Please subscribe to the fabulous Steve McRae, who hosted and moderated this debate on his Great Debate Community channel. Who knows? You might see more of me on there… ua-cam.com/channels/1SzlwfeQ_4-9LuV_00Efuw.html
You're too kind my friend. You did an amazing job. You keep it laser focused and didn't allow Kent to Gish Gallop or shotgun. I think this may be the start of a line of debates with the both of you, or at the very least one or two more follow ups are a must. Negation of P would like to debate Hovind on the topic of morality which would be a nice change of pace from the norm...and honestly, I would like to have another of my own engagements with Kent to continue where we left off last time I showed him why his radiometric claims were absurdly wrong. Great job KC! All hail da king Reposted under my main account.
Wow... just finished.... I think I face-palmed with you. I've found the problem with apologetics is that they forget EVERYTHING you tell them. I've spoken to street preachers and explained to them how a genetic algorithm uses randomness to achieve a goal. Amazingly when I see them weeks later... I have to explain this to them again... they'll shout: "BUT IT'S JUST ALL RANDOM!!! HOW CAN RANDOMNESS DO ANYTHING" I know the face-palm too well...
Mike V Or maybe he thinks that all the years of universal history that he denies are mysterious “dark years” that “evull-utionists” invoke to explain anything, and that only light years have been “proven” to exist.
Kent: God made the stars move away after a few minutes. KC: If that were the case, the light emitted from those stars would have been red shifted so much that we could not possibly observe the light. Kent: Your missing the point. God moved the stars away from us so we could see them. KC: You wouldn't be able to observe them because of red shift. Kent: No, your missing the point! And repeat. Saved you the hassle of having to listen to this debate, although it is very entertaining listening to KC bury Kent's ideas into the ground.
@@LisaAnn777 That is what Kent would say, and is what Kent said. Kent's explanation for this is that God is powerful enough to have made the light appear as if it had been traveling for 13 billion years. It's all very scientific.
@@spec24 yeah I know after I watched the whole video lol. which is why it's insane he calls himself someone who loves science. If you have to use magical explanations then you don't value science at all 😆 I honestly feel bad for how many people he deceives.
@@LisaAnn777 I almost lost my son to the religious crazies (mind you, I have no problem with religion itself, but the God of the Bible and the Bible, not so much), and it was Kent Hovind who turned him around! HAHAHA!!!
This crocduck character is articulate and just overall pleasant in his presentation. My higher education was, for the most part, not math/science based nor was it ever my much my forte. So it is a sincere compliment when I say he does a phenomenal job of breaking down complicated concepts to the layman. I wish I had more professors with that talent, as in my experience it was generally, ‘the bigger the egghead, the crappier the teacher. I enjoyed this discussion despite the cringe of Hovind refusing to differentiate relativity from classic Newtonian mathematics. I rarely subscribe to YT channels...but alright I’ll bite👍👍
You all obviously don’t do your own research haha have no idea what happened in the case of taxes and kent but you all think you are funny that’s what really matters here..
@@LisaAnn777 you don’t even know the facts lol anyone can become a sovereign citizen and not be held to the same as the rest but they must follow the law to a T or they will come after you when you are in the spotlight.. but you just see somebody went to prison and think that person is bad.. you are so far from the truth.. you think the court system is always just? You have much to learn..
@@LisaAnn777 do you know what becoming a sovereign citizen means? Do you know what happened when we were taken off the gold standard? We were in debt and bought out.. go do some research and find out the things they don’t want you to know about…
Kent: I will only discuss one topic at a time, stop bringing up other topics Kent, in a debate about physics: brings up evolution and the Bible every other sentence
That's what he has to do to appear to win to his followers. He needs to throw out a multitude of points so that his opponent can't possibly refute them all.
To be fair to Kent he probably knows everything he says. He would never lie or deceive. He is just never ready and in the wrong place at the wrong time in the wrong debate.... He's simply never "prepared for that"
@ James Skelton... he also dislikes zoning laws, building laws and permits, safety laws and inspection laws concerning the structures he has built and especially those pesky "structuring cash transaction" laws. He also dislikes the laws against ; threatening investigators and those cooperating with the investigators, and those laws against filing false complaints. Hovind was found guilty on 58 counts and faced a total of 288 years in prison, so he should be grateful that he only served 9... before sentencing he stood before a judge, tears flowing from his eyes, and begged for leniency saying that he was only trying to do god's work... doesn't seem Kent appreciates the leniency he received. While in prison Hovind was transferred numerous times to different cell blocks... seems no one could stand him in there either.
@Wypipo Trippin No one has to believe in evolution. You can read about evolution and see the fossils, embryological, Genetic, etc evidence for yourself.
Kent is 100% right, taxpayers should not have to pay for the religion of evolution to be taught in the schools of the USA. That 'religion' is devastating the morality of many nations.
Kent Hovind didn't give an opening statement.... he just attacked KC's opening. I think Kent needs to realize if he shows evolution is wrong, that doesn't creationism is right... it just means evolution is wrong.
Yup and Hovind has done enough debates he knows how they go. He was just so humiliated by KC's opening that he felt like he had to whine about 1) too many different subjects (BS), and then 2) try to refute with his silly evolution rant.
@@malirk There is an abundance of evidence, it is in our(christian) literature so many books are already written about the topics however your side which assume is non christian wants a bullet point run down & some of these topics are pretty in depth. I am 30 year Christian so a broad list does Exist. You just need to know how to navigate our literature and what authors to look at. My personal list is pretty big, however I didn't become Christian over logic and reasoning I became Christian over a Supernatural experience. I only follow this as a hobby. And to be honest making my list public I need to work on it and its low priority. I do have a question for you. If what we see in the NEWS is all narration as what's happening today. What is preventing the same thing happening in science?
Robert Schilling ah, "opinion with zero facts" is much different than facts you couldn't understand. So please enlighten us with your outstanding intellect, with some details about your ascertain.
ROBERT WROTE - *That opening statement was pathetic, opinion with zero facts and spewing just to spew. You guys are so brainwashed.* Perfect summary of Kent's opening. I'm wondering if Robert listened to the debate at all. KC basically gave the history of the scientific method in a nutshell for his opening. Kent literally was rambling about dogs coming from dogs and talking to farmers.
Was KC's intro complex and at a high level? Yes Was it impossible to understand? Not at all. Was Ken's intro rambling? Yes Did he make ANY points relevant to science on the age of the universe to back his claim? No
01:17:15 "Nooo, hold on Kent - are you telling me that a book full of supernatural and outrageous things said that people would be skeptical and scoffing it? Really???" I love the way you said it.
I watched this discussion and the one between hovind and Aron ra back to back. The things I have noticed in both: - kent has his talking points and he will not move from those, even if he is proven to be wrong halfway. - kent does not know a lot of stuff, but has clever ways of asking the other party to explain it to him (the "explain for an average viewer" line). He then constructs a poor strawman out of it and improves on it in the following minutes by contradicting himself and blatently lying that he said the opposite prior - In both discussions he closed with “believe what I say or burn in hell” - kent cannot accept that he is wrong. KC explained the horizon of the universe and expanding space numerus times and all very clearly (which even I as a biologist could understand). Kent cannot accept that he is wrong on even 1 point as that would break his entire “7000 slide book of evidence”. - kent has a boner for evolution, but cannot get away from “Rocks to human” bullshit. All in all, I think Kent should not be invited anymore for whatever type of serieus discussion (but it is fine if you want to create some comedy). He has been proