don't know how Genie did it.
I try to give the benefit of the doubt, but Hovind has literally no idea what he is talking about. I think at time he knows this, and uses big words on purpose to make himself feel better.
It is both entertaining and excruciating to see him in debates. The fact remains that the proponents of evolution need to explain a highly complex scientific theory in a very limited amount of time to someone who tries to score points with oneliners as "if you want to believe your granddaddy was a monkey, then you are allowed to believe that, but that is religion". And what grosses me out is that there are a lot of people in the US who actually think that it is a good argument.
If Hovinds statements were correct we could never resolve a crime if it was not directly observed, if "nobody was there". DNA of a perpetrator at the crime scene? The victim's blood on the clothes of the perpetrator. Not enough according to Hovind.
+Satire X Millennial Divergents did you even read the article? this proves evolution and is just another nail in the creatards head , look at the date you clown then look at a map of where the plates where at that time .how are these people so dumb ?
+Michelle Campbell I agree, but perhaps as an alternative to totally ignoring them, they should be debated en masse with Flat Earthers, Moon Landing Conspiracy theorists etc. to put things into perspective!
Here is the perfect solution: give equal time to creationism and science in the classroom, provided that science gets equal time with creationism in the churches.
No. Creationism is religious. Not science. Evolution is science. Not religious. There are no gods. No scripture. No leaders to follow. And there is evidence for evolution. There is no evidence for creation.
I had 16 years of a Catholic education. And in the sciences, we were taught standard science: Darwin’s theory of evolution, the Big Bang Theory, the concept of deep time - essentially the same thing that one would be taught in a secular science classroom. Religious studies were a separate subject, and we weren’t taught a literal interpretation of either Genesis creation narrative (there are actually two, quite different accounts, from two different sources). We were taught nothing resembling Young Earth Creationism, which really rejects just about everything in modern science. Hovind insists on a young Earth, but the Bible nowhere mentions this, and the writers and redactors (the editors who put the written accounts in the format that exists today) would be astonished to be told that, in early Genesis, at any rate, they were writing history or science. There are many forms of literature in the Bible, but in early Genesis, the literary for, is mythical - a story which is not literally true, but which conveys deeper truths and meanings. The use of stories to convey deeper truths is quite common in Jewish teaching. Jesus used parables all the time, and people tend to remember stories. At any rate, my point is that this conflict with science doesn’t exist among most Christians. It’s restricted to those fundamentalists who insist in a literal interpretation of early Genesis, and even there, they have a major problem - which of the two accounts is the “scientifically” accurate one? The six day account, where human beings were created last? Or the account where humans were created first, molded from clay, with the rest of creation coming about after? God’s role is very different, if one insists on literalism. In the six day account, God SPEAKS everything into existence. In the second account, God is anthropomorphically depicted as a potter, molding man (in Hebrew, adam) out of earth (in Hebrew, adamah), and yes, the pun is deliberate. We know that the two original narratives are from different sources. In the seven day account, the Hebrew word “Elohim” is exclusively used for “God”. This is called, among scholars, the “E” account. In the second account, the Hebrew Tetragrammaton is used “YHWH” as the word for God. Now among Jews, this word was never to be spoken aloud. That’s why there are no vowels. A reader would substitute the Hebrew word, “Adonai” (The Lord), for that word, and more recently would use the Hebrew for “the Name”. There is uncertainty about the actual pronunciation among scholars, the current consensus is “Yahweh”, but Orthodox Jews still will not pronounce the name. Scholars refer to this source as the “J” source (Y and J are very similar consonants, and there was once a mistaken pronunciation of YHWH as “Jehovah”). So literalists have a theological, as well as a scientific, problem. They don’t understand what they are reading, nor do they understand the mindset of the people who wrote it, and what was important to them. In any case, in public schools, creationism has no place in a science classroom. It’s not a scientific idea which can be tested scientifically. The courts have repeatedly ruled on this. And one doesn’t need to be an atheist to understand this. I’m a Christian, and I understand this.
@Mitchell 60000000000 not at all. The bible is nothing but claims. There appears to be no evidence to back any of those claims so it cannot be used as evidence.
Dr Eugenie Scott is a stud. My freaken hero. She handled this so well. She and the moderator did an excellent job of trying to keep Hovind from from jumping from topic to topic (Gish Gallop) like I've seen him do. I would have liked to see a longer talk were Hovind was allowed to talk more and voice his beliefs but other than that I thought his was just great. Hovind's confusion of science as religion is hilarious.
Are you kidding? She sounded like a five year old by talking over the top of the host and Dr. Hovind. Interrupting repeatedly is how you show how unintelligent you are because you shouldn't be afraid to allow someone to finish their point. Notice how Kent would allow her to finish before attempting to make his point? That's respectful and shows intelligence.
She did talk over him a lot. Hovind is a hack. He doesn't understand a lot of basic science. I follow science as a hobby and he brings up issues that I could solve on the spot of the top of my head. It will be interesting to see if he gets back to his creation "science" when he gets out of jail next year.
He will be back stronger than ever and we need men like Kent Hovind to spread God's word. I'm well versed in many sciences as well. Please explain one "issue" he brought up which you can refute on the spot. Professors will not debate him because they know he will make them look silly.
***** Who's the we? The best thing Hovind has done for people like me is entertain me by saying foolish things. To that point, you've kind of done the same thing. I don't mind that he spreads the word of Gawd. No bigs. Each there own and all that mess but don't teach crap science. Evolution is real because it happened and the evidence is just what we are seeing now.
+AboutMy FathersBusiness He's a conman and has been caught lying multiple times to support his retarted unverifiable creation theory also. I really feel bad if you watch his videos because you're probably brainwashed lol
DanielPrime94 More claims of fraud and lying with no proof. And evolution is verifiable? Look up Abiogenesis, genius. Its not what DNA's algorithm generates, its the design of the algorithm. I rather you say Martians created us then a rock and sunlight. You people are absurd.
+AboutMy FathersBusiness Evolution is completely verifiable and we completely understand the natural processes that produce the organisms we see today. I'm pretty sure the only abiogenesis articles you have read have been creationist articles. But you know what, you're right! You're absolutely right. Man didn't come from a rock. Man was clearly made from dirt and the entire female species came from that mans rib. There's so much evidence for that!
+AboutMy FathersBusiness Also what do you mean I was lying with no proof? Are you talking about Kent Hovind being a lying conman and a criminal? Because have hundreds and hundreds of peices of info to show you that if you want
If by "Doctor" you mean someone who has earned a doctorate from an accredited university, Hovind is not a doctor. I don't understand why he needed/needs that accolade.
@@7ebr830 I've heard that argument and it's less than 1% of life scientists that give any credence to creationism, that doesn't mean they believe creationism though just that they consider it, and truth means more to me than it does to Kent, he claims that stellar formation is impossible yet we've been observing stellar formations since the 90s at the latest, he claims no one knows how uranium is formed, that was solved in the 50s and verified in the 90s, he claims that cosmology and abiogenesis is a part of evolution despite no one ever claiming that, not even Darwin, he also misuses Boyles law and the law of gravity despite claiming to have multiple PHDs, he makes basic highschool mistakes that are considered unacceptable at the highschool level, must I go on
@@adamboyen4727 Truth isn't a popularity contest, bud. Once upon a time, all the literati believed the world was flat. Those who said it was round were in the minority. Apart from all that, you seem to be in dire danger of falling for the fallacy of appeal to authority. No, you haven't been seeing "stellar formations since the 1990s" lol. Because of UselessTube'stupid policies about links, I'm going to post four messages after this. Each new message after the first means that you should concatenate the message with a period. Finally - and it is _finally_ from me - if Hovind is an inveterate liar, that has zero bearing on whether evolution is true or not. Next time, contradict the argument, not the man. 🙄
I object, Kent is neither a doctor nor was he a "high school science teacher". 6:46 case in point, Kent smiling and shaking his head because someone with an actual PhD is explaining to him what a scientific theory is and he thinks he knows more with his "doctoral thesis" that starts with "Hello, my name is Kent Hovind".
I know. The man is a joke and he is still spouting the same old crap that he does in this debate despite the fact that every one that he "debates" correcting him. He is not going to change his opinions because he just cannot. Carry on Hovind, you are doing a great job at making young earth creationism a nonsense. Which it is.
The thing about it to me with creationists and atheist is that when the argument is up and going The atheist never tries to trick up the opponent with words that they didn't say and stuff like that it's always a creationists
Something about noah and his ark is puzzling me, what stopped the lions from attacking the small animals once they left the boat? Wouldnt they pretty much have attacked the dears and stuff right of the bat? :D They arent really known for being merciful..
Well, it was puzzling me if you accept god and christianity and that god made the world flood and told noah to make a boat big enough to fit all the animals etc.. that just dont add up anyways and Ive never heard any creationist explain this to me either :
Noah, was very much aware of the dangers of having animals go out all at once, just like you and me are. It really is common sense. Keep in mind, they didn't have television or other distractions back then. People back then were very much in tune with nature and the world around them and understanding animals was not a stretch. My theory is that each animal left with careful attention so that they could survive. Noah was no dummy.
Joseph Barniak so then what did the Lions eat once they were relseased? If they left the ark with "careful attention" so they "could survive", what was there to eat if everything else died in the flood? Do you know how much meat a lion needs to eat each day?
7:30the radio host says u BOTH have scientific backgrounds..lol someone didn't do his homework..Kent isn't a Dr or scientist..why not go to a real school with a real degree recognized by the state or the world..not a cult
Creationists are always like "Everything that exists had to have been designed." You can turn that around with "Everything that exists was made from something else. Nothing we've seen on Earth has appeared from nothing." This won't get you anywhere, but it will equal out that first argument rather easily without getting stuck in that famous Hovind circle argument.
You seem to forget evolution says nothing exploded into everything. That's faith. Just like we have faith in God the designer creator. Many of your evolutionists also talk about the marvel of the engineering and design. You really need to study exactly what your own scientists say. Which this woman denies and side steps. How can you age a tree by matching it with another totally Independent tree? That's stupid.
@@johnmonk9297 spoken like someone who has literally *no idea whatsoever* what evolution is, or what the Big Bang theory actually is, or even what faith is, much less has any understanding of dendrochronology and the like. And that would be fine, except you creationists aren't intelligent enough to just keep your mouths shut when you don't know much about a subject or honest enough to genuinely seek out the truth.
@@johnmonk9297 evolution says nothing about cosmology at all, you need to learn what the scientists are saying before making such a ridiculous comment, since when did an evolutionary biologist become a cosmologist??
@@adamboyen4727 you need to study evolution. this lady herself talked about the so called evolution of the planets etc Your lot call it the big bang I'm surprised you don't know about it Now for something that's really stupid Evolution says nothing exploded into everything. That's impossible and even if nothing could explode it would be like every other explosion and leave a chaotic mess not a perfectly organized fine tuned world Now this lady said a tree was 12000 years old why don't we have trees billions of years old And for the guy who said if no one sees a tree fall it's a religion That's a pathetic comment. A fallen tree can be observed for years after it has fallen But no one was around to observe the big bang there's the difference we can observe our planet but not how it came into existence we can observe a fallen it doesn't take faith to observe something it takes faith to believe what you can't see. so evolution is just like a religion
@Morlanius; Genie Scott here is flat out WRONG! @29:25 Genis Scott said there are 12,000 year old trees. Well actuall Until 2013, the oldest individual tree in the world was Methuselah, a 4,845-year-old Great Basin bristlecone pine (Pinus longaeva) in the White Mountains of California.
God created the universe. Satan was cast down to the earth. Satan deceives the world. People such as atheist think magic made the universe over God. Atheist discredit God as the creator of the ordered universe but instead think magic made the universe. That’s the problem people have been dealing with. Atheist think their existence was caused by mistake.
@@juniorsir9521 Satan wasn't invented until fairly recently (The KJB re-release). You would be well minded to stick to the original series rather than the spinoff.
You know...I can't stand that guy, but you have a real point. I noticed that he would stop himself from talking over her. I think he was just being polite. It would be a lot better if they had been in the same room.
the charlatan never goes into detail, his childish arguments will satisfy gullible believers like those at "psychic" readings and other such nonsense, but those with an enquiring mind are amazed at the gall of the man to spout.this trash. Still he has a company business to run, selling a product that doesn't exist: Isn't that fraudulent?
***** I can't tell if you're legit or not. So let me ask you a favor. Whatever you do, please continue researching those scientific facts that have 'showed you the way.' You should start with the basics of scientific methods, then learn the procedures used to confirm data. Then make sure you learn about how incorrect data gets corrected. I ask you this mainly because of one single fact that Ken seems to keep bringing up: the carbon dating of a living snail. Yes, it was dated as some thousands of years old. Then, that was corrected, and the reason for the error was identified. This is the type of follow up that Ken ignores. However, he keeps using the bad result as a claim that all results are unreliable. It's a pattern of finding what he wants to find in order to support what he's already decided is the answer.
***** I am deeply sorry your brain was scrubbed by an incredibly bold faced lie. If you want to know the truth about life you must look around, be observant. First thing to observe would be the motives of slimy individuals like kent hovind.
I read his affivadit in his tax fraud case and wondering why the judge that received it did not held him for contempt of court by presenting such a kindergarten level piece of writing.
I have a friend from bayou labatre in South Alabama. 9th grade education. By the time he was 30 years old, he had 100 skilled laborers and 30 mechanical engineers following his direction working for NASA.
Kent keeps saying that science has to be observable, testable, demonstratable. And yet he himself cannot provide such evidence for creationism. What a con.
I learned years ago that you can't fix stupid. Your missing the whole argument. Taxpayers are not paying for my religion to be taught. So the burden of proof is on you.
What? How is the burden of proof on me? Oh? evolution, there's already plenty of evidence. In fact, the very foundation of biology is evolution. The medical field and pharmaceuticals work reflect evolution
If any animal turns into a different species of animal it would violate the evolutionary Law of Monophyly and therefore disprove evolution. Kent is scientifically illiterate and lying about science to suit his own argument. All creationists reject things that are directly observed in real life.
Aaron Kellett no that would prove the theory of evolution. You yourself said that we allegedly “evolved from lower forms” even though there’s no evidence for it
Christa Stempel Phony PhD from a doublewide trailer, unaccredited, correspondence course, diploma mill. Here's a link to his "doctoral dissertation". It's a joke unworthy of a decent 10th grade student. wikileaks.org/wiki/Young-earth_creationist_Kent_Hovind%27s_doctoral_dissertation
Christa Stempel Check out this clip from Gary Hurd, a real Professor, researcher and arhaelogist. The links to referenced material are on the original I linked to at the end. "This is a short examination of creationist Kent Hovind's phony "Doctorate," and claims of being a "high school science teacher for 15 years." Between 1976 and 1989, Hovind was the "teacher" of unaccredited church schools he often started himself. Plus, he rarely lasted long even then. I am linking this from "Big Daddy is Dead," in recognition that Hovind is essentially cited as a co-author of "Big Daddy." and nearly all of the pseudoscience found there is referenced to Hovind's video "seminars." Hovind opens his public presentations, videos, and weirdly, his bogus dissertation with nearly the same words every time, "Hello, my name is Kent Hovind. I am a creation science evangelist. I live in Pensacola, Florida. I have been a high school science teacher since 1976." He added "I have a doctorate in Education," starting in 1991. Kent Hovind's Teaching Experience Recorded in Public Records 08/10/2005 at 1:30 PM OR Book Page 878, Instrument #2005406964, Ernie Less Magaha, Clerk of the Circuit Court Escambia County, FL. "In 1972 I transferred to Midwestern Baptist College, in Pontiac, Michigan." Midwestern Baptist College is an unaccredited Bible school. "I completed by (sic) Bachelor of Religious Education at Midwestern in 1974" Ordained by Emmanuel Baptist Church in Pontiac, Michigan, May 25, 1974. Bethel Baptist Academy, Pekin, Illinios [1976-1978] "I returned to Pekin, Illinois and became Assistant Pastor of Bethel Baptist Church. In 1976 the Pastor resigned and I was voted Pastor (Bethel Baptist Church). My first accomplishment as Pastor was to start a Christian school, Bethel Baptist Academy." Faith Baptist Academy, Bourbonnais, Illinois [1978-1981] "In 1978 my family and I moved to Bourbonais, Illinois, where I continued to minister for the Lord as a teacher." Longview Christian Academy and Texas Baptist College, Longview, Texas [1981-1985] "1981 we moved to Longview, Texas, where I took position teaching science and math at Longview Christian Academy and at Texas Baptist College." Today, LCA is a K-5 - 12th grade school that uses A Beka creationist curriculum. The entirety of "Texas Baptist College" is a single building that houses the dormitories, classrooms, library (if any), and laundry. Married students are forced to enroll their children in the unaccredited "Christian Academy." Calvary Baptist Christian School, Fairfield, California [1986-1989] "... we moved the family to Fairfield, California, where I became Assistant Pastor and principal at Calvary Baptist Christian School as well as a science teacher." This school has a current enrollment Pre-kinder to 12th grade of 59 students. The most students they ever had was 149. EVER! East Hill Christian School, Pensacola, Florida [1989-?]. This is another church school created by Hovind. "In 1989, I took a vow of poverty and to commit all my resources to spreading the word of God and truth about God’s hand in creation. That event gave birth to Creation Science Evangelism." Hovind went on to boast that he was soon on the road giving lectures, sermons, and debates nearly full-time. Hovind verbally amended his biography in several videos recorded in the early 2000s to add 16 years after 1989 as a full time evangelist. In his 1991 "dissertation," Hovind claimed to be making 400 creationism presentations to schools and churches around the nation. He filed a fraudulent bankruptcy petition in 1996 claiming to have been a full time evangelist since 1989. There is also the question of "academic years, versus "calendar years." For example, Hovind's first teaching was at a church school he started in 1976 and left in 1978. That could be counted as 3 calendar years, but only 2 academic years: Sept. 1976 to June 1977, and Sept. 1977 to June 1978. Even giving Hovind the broadest interpretation, and allowing him the sham title of "science teacher," 1976 to 1989 is not 15 years. Kent Hovind's "Doctorate" Hovind claims a doctorate in "Christian Education." Hovind's dissertation is a bad joke written at a low high school grammar and vocabulary level. This vacuous work was sold to Hovind from "Patriot University," an unaccredited mail order degree shop. In fact, Patriot U. has had to publish the following disclaimer regarding their "degrees." DISCLAIMER ACI accreditation (Accrediting Commission International which is as phony as Patriot U. and has been successfully sued for fraud) is not to be confused with regional accreditation which is governed by the U.S. Department of Education. A school or employer which requires a regionally accredited degree will likely not accept a non-governmentally accredited degree. Patriot Bible University nor ACI are responsible for a student's employability. Student Advisory: 1. PBU's accreditation may or may not allow you to receive transfer credits to a secular school. If you are seeking a secular education degree, you would be best served to attend a secular institution. We grant Bible and religious degrees. If you hope to apply your Bible degree towards a secular degree at some time later on, the PBU courses and degrees are not likely to be fully applicable. If you are going to seek employment with a particular church denomination or wish to transfer to a certain Christian college or university, you might confer with them first. Please consider what YOUR educational goals are. 2. A Patriot Bible University degree is recognized by many churches and ministry organizations. It will demonstrate to employers a higher level of study through the attainment of a degree. We have trained thousands of students during the last 30 years. 3. PBU's accreditation with this agency is a religious non-governmental accreditation, rather than secular - voluntary, rather than mandatory. The laws of Colorado give us the authority to grant religious degrees. The authority to grant degrees comes from the individual State, not the school's accrediting agency. 4. ACI monitors educational and religious standards for PBU, and their accreditation is accepted by many religious organizations. However, this accreditation would not be accepted by some secular organizations, as ACI is not recognized by the U.S. Department of Education as one of the seven official regional accrediting agencies. This non-recognition may have some implications that include, but are not limited to: 1. Patriot Bible University is not eligible to participate in the Federal Student Loan/Financial Aid program. 2. Patriot Bible University is not authorized to accept the GI Bill. 3. Patriot Bible University is unable to guarantee acceptance of its degrees in other postsecondary institutions, except those also accredited by ACI 4. Corporations are not required to recognize degrees from Patriot Bible University. (down loaded on 8 April, 2013 from Patriot U.'s website). I downloaded Hovind's "dissertation" from wikileaks. To anyone familiar with Hovind's videos, the text will be very familiar. It is in most ways a transtript of Hovind's standard presentations. I am always impressed by how consistantly bad it is. Kent Hovind's Current Career Kent Hovind, Federal Prisoner Register number 06452-017, began serving a ten-year prison sentence in 2007 following his conviction on 12 tax fraud offenses, one count of obstructing federal agents, and 45 counts of illegally structuring cash transactions. He is scheduled for release from prison on August 11, 2015 after serving the minimum allowed portion of his 10 year sentence. If you have a taste for court documents, this court's reply (PDF) [link in original] to a petition filed by Jo (Mrs. Kent) Hovind gives the business structure of Kent Hovind's fortune. Recently, Patriot Bible University has sold another doctorate to Kent Hovind. He has claimed to have gotten two masters and three doctorates in education, theology, and divinity (honorary). He now claims to have added a doctorate in "biblical ministry." His 'dissertation' titled "What on Earth is about to happen for Heaven's Sake" is available on-line as a PDF. I think it is better to Google for a current URL in case there are copy right issues. Obviously Kent Hovind's account of his "doctorate" and "15 years teaching high school science" are as bogus as his creationism, and tax filings. As the courts found repeatedly, the numbers don't add up. " stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2013/05/kent-hovinds-resume-derived-from-court.html "About Me" " I received a doctorate in Social Science (emphasis in Anthropology) from the University of California, Irvine in 1976. For the next 10 years I was a medical researcher and professor of psychiatry leaving the Medical College of Georgia in 1985. I held numerous adjunct appointments and returned full-time to archaeology, my first interest. I have received honors for teaching and research and involved dozens of undergraduate students in published research. View my complete profile"
@tony says the guy who believes in a fairy tale, lol. I don't believe in evolution , it is not a mindless belief, I educated myself, I read books, I watched videos about evolution and creationism and realized that evolution makes a lot more sense than creationism. Same way why I think the earth is a sphere and not a disk, I used my judgment.
I like how Hovind claims that an explanation which requires changes in the laws of physics, multiple changes in the conditions of the universe and earth, and an acceptance that most of the explanations and data from the accumulated scientific knowledge is false can be considered as reasonable an explanation as evolution.
The Bible declares evidences that are consistently proven through science, which were otherwise unknown to science, yet perfectly understood by the writer (or inspiration thereof) yet science consistently proves itself more questions, that cannot be answered, dismeriting its self. The simple fact that information is lost through generational copying, lends dismerit to the thesis of macro evolution. The inherent word of the creator stands the most debated and contested declaration in all of history yet it has stood the test of time as being true, and accurate. How many times must data be tested and observed before its understood as fact? Seems to me the skeptical side of this argument has itself declared the Bible to be fact.
@@truthseeker134 seriously? Even after seeing this botched attempt by Kent getting owned over and over again in regards to his ignorance of geology and other things of that nature?
@@pragashmvasudewan5333 And what about the fairytale that we came from a monkey, who came from a rock, who came from a star that came from nothing?!?..... Either cars, trains and planes are real OR evolution is real. They cant both simultaneously exist because one of these violates the laws of physics. In fact out of the 600+ fields of science, biology is the only one that requires you to ignore the law of entropy specifically so they can pretend evolution could be possible. Its a bogus theory designed to give atheists comfort. Everytime your car starts in the morning, its a glaring reminder that darwin was a fool.
@@chrisneale2036 The laws of thermodynamics. You cant have evolution unless the laws of thermodynamics is untrue. But you cant have airplanes and combustion engines unless thermodynamics are true. One has been demonstrated to work billions of times per month, the other ( evolution) has NEVER been tested nor demonstrated. Evolution is the only "science" that requires you to ignore all the other sciences and technologies for it work in a hypothetical vacuum. I believe in God because i straight up lack the MASSIVE amount of faith required to believe in your provably bogus religion.
I just luv how Kent can be seen “jotting” things down? Like he can put anything together based on real Science vs his pre made twisting of trying to force Science in the Bible? He starts off all his talks with the incredible lie that he has a Science Education? No, he does not. His degree is in Theology and was from Patriot University, which I believe is no longer in business.
Well Hovind will use his go to stunt, lie to his followers and say he won this debate, and of course they will believe him. Actually there are some bristol cone pines that are over 6000 years old.
+Cleo Fierro - He "never got his ass kicked" because he denies the definition of science (proven successful in the last 400 years) that all scientists use. As Dr. Scott said, Hovind uses his own imaginary, restricted version of science that makes his world view compatible with it. Hovind's claim that evolution is not science completely rests on his false definition. If you applied Hovind's f'd-up philosophy to criminology, many criminals would be free and innocents would be in jail because there were "no eye witnesses" and indirect evidence is not allowed. That is pure insanity.
@ Cleo... So you know Genie Scott... tell me... what's she like? Is she as smart as she seems to be or is that just an act? And is she as tall as she looks... I like tall women. Does she play the tuba? I also like women who can play any kind of wind instrument. No Hovind doesn't believe in anything being over 6000 years old, nor anything surviving the "flood" (except Noah, his family and the animals he had on board the ark), he disclaimed the counting of tree rings saying that people who use that method of dating trees are in error (but he didn't say why). You must of missed that video, but I'm sure you can order it though you'll have to get it from Eric since he absconded with dad's business while Kent was in prison.
idk how he got his but kicked when he discredited everything she said. and every time he tryed to answer she kept talking. but evolutionists always play games poor losers i guess.
8:20 Genie: "What evidence would make you question creationism?" Hovind: "Ah yes evolutionism is NOT science" Can't get off the script for even a moment, eh? He hasn't changed much XD
No flood causes gradient deposit. There were massive floods about 6000 in black Sea and there was a massive flood event about 10000 years ago in North America. There is layers of similar material separated by other layers. So some mud waited for other deposits to fall and put a little mud down and waited for additional layers. You sure are making that mud to be intelligent to wait on different depoaits.
@Kenneth Actually, the flood could do that because of the force of the water pulling back. It would cut through the layers easily because they were still soft and wet.
@Kenneth Common sense would tell you that those animals were buried in those layers because they were contained in those sediments as they laid into the layers they formed.
Macro-evolution is a faith-based belief clothed in scientific terms. Get it out of science class until someone demonstrates it in a scientific experiment. This really isn't complicated. People need to stop overthinking this. Science class is for teaching what can be demonstrated scientifically.
That's exactly why evolution as a whole must be teached to kids in schools it is an evidence based theory. Every "point" Kent Hovind makes is based on a misrepresentation of the Evolution theory.
@@felipelaverde5164 Can you tell me any other supposedly "scientific" theory that relies 100% on an imaginary faith-based process that has never been observed like Macro-evolution? Many falsely believe Macro-evolution has been observed because they're conflating it with speciation. But theyre not the same thing.
@@lightbeforethetunnel Before I respond to any of your claims i want u to define Macro evolution as we may be working with different definitions and that will lead to nowhere.
that is 100% a bullshit lie. Genetic drift, genetic heritability, gene recombination, mutation, natural selection -- those are the general mechanisms for evolution. They are all well understood and observed. Evolution is the result of all those things happening over time. Evolution has been documented and observed directly, as well as pieced together from fossil records and genetic analysis. You people don't even have an actual definition of "macro-evolution," much less an explanation for why evolution supposedly stops or where it does -- you just insist there is some arbitrary limit and call it a "kind," which conveniently vague enough to be whatever you need it to be. And you base this *entirely* on the fact that you need evolution to magically stop happening at a some point or creationism doesn't make any sense. You claim evolution is faith-based while your argument is convenience-based. Stop moving the goalposts over and over again whenever the evidence proves you wrong. Have some fucking integrity.
The best part of this debate,Ken Hovind:"There were kangaroo fossils found in Africa... Genie Scot: No there wasn't!" PWNED!!! Why would he say that, its like he just panicked.
I've asked myself the question of what you know kind of data would make a creationist not believe in creation and I think a possible answer to that could be seeing a species change into a different clade?
@@crazyeyedme4685 From what I understand, when a population speciates, it creates a new clade. Like if you had a mutation that set you apart from your parents and then this trait became passed down to your children, that could be the start of a new clade. But don't quote me on this, I have only a rough understanding of these concepts.
Kent is too stubborn and narcissistic to ever be able to admit that he's wrong. His real education was two years of community college, he's basically uneducated. If you went to college you are more educated than Kent.
Aaron Kellett your the only uneducated one if you believe life came from a rock after raining on them for millions of years. What a joke, abiogenesis is impossible
Abiogenesis doesn't teach that life came from rock. Rock doesn't make the chemical elements, and the chemical elements conducive for life do not come from rock. You have bought into Kent's lies hook, line and sinker. Life has not always existed. Life from non-living materials is a logical necessity.
@@Poppy_and_Samson Stupid for following science? Stupid for not falling for Hovind's fetid nonsense? Stupid for stopping Hovind from embarking down his BS pathways?
@@ozowen5961 The lady's evidence was a lion and tiger can mate. Aren't both cats? Then she says there could be a common ancestor for a lion and butterfly if u go back far enough. Her evidence is "could be". Gotta love the science of "could be"
Lol... You're far too easily swayed by the side you *want* to win in a debate. Logically speaking, Hovind has won every debate he's ever done... until someone actually demonstrates Macro-evolution in a scientific experiment. Until then, he's objectively correct that Macro-evolution is just a faith-based belief clothed in scientific terms.
All you fools that mention that kent has no scientific background and understanding explain this. How is it, that this man has debated all of these "professors" and he gives a great fight and even makes them choke on their own laws and theories? I mean, if he's a joke why do they even bother with him?
He does not put up a great fight except in the eyes of people who know very little about science. People debate him (before he was in prison) to debunk dangerous psuedoscientific beliefs.
Scott Devlin Let's say you're right. Let's say you have to be a fool to believe in creationism, did the kids (who started believing in evolution) in elementary school and high school have a good grasp on the required information to come to the evolutionary conclusion? Or did they have faith in what teachers and textbooks spoke to them? Same thing for kids in sunday school, did they know enough about history and what have you to believe in creation? Or did they have to accept someones word in faith first? I guarantee you, if you take 90% of the people who believe in evolution, you will see they had faith first before studying. If you take 90% of the people who believe in creation, they had faith first before studying (or praying, or whatever). The origin of life is often decided in our minds before we study, and I'll bet its true for you too. In order for us to stop this stupid back and forth crap, we need to drop our pre conceived faiths, be wiling to be wrong and go back and study and look. And in my humble, unbiased opinion, I really doubt that you taken enough look into both sides. I was born and raised christian, and I still let myself question it and looked deep into the evolution theory and all I see is perpetual faith in the unknown and putting assumptions up, like hanging meat on a skeleton, and evolution repeatedly comes up to be a religion just like christianity.
evolution takes place over millions of years in theory, so it can't be proved because we won't have the time to observe a species change to another species (til the point where they can't crossbreed)
jordan huguet "if you take 90% of the people who believe in evolution, you will see they had faith first before studying" - How is that relevant? It is evidence, not personal opinion or authority, that objective conclusions are based on. "we need to drop our pre conceived faiths, be wiling to be wrong " - Science advances by provind ideas wrong. For instance, at the beginning of the 19th century, scientists expected to find evidence for a global flood and a young Earth. Instead, they found an old Earth and many floods. - That's why we have science. A system that, by design, rules out bias and discards ideas that don't work or don't fit - regardless of how much we like them or how good they make us feel. Scientists are not immune to bias, but they are trained to be objective, and they overwhelmingly follow the evidence - whereever it leads. " evolution takes place over millions of years in theory, so it can't be proved" - The validity of evolution is not dependant on observing large changes directly. It is the converging lines of evidence from independent fields of study that corroborate common ancestry. "we won't have the time to observe a species change to another species " - We observe speciation ad nausem in nature. Here are dozens of observed instances: - www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html "I was born and raised christian" - Nobody is born a Christian. That's like saying "I was born a Democrat". You're born an atheist, and are taught theism. - In my humble opinion, there are only 2 types of people in the world. Those who accept evolution, and those who do not yet understand it. "evolution repeatedly comes up to be a religion" - Please, show me how evolution and religion are similar. Then, I'll show you how they are different, and we can compare.
I don't take you as seriously now that you through my "born and raised christian" comment so literal. I discovered that if I believe it with such fervor, I aught to be able to find truth to back it up or I could be fooled a thousand times over. I can't help you see the religion in it beyond these: We haven't observed creatures literally evolve from one species to a completely new one that cannnot mate with another. We haven't observed enough to be certain that rocks can produce life, given billions of years. There's too many religious jumps that scientists and followers of the religion of evolution, and you don't even see it. You'd need to be a geneticist to even make a claim that there is literal proof of it, lets be honest. And even then, it wouldn't do any good. Don't be afraid, there's analogy in this world shown to us thru many different languages. Blue pill or red pill. People who do not want to believe the world is run by a small hand full of sycophants would rather live in a bubble, and they'll stay there until it pops or someone wakes them up. What we learn in public school can't be 100% truthful, there's evidence of lies being kept in textbooks for generations because it costs too much to print new books and hey, if you take all the lies out of the books, nothing holds up the evolution theory. I can't believe the amount of time I've spent talking to some random stranger... wow lol, I'm done. Do yourself a favor, do what i did, pretend you are a believer of the opposition, and search what you'd search if you did. I spent a lot of years looking at stuff through evolutionary perspective, I haven't found anything beyond religious in believing it though. Pretend you are a bible believer, look and see if there is evidence of giants or creations that only giants could create, or evidence of a global flood. Watch kent hovinds creation series.
Atheist's never want to admit that they are a religion. This particular atheist keeps interrupting Dr. Hovind. Therefore changing the subject quickly when he's trying to make a very valid point. Like always Dr. Hovind stays calm and respectful. Great work Dr. Hovind.
10:30 When Kent says that you can't scientifically know how old something is if you didn't witness it being created, I'd like to know: Why can police determine how old a body is, even when they didn't see the murder take place? Why can we determine how old a tree is when we didn't plant it?
@@5thdimension_adri628 Creationists argue for unknowability because they want to drag everything down to the level of speculation because they think it puts them on equal footing.
They can't "know" how old a dead body is, actually. They can only make educated guesses based on certain methods that involve assumptions. The methods they use for estimating how long a body has been dead are much, much more accurate and precise than the dating methods used for guessing about how old ancient rocks and fossils are, for example. The two methods can't really be compared like this. The methods for old rocks and fossils are actually provably inaccurate. For example, they've witnessed a rock form from lava... and then dated it when they knew it was 10 years old. The method said it was 380,000 years old.
@@lightbeforethetunnel I didn't say "know", I said "determine". When you make a "determination" there is always a degree of error. Saying that dating bodies is more accurate than rocks is really a ludicrous statement. A dead body only lasts a few years, while a rock can potentially last for billions of years. What margin of error do you find acceptable with a dead body? Each radiometric dating method has a range of dates that it is usable within, which is why multiple methods are used to cross-reference each other and ensure that an accurate result has been derived. You've referenced igneous rock dating, but you didn't mention what method was used that provided an incorrect date. Some of these methods are used for igneous or metamorphic rocks, and some are used for sedimentary rocks. If you use carbon 14 dating on a piece of metamorphic rock, you're obviously going to get an inaccurate result.
She says that the "whole of grand canyon could not be laid down by water" and yet you better believe she thinks the Colorado river made the Grand canyon over millions of years....Even though the top of the canyon is 8,000 feet above sea level....and the place where the river enters the canyon is 2,000 feet above sea level...So basically she believes that river flowed 6,000 feet uphill for millions of years....
actually it's very well explained and supported, it's called uplift. You look like a young girl, please don't waste your life believing nonsense of the Hovinds, AiG, Ray Comfort and all the others, you will be on the wrong side of history.
what an amazing woman. She owned this whole conversation. hovind kept contradicting himself and she called him out each turn. He became very uncomfortable as the interview went on.
Here is the link to "Dr" Hovind's first "doctoral dissertation" wikileaks.org/wiki/Young-earth_creationist_Kent_Hovind%27s_doctoral_dissertation It's good for a laugh.
That joke passes for a doctoral dissertation? Hahahahaha. I never heard of "plate tatonics", and what does the word "tentable" mean? This isn't a dissertation, it's a first draft of the script for his road show, poor grammar and all. There are no citations or references, just speculation and unscientific assertions backed by nothing. If he was in 10th grade, I'd give him a C- on a good day.
She totally dismantled his BS! It's sad this man still spews the same script misrepresenting science so he can fleece is followers for the their money.
yes, he should also be called out on that every time he mentions it. he has no scientific credentials, he has a PhD in philosophy, which he bought from the unaccredited Patriot Bible College, he has claimed that he lost his copy of his doctoral dissertation but you can google it an have a read. but beware it is not an easy read, not that it's content is testing but it is so badly written, its difficult to believe he even graduated high school. To repeat he has no scientific qualifications whatsoever but sets himself up as multi field expert. when he says he "taught high school science or 15 years" what is on the record is that between 1976 and 1989 he was a "teacher" in unaccredited church schools, some of which he set up himself. He is a complete charlatan, nothing more than a snake-oil salesman.[stonesbonesblogspot.co.uk/2013/kent-hovinds-resume-derived-from-court.html] Hovind also claims to have a number of other doctorates, but presents no evidence.
Kent is doing what he always does, lying for Jesus. The link provided by Thomas Carroll in an earlier comment is not working for me, but I think I have found a working equivalent: stonesnbones.blogspot.ca/2013/05/kent-hovinds-resume-derived-from-court.html
@@mikewilliams4717 The fairytale is Evolution, TIME is your creator, you belive in, NOT even realizing it when scientific evidence point in the other direction. A single DNA molecule couldn't be produced in laboratory. Biogenesis just don't happen, even not if you want to force it. Do your homework in polymer chemistry. Another point is the information theoretic point, with mutation you SELECT FROM what's there, you don't magically GENERATE new information which WE NEED to get new specified life forms. JUST DON'T work. Why are sea shells found on Mount Everest? How does materialism explain morality or that math works?
Most people that Hovind debates never have the attitude or charisma to go against his smart ass ego. But this lady wasn't having it lol. She shut him down!
Just caught Kent in a lie, ground based parallax can measure to 100 at seconds which is about 300 light years but we also have measuring techniques that conform to all of these measurements and have unlimited range such as apparent-absolute magnitude measurements (can't remember the correct term), which compares the absolute magnitude of a stars luminosity, as determined via the thermal signature of a star, and apparent magnitude, as determined by looking up at the star, this incidentally agrees with all parallax measurements and has no maximum or minimum range, not to mention at the time of recording they already had satellite telescopes in larger orbits around the sun increasing parallax range even further, today the furthest parallax is now about 300,000 light years
![The Origin of Life: Evolution vs. Design [Full Debate]](/img/n.gif)
It’s amazing to see how Kent has literally not changed a single one of his talking points for decades now. It’s the same here as it is in his most recent “debate”, the exact same.
Truth don’t cy
Ryan Welke I wouldn’t call anything he says as truth, by any stretch of the imagination.
@@TheMindIlluminated And that’s exactly why you get all butthurt about it
"would either be open too change?" Kent response "yes I would" 🤦😂😂 he has lost every debate and never has any one been is so wrong about every thing yet he's still sprouts the same nonsense for 💰 Kent is a real pos.
@@JaredLeitch Kent wants you to have a wonderful eternity with God.
You want a trashed eternity.
"I'm against supporting it with my tax dollars."
To support anything with ones tax dollars, one would have to be paying their taxes, MR. Hovind.
I'm against ignorance. I would be stupid if this woman was teaching me in college. She's a rude, arrogant liar.
Jesus Saves Believing in 'creation science' is the practical definition of ignorance. Neither you nor Mr Hovind understand what science is.
kamaka71 tell me what evolution has to do with science. I took biology and chemistry . That's science.
Jesus Saves Well, I studied evolution in biology class, so evolution IS science by your own definition. :]
On a side note, I never said that evolution is science (even though it is) I only asserted that believing in creation science is ignorant. Reading your reply, it makes me wonder if you actually comprehend the english language.
kamaka71 you studied the myth. That's fine. I think any neutral observer who listens to all the debates on this subject, can clearly see there is zero evidence for this stupid religion you call a science. It's not only stupid, it's a hindrance to science.
When you begin with a conclusion and move the goal posts to accommodate for that, you have left the realm of science.
Which evolutionist move the goalposts all the time
No, we don't. Creationists have never bothered to learn what evolution means. Everything you say about it is wrong, and when we correct your mistakes you accuse us of lying.
@@chucklesdarwinwaswrongevol9264 Learn what evolution is, then comment.
ozowen I know what the dumb evolution theory teaches
@@chucklesdarwinwaswrongevol9264
Oh spare me your vapid bullshit. You have no idea what it teaches.
You assume you know it, but on another thread you have said the stupidest things and assumed they were what the Theory of Evolution teaches.
Just because you think you are right doesn't mean you are right.
Your assumptions are incorrect and repeating the claim that you understand it just makes you look like a cretin and likely a liar.
28 years later, and Kent hasn't changed a syllable of his script.
such is the nature of truth.
@@DavidLeeMenefee No, it's not. The nature of truth is to grow and become more precise. Our understanding of gravity has changed and improved. Our understanding of particle physics has improved. Our understanding of the lifespans of stars has improved.
Religion does not do this.
@@SilientShadow The reality of change is a "FACT", Truth is transcendent of fact: fact (1 ): today you would say that it is raining, but the truth of the matter is that it does not rain every day.
@@DavidLeeMenefee Hovind doesn't know if it's raining or not. He read something 40 years ago that said there was weather, and he just spends his life telling everyone that he knows what the weather is.
@@SilientShadow Really? and you believe this?
Kent Hovind never comments the fact that you never find modern forms of fossils in the same layer as ancient forms. Never a giraffe was found next to a dinosaur. That fact alone destroys young creation theory.
Correct. The fossil record and layers completely destroys the worldwide flood myth.
Jeff Hart there is no fossil record. Also chicken prints and human footprints were never found the same rock strata. Does that prove humans never lived with Chickens? Your a pack of fools all of you
Do fossils exist? Then of course the fossil record exists.
Listening to too much Kent Hovind has made you scientifically illiterate.
@@taegotkash yes there is. Also, human and chickens haven't been around long enough to have fossils. We *literally* created chickens by manipulating evolution.
@@unnamedenemy9 No wrong. Humans have always lived with dinosaurs
Kent has never looked dumber in a debate talking about kangaroos making their way to Australia 😂.
So you related to a dragonfly somehow right? 🤣
@@EIWPmedia good job deflecting 👍, but yes simpleton, if you take it back far enough all life is related. Sorry you can’t cope with reality.
@@EIWPmediaWhy are all the marsupials all found in one isolated part of the world in the different ecological niches if they were uniquely created?
He keeps clumping the "big bang" and abiogenesis with the theory of biological evolution . He does this a lot , WLC does it too, makes 20 points about vastly different subjects which makes it hard to answer him coherently. Good debating tactic when facts aren't an issue for you.
+Nobby Strummit its why youtube has embarrassed hovind. they can dissect those 20 points he makes and prove him wrong.
Lol
Genie is a beast of knowledge and intelligence! Hovind can't handle such facts she brings. Game over
The only thing I like about this video is the comments are not disabled.
The most amazing thing with these people is that can argue their side based on a page or two in a 2000 year old book. In spite of the huge amount of evidence against it...AND... They absolutely love the sciences that work for them, but when it screws with that book of theirs, it becomes a scientific conspiracy against the tithe. That's what the debate is actually about.
I had to laugh when the radio host said, 'both of you have scientific backgrounds".......
Wrong! Genie Scott has a scientific background.......Kent Hovind received his "degree" from Patriot University which is a diploma mill that gives mail order courses in christian education..
+RuleofFive I'm so glad you said that. Kent Hovind's scientific background is a big hoax propagated by Ken Hovind himself and his poor brainwashed followers.
+kristabella222 I agree with you. He is a frustrating guy to listen to but because he's a good public speaker and humorous, Christians seem to ignore the fact that he doesn't have a clue as to what he's talking about.
+RuleofFive That's right! Saddle up, lil doggie! You're off to the wild, wild west! Into the glorious sunset of popularity, rather than intellectual sincerity! I've heard Genie Scott say that what she's cramming down peoples throats with vicious, unbridled, dogmatic human authority (not that you and many others like you don't have your eyes closed and your gullets wide open, while mama Genie regurgitates Daddy Darwin's pre digested Galapagos finches to you) is a scientific fact, rather than their accepted model of the origin and creation of every living thing! But it doesn't take a genius to figure out the fact that one kind of life must be able to transcend its kind and become a different kind in order for that to be true! So, if it's a fact? Not just a belief? Then name one instance of macro evolution! Man has been experimenting for years on just that subject! Yet here we are 100's of years later and all we've discovered is that it does not happen under any circumstances. You say it's a fact! And you may even believe it's a fact! But the fact is it doesn't happen! That makes you and your genius "scientific" Genie absurdly incorrect on the very thing they're heralding as the god's honest truth! That, my friend, is hypocrisy. And as for your ignorant assessment of what qualifies a teaching degree? The only reason you're saying that is because you heard it somewhere and it sounded good to you. So you assumed it was true! That's ignorant hypocrisy! That's where Genie Scott has led you, so far! Believing things that science has proven false 100's of years ago. Attacking those who are just trying to get you to think! And ending up an ignorant, pious hypocrite...Evidence does not lie!Write out the question of origins... the creation story in your own words! Think about what really had to happen for all of this to become a reality!Stop listening to people and start looking at the evidence with an open mind!What has the power to create everything from nothing?What has the power to arrange a vast amount of diverse molecules into a unique, fully equipped, procreative anatomical design, then breath a living conscious, intelligent life into it? Was the creator of humanity a single cell? If so, what scientific facts are you basing that on? Face it! You heard this stuff was true, so you just accepted it without ever really thinking about the glaring inconsistencies in their stories! You probably don't dare scrutinize what they're teaching. God forbid you realize the fatal flaws in their logic! Where would that leave you! If nature cannot explain your true origin? Then what does explain it!Of course, you already know the answer to that question. Life has explained that to you long ago! It is designed to elaborate on just that question! God's done His part to instruct your heart, mind and spirit everything you need to come to a saving knowledge of your Creator. But you have a physical, emotional and intellectual responsibility to align yourself with Truth. The Truth. And you know who that is, as well. You believe in evolution? Evolve! Act, by faith, on what you know to be true! Ignore what you're told is true! Then you will have the unique satisfaction of an objective foundation for your beliefs!
+lederereddy
Yes the scientific theory of evolution is an accepted fact. Genie Scott isn't the only one that says it.....any credible scientist knows its the basis for the study of biology. Now Kent Hovind doesn't understand it because he never studied science.
There is no macro/micro evolution there is just evolution. Evolution amounts to small changes in organisms over time due to environmental pressures. If there's enough changes in one species then we would have speciation. The newest generation might not be able to mate with past generations. Homo Sapiens would not be able to mate with Homo Erectus yet we do have the DNA of Neanderthals.
Kent Hovind is not trying to get people to think he's evangelizing and trying to get people to convert. Evolution is correct. If you take a vaccine then you've benefitted from human understanding of evolution. Viruses mutate and we know this and so vaccines must change to keep up with them or they wouldn't work.
BTW I'm an atheist and immune to God threats.
RuleofFive Right, he's just a fast talking con man. I wonder if he really believes the crap that comes out of his mouth. He's making quite a nice living off the money of gullible people. He's either very shrewd and ruthless or so blinded by his delusions that facts are meaningless.
I love debates. Why won’t no one debate me?!! 🙋🏽♂️
Hovind is to BS, what Mozart was to music, what Shakespeare was to poetry, what Plato was to philosophy and what Einstein was to modern physics.
That is a beautiful analogy.
Shakespeare's last will and testament: "My Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ."
Read Kent Hovind's 'One Blood.' Genetics/biology demonstrates that there is only one human race. Evolution teaches racism, that there are 'evolved' races and less evolved. Just a few years after Darwin's 'Origins' Australian Aboriginals were killed as species of 'missing links' and sent to England. One event: dozens of men, women, children were massacred by police. 45 skulls boiled down, and the best 10 sent to UK. Hitler applied Darwinism to his ideology of madness.
The Bible records there is only one human race. Genetics proves that that first human male and females lived not more than 5,000 years ago: 1000 Human Genomes Project. This is a secular project, btw. This also demonstrates that with the 100 or so mutations passed to each generation resulting in eventual extinction of the human race, mutations cannot be the mechanism for 'evolving.' With each generation, the gene pool degrades. The very opposite of evolution's 'upward mobility.' The 2nd law of thermodynamics > entropy: order to disorder. There is no exception. Again, evolution teaches disorder to order. Contrary to this great scientific law.
There is no evidence that species morph into others. All remain within their 'kinds' just as the Bible records. Just as true science proves. No exceptions.
There is no evidence that chemicals or accidents, etc. create life. The law is life begets life. Pasteur and others proved this. There is no 'law of abiogensis' or spontaneous generation. Biogenesis is proven, again and again, no exception.
@@foreveragainOK Everything... EVERYTHING... you WROTE here is a lie. Go get aquanted with science and stop spouting lies, Hovind is a proven liar and a fraud. You didn't even research Shakespeare's will to check for his wording, you just did the Christian lying trick and made it up.
You are in a sick cult and the likes of Hovind love you and your money.
@@foreveragainOK You're a fucking idiot.
foreveragainOK oh no don’t say one animal morphs into another the magic ingredient is that it took millions and billions of years for one animal to change into another. You’re making it seem less bullshit than it really is.
And…the first thing out of Kent's mouth is a lie. He was NEVER a science teacher, high school or otherwise.
You are the liar.
AstroRex if Kent is so dumb about science why does he make so many evolution professors and teachers look like idiots ?
He doesn't. He makes himself look stupid by demonstrating how ignorant he is of basic biological processes.
Each debate is an indictment of Kent's ignorance.
Aaron Kellett dude scientists believe life arose from non life. Abiogenesis aka spontaneous generation. Never had been observed. Your the one ignorant of biological processes if you think life came from a rock
Unless life has always existed it means that life from non-living materials is a logical necessity.
If you are a Bible believing Christian you also believe in life from non-living materials.
Adam being made from dirt is life from non-life.
Genie is so much more logical than Hovind..."Dr" ya right..
Mail order degree, and a prison rap.
@IIrandhandleII OH ya... forgot those still exist
It’s always great to hear Kent dumping on religion. He may misunderstand and misrepresent evolutionary theory but one thing we can all agree on is a religion is a belief in an unbelievable premise based on scant and poor evidence.
Oh, damn him, just his voice gets on my tits so much ... I can't listen to this after all. I was going to try, but at 00:11 seconds only I realised that nearly an hour of that smarmy self-satisfied twat wittering on is more than anyone can be expected to put up with. I don't know how Genie did it.
She is rally great! Kent is just denying everything... No match!
I try to give the benefit of the doubt, but Hovind has literally no idea what he is talking about. I think at time he knows this, and uses big words on purpose to make himself feel better.
No that’s what evolutionists do
Ryan Welke well... no. What I said is true. He has no idea what he is talking about. Misinterprets revolution almost every other sentence.
Dylan Trost no he doesn’t
Ryan Welke I mean yes he does. But okay.
Ryan Welke point to one time in this debate in which he made a good point
It appears she had a lot more speaking time than him. Not fair in my opinion...
Talk sense to a fool and he will think you’re foolish. Thanks Dr Scott for tearing Ken apart
How did she tear him apart? She's retarded
That's really the right format for such debates where the people can directly address points and arguments, and not artificialy made up scripts.
It is both entertaining and excruciating to see him in debates. The fact remains that the proponents of evolution need to explain a highly complex scientific theory in a very limited amount of time to someone who tries to score points with oneliners as "if you want to believe your granddaddy was a monkey, then you are allowed to believe that, but that is religion". And what grosses me out is that there are a lot of people in the US who actually think that it is a good argument.
If Hovinds statements were correct we could never resolve a crime if it was not directly observed, if "nobody was there". DNA of a perpetrator at the crime scene? The victim's blood on the clothes of the perpetrator. Not enough according to Hovind.
I don't think these YEC’s should be debated in any forum or in any way flattered by a scientific presence ... except in court.
Yes, lies hate to be exposed.
Yeah, like the one she said about Marsupials? She was dead wrong. www.cnn.com/TECH/science/9812/02/marsupial.fossil/index.html?_s=PM:TECH
+Satire X Millennial Divergents did you even read the article? this proves evolution and is just another nail in the creatards head , look at the date you clown then look at a map of where the plates where at that time .how are these people so dumb ?
+Satire X Millennial Divergents while on the subject where are all the marsupial fossils and skeletons on there road home to Australia ??
+Michelle Campbell
I agree, but perhaps as an alternative to totally ignoring them, they should be debated en masse with Flat Earthers, Moon Landing Conspiracy theorists etc. to put things into perspective!
Here is the perfect solution: give equal time to creationism and science in the classroom, provided that science gets equal time with creationism in the churches.
+Tullius Agrippa but then people would leave Christianity and become smarter!
Moses Aaah. Problem. But it is unlikely that they would get smarter. Some can. Some can't. And they can't.
No. Creationism is religious. Not science. Evolution is science. Not religious. There are no gods. No scripture. No leaders to follow. And there is evidence for evolution. There is no evidence for creation.
I had 16 years of a Catholic education. And in the sciences, we were taught standard science: Darwin’s theory of evolution, the Big Bang Theory, the concept of deep time - essentially the same thing that one would be taught in a secular science classroom. Religious studies were a separate subject, and we weren’t taught a literal interpretation of either Genesis creation narrative (there are actually two, quite different accounts, from two different sources).
We were taught nothing resembling Young Earth Creationism, which really rejects just about everything in modern science. Hovind insists on a young Earth, but the Bible nowhere mentions this, and the writers and redactors (the editors who put the written accounts in the format that exists today) would be astonished to be told that, in early Genesis, at any rate, they were writing history or science.
There are many forms of literature in the Bible, but in early Genesis, the literary for, is mythical - a story which is not literally true, but which conveys deeper truths and meanings. The use of stories to convey deeper truths is quite common in Jewish teaching. Jesus used parables all the time, and people tend to remember stories.
At any rate, my point is that this conflict with science doesn’t exist among most Christians. It’s restricted to those fundamentalists who insist in a literal interpretation of early Genesis, and even there, they have a major problem - which of the two accounts is the “scientifically” accurate one? The six day account, where human beings were created last? Or the account where humans were created first, molded from clay, with the rest of creation coming about after? God’s role is very different, if one insists on literalism. In the six day account, God SPEAKS everything into existence. In the second account, God is anthropomorphically depicted as a potter, molding man (in Hebrew, adam) out of earth (in Hebrew, adamah), and yes, the pun is deliberate.
We know that the two original narratives are from different sources. In the seven day account, the Hebrew word “Elohim” is exclusively used for “God”. This is called, among scholars, the “E” account. In the second account, the Hebrew Tetragrammaton is used “YHWH” as the word for God. Now among Jews, this word was never to be spoken aloud. That’s why there are no vowels. A reader would substitute the Hebrew word, “Adonai” (The Lord), for that word, and more recently would use the Hebrew for “the Name”. There is uncertainty about the actual pronunciation among scholars, the current consensus is “Yahweh”, but Orthodox Jews still will not pronounce the name. Scholars refer to this source as the “J” source (Y and J are very similar consonants, and there was once a mistaken pronunciation of YHWH as “Jehovah”).
So literalists have a theological, as well as a scientific, problem. They don’t understand what they are reading, nor do they understand the mindset of the people who wrote it, and what was important to them.
In any case, in public schools, creationism has no place in a science classroom. It’s not a scientific idea which can be tested scientifically. The courts have repeatedly ruled on this. And one doesn’t need to be an atheist to understand this. I’m a Christian, and I understand this.
@Mitchell 60000000000 not at all. The bible is nothing but claims. There appears to be no evidence to back any of those claims so it cannot be used as evidence.
Dr Eugenie Scott is a stud. My freaken hero. She handled this so well. She and the moderator did an excellent job of trying to keep Hovind from from jumping from topic to topic (Gish Gallop) like I've seen him do. I would have liked to see a longer talk were Hovind was allowed to talk more and voice his beliefs but other than that I thought his was just great. Hovind's confusion of science as religion is hilarious.
Are you kidding? She sounded like a five year old by talking over the top of the host and Dr. Hovind. Interrupting repeatedly is how you show how unintelligent you are because you shouldn't be afraid to allow someone to finish their point. Notice how Kent would allow her to finish before attempting to make his point? That's respectful and shows intelligence.
She did talk over him a lot. Hovind is a hack. He doesn't understand a lot of basic science. I follow science as a hobby and he brings up issues that I could solve on the spot of the top of my head. It will be interesting to see if he gets back to his creation "science" when he gets out of jail next year.
He will be back stronger than ever and we need men like Kent Hovind to spread God's word.
I'm well versed in many sciences as well. Please explain one "issue" he brought up which you can refute on the spot. Professors will not debate him because they know he will make them look silly.
***** There are dozens of youtube vids in which hovind get as his butt handed to him, by, as you so quaintly call them, "Professors" .
***** Who's the we? The best thing Hovind has done for people like me is entertain me by saying foolish things. To that point, you've kind of done the same thing. I don't mind that he spreads the word of Gawd. No bigs. Each there own and all that mess but don't teach crap science. Evolution is real because it happened and the evidence is just what we are seeing now.
I'm sorry to post twice but damn t I'm sick of hearing Dr. When it's Kent's turn..boils my blood..lies lies..the lady Dr. Talked none stop my god whew
Pure internet gold here
That lady tore him apart😂😂😂
+DanielPrime94 More like she avoided the hard questions by changing the subject. Typical Scott.
+AboutMy FathersBusiness He's a conman and has been caught lying multiple times to support his retarted unverifiable creation theory also. I really feel bad if you watch his videos because you're probably brainwashed lol
DanielPrime94 More claims of fraud and lying with no proof.
And evolution is verifiable? Look up Abiogenesis, genius. Its not what DNA's algorithm generates, its the design of the algorithm. I rather you say Martians created us then a rock and sunlight. You people are absurd.
+AboutMy FathersBusiness Evolution is completely verifiable and we completely understand the natural processes that produce the organisms we see today. I'm pretty sure the only abiogenesis articles you have read have been creationist articles. But you know what, you're right! You're absolutely right. Man didn't come from a rock. Man was clearly made from dirt and the entire female species came from that mans rib. There's so much evidence for that!
+AboutMy FathersBusiness Also what do you mean I was lying with no proof? Are you talking about Kent Hovind being a lying conman and a criminal? Because have hundreds and hundreds of peices of info to show you that if you want
This is one of my favorites, I have watched it several times now.
Why is the audio skipping around the 34:50 mark?
I’m just feeding the algorithm.
If by "Doctor" you mean someone who has earned a doctorate from an accredited university, Hovind is not a doctor.
I don't understand why he needed/needs that accolade.
Instead of arguing about it he should actually get an accredited degree, then we'll see how long he remains a creationist 😂
@@adamboyen4727
Well, many PhDs don't believe in evolution. I suspect that you do, so facts aren't things that concern you anyway, obviously. 😉
@@7ebr830 I've heard that argument and it's less than 1% of life scientists that give any credence to creationism, that doesn't mean they believe creationism though just that they consider it, and truth means more to me than it does to Kent, he claims that stellar formation is impossible yet we've been observing stellar formations since the 90s at the latest, he claims no one knows how uranium is formed, that was solved in the 50s and verified in the 90s, he claims that cosmology and abiogenesis is a part of evolution despite no one ever claiming that, not even Darwin, he also misuses Boyles law and the law of gravity despite claiming to have multiple PHDs, he makes basic highschool mistakes that are considered unacceptable at the highschool level, must I go on
@@adamboyen4727
Truth isn't a popularity contest, bud.
Once upon a time, all the literati believed the world was flat. Those who said it was round were in the minority. Apart from all that, you seem to be in dire danger of falling for the fallacy of appeal to authority.
No, you haven't been seeing "stellar formations since the 1990s" lol. Because of UselessTube'stupid policies about links, I'm going to post four messages after this. Each new message after the first means that you should concatenate the message with a period.
Finally - and it is _finally_ from me - if Hovind is an inveterate liar, that has zero bearing on whether evolution is true or not. Next time, contradict the argument, not the man. 🙄
I object, Kent is neither a doctor nor was he a "high school science teacher". 6:46 case in point, Kent smiling and shaking his head because someone with an actual PhD is explaining to him what a scientific theory is and he thinks he knows more with his "doctoral thesis" that starts with "Hello, my name is Kent Hovind".
I know. The man is a joke and he is still spouting the same old crap that he does in this debate despite the fact that every one that he "debates" correcting him. He is not going to change his opinions because he just cannot. Carry on Hovind, you are doing a great job at making young earth creationism a nonsense. Which it is.
I've never heard that Hovind was not a high school science teacher. Anyone can say anything including Genie Scott.
The thing about it to me with creationists and atheist is that when the argument is up and going The atheist never tries to trick up the opponent with words that they didn't say and stuff like that it's always a creationists
Something about noah and his ark is puzzling me, what stopped the lions from attacking the small animals once they left the boat? Wouldnt they pretty much have attacked the dears and stuff right of the bat? :D They arent really known for being merciful..
That's all that's puzzling u about Noah's Ark??
Well, it was puzzling me if you accept god and christianity and that god made the world flood and told noah to make a boat big enough to fit all the animals etc.. that just dont add up anyways and Ive never heard any creationist explain this to me either :
Noah, was very much aware of the dangers of having animals go out all at once, just like you and me are. It really is common sense. Keep in mind, they didn't have television or other distractions back then. People back then were very much in tune with nature and the world around them and understanding animals was not a stretch. My theory is that each animal left with careful attention so that they could survive. Noah was no dummy.
Joseph Barniak so then what did the Lions eat once they were relseased? If they left the ark with "careful attention" so they "could survive", what was there to eat if everything else died in the flood? Do you know how much meat a lion needs to eat each day?
Ms2blue1pink No he doesnt, he obviously have no idea how rediculous the idea of noahs ark even is.
“I think your caller might need to talk to a minister rather than to a scientist” That’s a mortal kombat style ending blow. Savage
Savagely stupid
I've not heard that yet but if hovind said it then it's wrong.
Typical God hating answer because she did not know what he was talking about
Hovind DESTROYED these idiots
"Doctor" Hovind lol
7:30the radio host says u BOTH have scientific backgrounds..lol someone didn't do his homework..Kent isn't a Dr or scientist..why not go to a real school with a real degree recognized by the state or the world..not a cult
Creationists are always like "Everything that exists had to have been designed." You can turn that around with "Everything that exists was made from something else. Nothing we've seen on Earth has appeared from nothing." This won't get you anywhere, but it will equal out that first argument rather easily without getting stuck in that famous Hovind circle argument.
You seem to forget evolution says nothing exploded into everything. That's faith. Just like we have faith in God the designer creator. Many of your evolutionists also talk about the marvel of the engineering and design. You really need to study exactly what your own scientists say. Which this woman denies and side steps. How can you age a tree by matching it with another totally Independent tree? That's stupid.
"Evolution says nothing exploded into everything"
Citation sorely needed
@@johnmonk9297 spoken like someone who has literally *no idea whatsoever* what evolution is, or what the Big Bang theory actually is, or even what faith is, much less has any understanding of dendrochronology and the like.
And that would be fine, except you creationists aren't intelligent enough to just keep your mouths shut when you don't know much about a subject or honest enough to genuinely seek out the truth.
@@johnmonk9297 evolution says nothing about cosmology at all, you need to learn what the scientists are saying before making such a ridiculous comment, since when did an evolutionary biologist become a cosmologist??
@@adamboyen4727 you need to study evolution. this lady herself talked about the so called evolution of the planets etc Your lot call it the big bang I'm surprised you don't know about it Now for something that's really stupid Evolution says nothing exploded into everything. That's impossible and even if nothing could explode it would be like every other explosion and leave a chaotic mess not a perfectly organized fine tuned world Now this lady said a tree was 12000 years old why don't we have trees billions of years old And for the guy who said if no one sees a tree fall it's a religion That's a pathetic comment. A fallen tree can be observed for years after it has fallen But no one was around to observe the big bang there's the difference we can observe our planet but not how it came into existence we can observe a fallen it doesn't take faith to observe something it takes faith to believe what you can't see. so evolution is just like a religion
this is pure gold
The fact that we still have people discussing this in a modern world shows us that perhaps we aren't so modern.
well truth is timeless or it would'nt be truth now would it?
@Morlanius; Genie Scott here is flat out WRONG! @29:25 Genis Scott said there are 12,000 year old trees. Well actuall Until 2013, the oldest individual tree in the world was Methuselah, a 4,845-year-old Great Basin bristlecone pine (Pinus longaeva) in the White Mountains of California.
God created the universe. Satan was cast down to the earth. Satan deceives the world. People such as atheist think magic made the universe over God. Atheist discredit God as the creator of the ordered universe but instead think magic made the universe. That’s the problem people have been dealing with. Atheist think their existence was caused by mistake.
@@juniorsir9521 Satan wasn't invented until fairly recently (The KJB re-release). You would be well minded to stick to the original series rather than the spinoff.
@@morlanius if you don’t think Satan exist then it’s because you live under a rock. Satan even built his house in Rome.
You can always tell when Kent feels he is losing, as the amount of "taught with tax dollars" statement exponentially increases
Why would anyone call him a doctor. That's so insulting to the men & women who have actually earned that distinctive and respected title.
@@gaven1181no he didn't, he bought his fake doctorates from a fake university.
Kent didn't get an equal amount of time to speak. He has answers for every point made, he wasn't allowed to respond to all the things brought up
You know...I can't stand that guy, but you have a real point. I noticed that he would stop himself from talking over her. I think he was just being polite. It would be a lot better if they had been in the same room.
the charlatan never goes into detail, his childish arguments will satisfy gullible believers like those at "psychic" readings and other such nonsense, but those with an enquiring mind are amazed at the gall of the man to spout.this trash. Still he has a company business to run, selling a product that doesn't exist: Isn't that fraudulent?
*****
I can't tell if you're legit or not. So let me ask you a favor. Whatever you do, please continue researching those scientific facts that have 'showed you the way.' You should start with the basics of scientific methods, then learn the procedures used to confirm data. Then make sure you learn about how incorrect data gets corrected.
I ask you this mainly because of one single fact that Ken seems to keep bringing up: the carbon dating of a living snail. Yes, it was dated as some thousands of years old. Then, that was corrected, and the reason for the error was identified.
This is the type of follow up that Ken ignores. However, he keeps using the bad result as a claim that all results are unreliable. It's a pattern of finding what he wants to find in order to support what he's already decided is the answer.
***** I am deeply sorry your brain was scrubbed by an incredibly bold faced lie. If you want to know the truth about life you must look around, be observant. First thing to observe would be the motives of slimy individuals like kent hovind.
*****
Good for you, enjoy your fantasy, it's far easier than thinking
"Dr" Hovind, lol. I read his so called Thesis from a diploma mill. Its a joke, I wrote better papers in 8th grade.
I read his affivadit in his tax fraud case and wondering why the judge that received it did not held him for contempt of court by presenting such a kindergarten level piece of writing.
lol 😂
Listen moderator (you done a great job btw) but don't call Hovind a "Dr" lol it's an insult to proper Drs.
That's so annoying when they keep talking about Kent's degrees as if they're actually legit degrees.
I have a friend from bayou labatre in South Alabama. 9th grade education. By the time he was 30 years old, he had 100 skilled laborers and 30 mechanical engineers following his direction working for NASA.
@@crjohnson4016 That's not the point. The point is its dishonest.
Kent keeps saying that science has to be observable, testable, demonstratable. And yet he himself cannot provide such evidence for creationism. What a con.
What a con indeed.... he's now serving 10 years in the pen
put on you thinking cap Latency and start to video over.
No Juan, remove your tinfoil hat and start the video over.
I learned years ago that you can't fix stupid. Your missing the whole argument. Taxpayers are not paying for my religion to be taught. So the burden of proof is on you.
What? How is the burden of proof on me? Oh? evolution, there's already plenty of evidence. In fact, the very foundation of biology is evolution. The medical field and pharmaceuticals work reflect evolution
Nice, A real scientist debating Kent.
Lions evolved from butterflies... LOL
I like how Genie cuts through his nonsense.
Hovind has got the Gish.
Her not taking it upsets a lot of folk here... the folk that seem to think her place is in the kitchen.
The only nonsense was from Scott
If any animal turns into a different species of animal it would violate the evolutionary Law of Monophyly and therefore disprove evolution.
Kent is scientifically illiterate and lying about science to suit his own argument.
All creationists reject things that are directly observed in real life.
Aaron Kellett no that would prove the theory of evolution. You yourself said that we allegedly “evolved from lower forms” even though there’s no evidence for it
And saying we “ evolved From lower life forms “ is really no different than saying we evolved from lower kinds of animals”
Kent can't even use the word demonstrable correctly. He says "demonstratable". What is that??
He should be introduced as Mr Kent Hovind.
+StormBringer1966 even patriot university admitted calling himself 'doctor' doesn't make him one.
Genie should be introduced as a chick that likes to spew bullshit
You'll have to excuse Ryan. He's the dumbest person on the planet.
@@chimpanzeethat3802 Ha ha ha! Right!
@@chimpanzeethat3802 says someone who believes we evolved from “Lower forms of animals” even though theres ZERO EVIDENCE for it.
Dr Scott did an outstanding job of putting hovind in his place.
Big bang is not was not observable or can be duplicated. Period. You believe in a religious belief from a priest with a wild imagination.
@@EIWPmedia is Creation observable today ? Are we seeing new 🦒 animals and plants being created out of thin air today ?
@@EIWPmedia no answer ???
It bothers me whenever I hear Hovind referred to as "Doctor"
Darcy, well I think Hovind is a fuckwit, but he does have a Ph D in education, and it's legit that he's got a doctorate of philosophy.
Christa Stempel Phony PhD from a doublewide trailer, unaccredited, correspondence course, diploma mill. Here's a link to his "doctoral dissertation". It's a joke unworthy of a decent 10th grade student.
wikileaks.org/wiki/Young-earth_creationist_Kent_Hovind%27s_doctoral_dissertation
RVapes hey thanks for that - I shall look it up - what you're saying doesn't surprise me one bit.
Christa Stempel Check out this clip from Gary Hurd, a real Professor, researcher and arhaelogist. The links to referenced material are on the original I linked to at the end.
"This is a short examination of creationist Kent Hovind's phony "Doctorate," and claims of being a "high school science teacher for 15 years." Between 1976 and 1989, Hovind was the "teacher" of unaccredited church schools he often started himself. Plus, he rarely lasted long even then. I am linking this from "Big Daddy is Dead," in recognition that Hovind is essentially cited as a co-author of "Big Daddy." and nearly all of the pseudoscience found there is referenced to Hovind's video "seminars."
Hovind opens his public presentations, videos, and weirdly, his bogus dissertation with nearly the same words every time, "Hello, my name is Kent Hovind. I am a creation science evangelist. I live in Pensacola, Florida. I have been a high school science teacher since 1976." He added "I have a doctorate in Education," starting in 1991.
Kent Hovind's Teaching Experience
Recorded in Public Records 08/10/2005 at 1:30 PM OR Book Page 878, Instrument #2005406964, Ernie Less Magaha, Clerk of the Circuit Court Escambia County, FL.
"In 1972 I transferred to Midwestern Baptist College, in Pontiac, Michigan." Midwestern Baptist College is an unaccredited Bible school.
"I completed by (sic) Bachelor of Religious Education at Midwestern in 1974" Ordained by Emmanuel Baptist Church in Pontiac, Michigan, May 25, 1974.
Bethel Baptist Academy, Pekin, Illinios [1976-1978]
"I returned to Pekin, Illinois and became Assistant Pastor of Bethel Baptist Church. In 1976 the Pastor resigned and I was voted Pastor (Bethel Baptist Church). My first accomplishment as Pastor was to start a Christian school, Bethel Baptist Academy."
Faith Baptist Academy, Bourbonnais, Illinois [1978-1981]
"In 1978 my family and I moved to Bourbonais, Illinois, where I continued to minister for the Lord as a teacher."
Longview Christian Academy and Texas Baptist College, Longview, Texas [1981-1985]
"1981 we moved to Longview, Texas, where I took position teaching science and math at Longview Christian Academy and at Texas Baptist College." Today, LCA is a K-5 - 12th grade school that uses A Beka creationist curriculum. The entirety of "Texas Baptist College" is a single building that houses the dormitories, classrooms, library (if any), and laundry. Married students are forced to enroll their children in the unaccredited "Christian Academy."
Calvary Baptist Christian School, Fairfield, California [1986-1989]
"... we moved the family to Fairfield, California, where I became Assistant Pastor and principal at Calvary Baptist Christian School as well as a science teacher." This school has a current enrollment Pre-kinder to 12th grade of 59 students. The most students they ever had was 149. EVER!
East Hill Christian School, Pensacola, Florida [1989-?]. This is another church school created by Hovind.
"In 1989, I took a vow of poverty and to commit all my resources to spreading the word of God and truth about God’s hand in creation. That event gave birth to Creation Science Evangelism."
Hovind went on to boast that he was soon on the road giving lectures, sermons, and debates nearly full-time. Hovind verbally amended his biography in several videos recorded in the early 2000s to add 16 years after 1989 as a full time evangelist. In his 1991 "dissertation," Hovind claimed to be making 400 creationism presentations to schools and churches around the nation. He filed a fraudulent bankruptcy petition in 1996 claiming to have been a full time evangelist since 1989. There is also the question of "academic years, versus "calendar years." For example, Hovind's first teaching was at a church school he started in 1976 and left in 1978. That could be counted as 3 calendar years, but only 2 academic years: Sept. 1976 to June 1977, and Sept. 1977 to June 1978. Even giving Hovind the broadest interpretation, and allowing him the sham title of "science teacher," 1976 to 1989 is not 15 years.
Kent Hovind's "Doctorate"
Hovind claims a doctorate in "Christian Education." Hovind's dissertation is a bad joke written at a low high school grammar and vocabulary level. This vacuous work was sold to Hovind from "Patriot University," an unaccredited mail order degree shop.
In fact, Patriot U. has had to publish the following disclaimer regarding their "degrees."
DISCLAIMER
ACI accreditation (Accrediting Commission International which is as phony as Patriot U. and has been successfully sued for fraud) is not to be confused with regional accreditation which is governed by the U.S. Department of Education. A school or employer which requires a regionally accredited degree will likely not accept a non-governmentally accredited degree. Patriot Bible University nor ACI are responsible for a student's employability.
Student Advisory:
1. PBU's accreditation may or may not allow you to receive transfer credits to a secular school. If you are seeking a secular education degree, you would be best served to attend a secular institution. We grant Bible and religious degrees. If you hope to apply your Bible degree towards a secular degree at some time later on, the PBU courses and degrees are not likely to be fully applicable.
If you are going to seek employment with a particular church denomination or wish to transfer to a certain Christian college or university, you might confer with them first. Please consider what YOUR educational goals are.
2. A Patriot Bible University degree is recognized by many churches and ministry organizations. It will demonstrate to employers a higher level of study through the attainment of a degree. We have trained thousands of students during the last 30 years.
3. PBU's accreditation with this agency is a religious non-governmental accreditation, rather than secular - voluntary, rather than mandatory. The laws of Colorado give us the authority to grant religious degrees. The authority to grant degrees comes from the individual State, not the school's accrediting agency.
4. ACI monitors educational and religious standards for PBU, and their accreditation is accepted by many religious organizations. However, this accreditation would not be accepted by some secular organizations, as ACI is not recognized by the U.S. Department of Education as one of the seven official regional accrediting agencies.
This non-recognition may have some implications that include, but are not limited to:
1. Patriot Bible University is not eligible to participate in the Federal Student Loan/Financial Aid program.
2. Patriot Bible University is not authorized to accept the GI Bill.
3. Patriot Bible University is unable to guarantee acceptance of its degrees in other postsecondary institutions, except those also accredited by ACI
4. Corporations are not required to recognize degrees from Patriot Bible University.
(down loaded on 8 April, 2013 from Patriot U.'s website).
I downloaded Hovind's "dissertation" from wikileaks. To anyone familiar with Hovind's videos, the text will be very familiar. It is in most ways a transtript of Hovind's standard presentations. I am always impressed by how consistantly bad it is.
Kent Hovind's Current Career
Kent Hovind, Federal Prisoner Register number 06452-017, began serving a ten-year prison sentence in 2007 following his conviction on 12 tax fraud offenses, one count of obstructing federal agents, and 45 counts of illegally structuring cash transactions. He is scheduled for release from prison on August 11, 2015 after serving the minimum allowed portion of his 10 year sentence. If you have a taste for court documents, this court's reply (PDF) [link in original] to a petition filed by Jo (Mrs. Kent) Hovind gives the business structure of Kent Hovind's fortune.
Recently, Patriot Bible University has sold another doctorate to Kent Hovind. He has claimed to have gotten two masters and three doctorates in education, theology, and divinity (honorary). He now claims to have added a doctorate in "biblical ministry."
His 'dissertation' titled "What on Earth is about to happen for Heaven's Sake" is available on-line as a PDF. I think it is better to Google for a current URL in case there are copy right issues.
Obviously Kent Hovind's account of his "doctorate" and "15 years teaching high school science" are as bogus as his creationism, and tax filings. As the courts found repeatedly, the numbers don't add up. "
stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2013/05/kent-hovinds-resume-derived-from-court.html
"About Me"
" I received a doctorate in Social Science (emphasis in Anthropology) from the University of California, Irvine in 1976. For the next 10 years I was a medical researcher and professor of psychiatry leaving the Medical College of Georgia in 1985. I held numerous adjunct appointments and returned full-time to archaeology, my first interest. I have received honors for teaching and research and involved dozens of undergraduate students in published research.
View my complete profile"
RVapes
At least he did go to school in a double-wide...he could've gone to school in just any old trailer.
This is like debating a kid who still believes in Santa Claus
@tony evolution is scientifically proven unlike your fairy tale
@tony it is taught he universities all over the world.
@tony yes and communism is real, unlike your fairy tale.
@tony says the guy who believes in a fairy tale, lol.
I don't believe in evolution , it is not a mindless belief, I educated myself, I read books, I watched videos about evolution and creationism and realized that evolution makes a lot more sense than creationism.
Same way why I think the earth is a sphere and not a disk, I used my judgment.
@tony fossils, DNA, even direct observation of species with very short life span.
I like how Hovind claims that an explanation which requires changes in the laws of physics, multiple changes in the conditions of the universe and earth, and an acceptance that most of the explanations and data from the accumulated scientific knowledge is false can be considered as reasonable an explanation as evolution.
Indeed, that is an explanation for creationism
The Bible declares evidences that are consistently proven through science, which were otherwise unknown to science, yet perfectly understood by the writer (or inspiration thereof) yet science consistently proves itself more questions, that cannot be answered, dismeriting its self. The simple fact that information is lost through generational copying, lends dismerit to the thesis of macro evolution. The inherent word of the creator stands the most debated and contested declaration in all of history yet it has stood the test of time as being true, and accurate. How many times must data be tested and observed before its understood as fact? Seems to me the skeptical side of this argument has itself declared the Bible to be fact.
@@felurianmasters4369 do you still think that the Bible is an accurate representation of our history?
@@Moosemansmithy I do,
@@truthseeker134 seriously? Even after seeing this botched attempt by Kent getting owned over and over again in regards to his ignorance of geology and other things of that nature?
Especially considering his "PhD" is from a diploma mill. His "dissertation" begins with, "Hello, my name is Kent Hovind." LOL
That doesn't address any of the points he makes. Show some facts or science instead of attacking his character.
@@QuietTyro Kent believes in fairy tales like Noah’s Ark and talking snakes; why would anyone take him seriously?
@@pragashmvasudewan5333
And what about the fairytale that we came from a monkey, who came from a rock, who came from a star that came from nothing?!?.....
Either cars, trains and planes are real OR evolution is real.
They cant both simultaneously exist because one of these violates the laws of physics.
In fact out of the 600+ fields of science, biology is the only one that requires you to ignore the law of entropy specifically so they can pretend evolution could be possible.
Its a bogus theory designed to give atheists comfort.
Everytime your car starts in the morning, its a glaring reminder that darwin was a fool.
@@johnnyreb1209 What? Please tell me you're joking. What the fuck are you talking about?
@@chrisneale2036
The laws of thermodynamics.
You cant have evolution unless the laws of thermodynamics is untrue.
But you cant have airplanes and combustion engines unless thermodynamics are true.
One has been demonstrated to work billions of times per month, the other ( evolution) has NEVER been tested nor demonstrated.
Evolution is the only "science" that requires you to ignore all the other sciences and technologies for it work in a hypothetical vacuum.
I believe in God because i straight up lack the MASSIVE amount of faith required to believe in your provably bogus religion.
I just luv how Kent can be seen “jotting” things down? Like he can put anything together based on real Science vs his pre made twisting of trying to force Science in the Bible? He starts off all his talks with the incredible lie that he has a Science Education? No, he does not. His degree is in Theology and was from Patriot University, which I believe is no longer in business.
is this pre or post penitentiary ?
Funny how Kent Hovind actually recorded his ass being kicked.
Well Hovind will use his go to stunt, lie to his followers and say he won this debate, and of course they will believe him. Actually there are some bristol cone pines that are over 6000 years old.
+Cleo Fierro - He "never got his ass kicked" because he denies the definition of science (proven successful in the last 400 years) that all scientists use. As Dr. Scott said, Hovind uses his own imaginary, restricted version of science that makes his world view compatible with it.
Hovind's claim that evolution is not science completely rests on his false definition.
If you applied Hovind's f'd-up philosophy to criminology, many criminals would be free and innocents would be in jail because there were "no eye witnesses" and indirect evidence is not allowed. That is pure insanity.
@ Cleo... So you know Genie Scott... tell me... what's she like?
Is she as smart as she seems to be or is that just an act? And is she as tall as she looks... I like tall women. Does she play the tuba? I also like women who can play any kind of wind instrument.
No Hovind doesn't believe in anything being over 6000 years old, nor anything surviving the "flood" (except Noah, his family and the animals he had on board the ark), he disclaimed the counting of tree rings saying that people who use that method of dating trees are in error (but he didn't say why).
You must of missed that video, but I'm sure you can order it though you'll have to get it from Eric since he absconded with dad's business while Kent was in prison.
She's a browbeater also.
idk how he got his but kicked when he discredited everything she said. and every time he tryed to answer she kept talking. but evolutionists always play games poor losers i guess.
This is the best I’ve ever seen Kent handled! This has to be early in his ministry, because this wasn’t nearly as polished!
It was polished alright. The problem is, when you polish a piece of shit, no matter how good it looks, it's still a piece of shit.
@@Fred-hk7wk facts and she didn’t let him escape or get emotional. Kent plays to these emotions.
@@Fred-hk7wk am sure Kent has learned to polish the knob a lot better over the years
Kent has never won a debate. Cognitive dissonance at it's finest.
He did
@@EIWPmedia Nope. Kent got his butt kicked by Genie. Kent thinks the earth is 6000 years old lol
Define religion then ask hovind about his so-called degrees and how he got them.
8:20 Genie: "What evidence would make you question creationism?"
Hovind: "Ah yes evolutionism is NOT science"
Can't get off the script for even a moment, eh? He hasn't changed much XD
You just can't handle the fact that you don't know shit either do ya fucktard?
@@ryanashbaugh4974 You wouldn't be able to attend college
flood cannot deposit hundreds of different rock layers of grand canyon and then simultaneously cut through those same rock layers.
yes it can!
No flood causes gradient deposit. There were massive floods about 6000 in black Sea and there was a massive flood event about 10000 years ago in North America. There is layers of similar material separated by other layers. So some mud waited for other deposits to fall and put a little mud down and waited for additional layers. You sure are making that mud to be intelligent to wait on different depoaits.
@Kenneth Actually, the flood could do that because of the force of the water pulling back. It would cut through the layers easily because they were still soft and wet.
You forgot to add separate animals into different layers.
@Kenneth Common sense would tell you that those animals were buried in those layers because they were contained in those sediments as they laid into the layers they formed.
Macro-evolution is a faith-based belief clothed in scientific terms. Get it out of science class until someone demonstrates it in a scientific experiment. This really isn't complicated. People need to stop overthinking this. Science class is for teaching what can be demonstrated scientifically.
That's exactly why evolution as a whole must be teached to kids in schools it is an evidence based theory. Every "point" Kent Hovind makes is based on a misrepresentation of the Evolution theory.
@@felipelaverde5164 Can you tell me any other supposedly "scientific" theory that relies 100% on an imaginary faith-based process that has never been observed like Macro-evolution?
Many falsely believe Macro-evolution has been observed because they're conflating it with speciation. But theyre not the same thing.
@@lightbeforethetunnel Before I respond to any of your claims i want u to define Macro evolution as we may be working with different definitions and that will lead to nowhere.
that is 100% a bullshit lie.
Genetic drift, genetic heritability, gene recombination, mutation, natural selection -- those are the general mechanisms for evolution. They are all well understood and observed. Evolution is the result of all those things happening over time.
Evolution has been documented and observed directly, as well as pieced together from fossil records and genetic analysis.
You people don't even have an actual definition of "macro-evolution," much less an explanation for why evolution supposedly stops or where it does -- you just insist there is some arbitrary limit and call it a "kind," which conveniently vague enough to be whatever you need it to be. And you base this *entirely* on the fact that you need evolution to magically stop happening at a some point or creationism doesn't make any sense. You claim evolution is faith-based while your argument is convenience-based.
Stop moving the goalposts over and over again whenever the evidence proves you wrong. Have some fucking integrity.
"Both of you have scientific background"
WRONG!!
This moderator did a great job.
Besides allowing her to interrupt constantly
@@beachbrettf he always interrupts. He was spouting nonsense and he needed to be corrected.
Rare find nowadays it seems.
The best part of this debate,Ken Hovind:"There were kangaroo fossils found in Africa... Genie Scot: No there wasn't!" PWNED!!! Why would he say that, its like he just panicked.
Africa is pretty big man...
Were you there?
There are many kangaroo fossils found in africa
Kevin's owned him
@@spoker2006 give me an example where he owned him.
Dr. Scott respectfully wiped the floor with Hovind.
I appreciate you affirming the fact that women are better suited to do the floor wiping.
@@dr.krinkleweldon5934 Classic religious person.
@@siim605 and you? Classic leftist, irrational person controlled by emotions and not logic.
@@dr.krinkleweldon5934 Centrist. Definitely rational. You're religious, so I can safely discard your useless faith-based judgements.
@@siim605 nothing I have said has any reference to religion. So add delusional to your resume.
Great job Dr Scott ! You took Hovind to the wood shed
I like how casually she devastates him.
No fool.
Great debate. Beats watching boxing!
Yes Ole Hovind had the bejeebers out of him
he obtained his doctorates by mail-order and never taught at a school requiring accredited credentials
I've asked myself the question of what you know kind of data would make a creationist not believe in creation and I think a possible answer to that could be seeing a species change into a different clade?
By definition, a species cannot change to a different clade. That's like saying, "When will you not be related to your grandparents?"
@@SilientShadow oh.
How do clades come to be?
@@crazyeyedme4685 From what I understand, when a population speciates, it creates a new clade. Like if you had a mutation that set you apart from your parents and then this trait became passed down to your children, that could be the start of a new clade.
But don't quote me on this, I have only a rough understanding of these concepts.
@@SilientShadow me to bro lol. I don't know much and I don't do my due diligence to understand it all...
@@crazyeyedme4685 Lol, it's all good. We're just dudes on the internet.
I appreciate her attempts to educate these two guys.
And she failed
Kent is too stubborn and narcissistic to ever be able to admit that he's wrong. His real education was two years of community college, he's basically uneducated.
If you went to college you are more educated than Kent.
Aaron Kellett your the only uneducated one if you believe life came from a rock after raining on them for millions of years. What a joke, abiogenesis is impossible
Abiogenesis doesn't teach that life came from rock. Rock doesn't make the chemical elements, and the chemical elements conducive for life do not come from rock.
You have bought into Kent's lies hook, line and sinker.
Life has not always existed. Life from non-living materials is a logical necessity.
Damn. Genie Scott is a boss.
😆
Boss of the stupid
Indeed. She was one of the few at the time, who in debating Hovind, was prepared to manage his lies, misinformation and his scripted rants.
@@Poppy_and_Samson
Stupid for following science?
Stupid for not falling for Hovind's fetid nonsense?
Stupid for stopping Hovind from embarking down his BS pathways?
@@ozowen5961 The lady's evidence was a lion and tiger can mate. Aren't both cats? Then she says there could be a common ancestor for a lion and butterfly if u go back far enough. Her evidence is "could be". Gotta love the science of "could be"
He has so little self awareness that he recorded himself being totally flattened by logic and science. Way to go Eugenie Scott!
There’s nothing scientific or logical about evolution
Evolution is all speculation
Evolution is the change of allele frequency in populations over generations.
It's essentially just population genetics.
Lol... You're far too easily swayed by the side you *want* to win in a debate. Logically speaking, Hovind has won every debate he's ever done... until someone actually demonstrates Macro-evolution in a scientific experiment.
Until then, he's objectively correct that Macro-evolution is just a faith-based belief clothed in scientific terms.
35yrs and he is still spewing out the same dribble and nonesense, the script has barely changed.
All you fools that mention that kent has no scientific background and understanding explain this.
How is it, that this man has debated all of these "professors" and he gives a great fight and even makes them choke on their own laws and theories?
I mean, if he's a joke why do they even bother with him?
He does not put up a great fight except in the eyes of people who know very little about science. People debate him (before he was in prison) to debunk dangerous psuedoscientific beliefs.
Scott Devlin
Let's say you're right. Let's say you have to be a fool to believe in creationism, did the kids (who started believing in evolution) in elementary school and high school have a good grasp on the required information to come to the evolutionary conclusion? Or did they have faith in what teachers and textbooks spoke to them? Same thing for kids in sunday school, did they know enough about history and what have you to believe in creation? Or did they have to accept someones word in faith first? I guarantee you, if you take 90% of the people who believe in evolution, you will see they had faith first before studying. If you take 90% of the people who believe in creation, they had faith first before studying (or praying, or whatever). The origin of life is often decided in our minds before we study, and I'll bet its true for you too. In order for us to stop this stupid back and forth crap, we need to drop our pre conceived faiths, be wiling to be wrong and go back and study and look. And in my humble, unbiased opinion, I really doubt that you taken enough look into both sides. I was born and raised christian, and I still let myself question it and looked deep into the evolution theory and all I see is perpetual faith in the unknown and putting assumptions up, like hanging meat on a skeleton, and evolution repeatedly comes up to be a religion just like christianity.
evolution takes place over millions of years in theory, so it can't be proved because we won't have the time to observe a species change to another species (til the point where they can't crossbreed)
jordan huguet "if you take 90% of the people who believe in evolution, you will see they had faith first before studying"
- How is that relevant? It is evidence, not personal opinion or authority, that objective conclusions are based on.
"we need to drop our pre conceived faiths, be wiling to be wrong "
- Science advances by provind ideas wrong. For instance, at the beginning of the 19th century, scientists expected to find evidence for a global flood and a young Earth. Instead, they found an old Earth and many floods.
- That's why we have science. A system that, by design, rules out bias and discards ideas that don't work or don't fit - regardless of how much we like them or how good they make us feel. Scientists are not immune to bias, but they are trained to be objective, and they overwhelmingly follow the evidence - whereever it leads.
" evolution takes place over millions of years in theory, so it can't be proved"
- The validity of evolution is not dependant on observing large changes directly. It is the converging lines of evidence from independent fields of study that corroborate common ancestry.
"we won't have the time to observe a species change to another species "
- We observe speciation ad nausem in nature. Here are dozens of observed instances:
- www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
"I was born and raised christian"
- Nobody is born a Christian. That's like saying "I was born a Democrat". You're born an atheist, and are taught theism.
- In my humble opinion, there are only 2 types of people in the world. Those who accept evolution, and those who do not yet understand it.
"evolution repeatedly comes up to be a religion"
- Please, show me how evolution and religion are similar. Then, I'll show you how they are different, and we can compare.
I don't take you as seriously now that you through my "born and raised christian" comment so literal. I discovered that if I believe it with such fervor, I aught to be able to find truth to back it up or I could be fooled a thousand times over.
I can't help you see the religion in it beyond these: We haven't observed creatures literally evolve from one species to a completely new one that cannnot mate with another. We haven't observed enough to be certain that rocks can produce life, given billions of years. There's too many religious jumps that scientists and followers of the religion of evolution, and you don't even see it. You'd need to be a geneticist to even make a claim that there is literal proof of it, lets be honest. And even then, it wouldn't do any good. Don't be afraid, there's analogy in this world shown to us thru many different languages. Blue pill or red pill. People who do not want to believe the world is run by a small hand full of sycophants would rather live in a bubble, and they'll stay there until it pops or someone wakes them up. What we learn in public school can't be 100% truthful, there's evidence of lies being kept in textbooks for generations because it costs too much to print new books and hey, if you take all the lies out of the books, nothing holds up the evolution theory. I can't believe the amount of time I've spent talking to some random stranger... wow lol, I'm done.
Do yourself a favor, do what i did, pretend you are a believer of the opposition, and search what you'd search if you did. I spent a lot of years looking at stuff through evolutionary perspective, I haven't found anything beyond religious in believing it though. Pretend you are a bible believer, look and see if there is evidence of giants or creations that only giants could create, or evidence of a global flood. Watch kent hovinds creation series.
Atheist's never want to admit that they are a religion. This particular atheist keeps interrupting Dr. Hovind. Therefore changing the subject quickly when he's trying to make a very valid point. Like always Dr. Hovind stays calm and respectful. Great work Dr. Hovind.
Absolutely agree.
10:30 When Kent says that you can't scientifically know how old something is if you didn't witness it being created, I'd like to know:
Why can police determine how old a body is, even when they didn't see the murder take place?
Why can we determine how old a tree is when we didn't plant it?
He also said, you can't tell if it was young or old. So he's also saying his own theory is also untestable and cannot be known 😂
@@5thdimension_adri628 Creationists argue for unknowability because they want to drag everything down to the level of speculation because they think it puts them on equal footing.
@@SilientShadow that makes sense. Especially if your basis for your "belief" is faith. And he believes evolution is also "faith-based"
They can't "know" how old a dead body is, actually. They can only make educated guesses based on certain methods that involve assumptions.
The methods they use for estimating how long a body has been dead are much, much more accurate and precise than the dating methods used for guessing about how old ancient rocks and fossils are, for example.
The two methods can't really be compared like this. The methods for old rocks and fossils are actually provably inaccurate. For example, they've witnessed a rock form from lava... and then dated it when they knew it was 10 years old. The method said it was 380,000 years old.
@@lightbeforethetunnel I didn't say "know", I said "determine". When you make a "determination" there is always a degree of error.
Saying that dating bodies is more accurate than rocks is really a ludicrous statement. A dead body only lasts a few years, while a rock can potentially last for billions of years. What margin of error do you find acceptable with a dead body?
Each radiometric dating method has a range of dates that it is usable within, which is why multiple methods are used to cross-reference each other and ensure that an accurate result has been derived.
You've referenced igneous rock dating, but you didn't mention what method was used that provided an incorrect date. Some of these methods are used for igneous or metamorphic rocks, and some are used for sedimentary rocks. If you use carbon 14 dating on a piece of metamorphic rock, you're obviously going to get an inaccurate result.
She says that the "whole of grand canyon could not be laid down by water" and yet you better believe she thinks the Colorado river made the Grand canyon over millions of years....Even though the top of the canyon is 8,000 feet above sea level....and the place where the river enters the canyon is 2,000 feet above sea level...So basically she believes that river flowed 6,000 feet uphill for millions of years....
actually it's very well explained and supported, it's called uplift. You look like a young girl, please don't waste your life believing nonsense of the Hovinds, AiG, Ray Comfort and all the others, you will be on the wrong side of history.
+Jenna Smithers that claim has long since been debunked. I'm sure you know that, why would you post something so stupid?
what an amazing woman. She owned this whole conversation. hovind kept contradicting himself and she called him out each turn. He became very uncomfortable as the interview went on.
So satisfying to see Mr Hocind squirm and writhe under the weight of scientific reason. Genie Scott, my greatest respect to your ability and patience.
Here is the link to "Dr" Hovind's first "doctoral dissertation" wikileaks.org/wiki/Young-earth_creationist_Kent_Hovind%27s_doctoral_dissertation
It's good for a laugh.
That joke passes for a doctoral dissertation? Hahahahaha. I never heard of "plate tatonics", and what does the word "tentable" mean? This isn't a dissertation, it's a first draft of the script for his road show, poor grammar and all. There are no citations or references, just speculation and unscientific assertions backed by nothing. If he was in 10th grade, I'd give him a C- on a good day.
Ad hominem fallacies like this aren't going to win your side of the debate any favor with intellectually honest third party viewers.
@@lightbeforethetunnel Not an ad hom to point out that he's a liar and has no qualifications in the subject he claims to know better than the experts.
She totally dismantled his BS! It's sad this man still spews the same script misrepresenting science so he can fleece is followers for the their money.
He has put tremendous effort into nonsense .
He said, " You both have scientific backgrounds." HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! What a joke. I am insulted for Eugenie Scott PHD.
yes, he should also be called out on that every time he mentions it. he has no scientific credentials, he has a PhD in philosophy, which he bought from the unaccredited Patriot Bible College, he has claimed that he lost his copy of his doctoral dissertation but you can google it an have a read. but beware it is not an easy read, not that it's content is testing but it is so badly written, its difficult to believe he even graduated high school. To repeat he has no scientific qualifications whatsoever but sets himself up as multi field expert. when he says he "taught high school science or 15 years" what is on the record is that between 1976 and 1989 he was a "teacher" in unaccredited church schools, some of which he set up himself. He is a complete charlatan, nothing more than a snake-oil salesman.[stonesbonesblogspot.co.uk/2013/kent-hovinds-resume-derived-from-court.html]
Hovind also claims to have a number of other doctorates, but presents no evidence.
Kent is doing what he always does, lying for Jesus. The link provided by Thomas Carroll in an earlier comment is not working for me, but I think I have found a working equivalent: stonesnbones.blogspot.ca/2013/05/kent-hovinds-resume-derived-from-court.html
That caught my attention right off the bat what a PhD from Christian tech in truthology fuck off !! lol
bmwm3cs it’s insulting to Hovind that he mentioned genie in that same sentence
Kent is the laughing stock of the creation/evolution argument. A proven liar with no relevant training or education in any fields of science.
She absolutely railroaded him and embarrassed the hell outta him. Love to see it.
May God cause the scales to fall from your eyes Genie Scott. I pray for you and all those like you that are lost. God. Bless you. Amen.
Stop believing in fairytales, your god doesn’t exist.
@@mikewilliams4717 The fairytale is Evolution, TIME is your creator, you belive in, NOT even realizing it when scientific evidence point in the other direction. A single DNA molecule couldn't be produced in laboratory. Biogenesis just don't happen, even not if you want to force it. Do your homework in polymer chemistry. Another point is the information theoretic point, with mutation you SELECT FROM what's there, you don't magically GENERATE new information which WE NEED to get new specified life forms. JUST DON'T work. Why are sea shells found on Mount Everest? How does materialism explain morality or that math works?
@@Saribex You make no sense. Your grammar is horrible.
The reality is creationists do not care what is true.
Genie Scott does a great job explaining science. She's also good at stopping Hovind from rambling on.
Your joking she just rambles on and on inserting the occasional insult along the way without making a strong argument.
@@joshuabrzezinski2828 Hovind is clueless when it comes to science. Look into his education.
I think that Hovind got like five minutes to actually talk throughout the whole debate.
Because everything he knows about science can be summed up in 4 minutes and he needed some breathing time.
You should learn how to count.
well he usually runs out actual material after about 5 minutes and just starts repeating himself- so I don't see a problem
Yeah and he still won
How can you possibly think he won when he got all the facts wrong? The only way you can think he won is if you don't know what the facts are.
Title: her name is spelled Eugene Scott, not Genie Scott :-)
No. Her name is Eugenie Scott. Genie is short for her first name.
Eugene is a man's name.
24:30 = Kent is good at tap dancing, LMAO
Dr. Scott - huge KUDOS!!!!
Most people that Hovind debates never have the attitude or charisma to go against his smart ass ego. But this lady wasn't having it lol. She shut him down!
never**
Just caught Kent in a lie, ground based parallax can measure to 100 at seconds which is about 300 light years but we also have measuring techniques that conform to all of these measurements and have unlimited range such as apparent-absolute magnitude measurements (can't remember the correct term), which compares the absolute magnitude of a stars luminosity, as determined via the thermal signature of a star, and apparent magnitude, as determined by looking up at the star, this incidentally agrees with all parallax measurements and has no maximum or minimum range, not to mention at the time of recording they already had satellite telescopes in larger orbits around the sun increasing parallax range even further, today the furthest parallax is now about 300,000 light years
Catching him in a lie is not a major feat, but reporting each one is a worthy task.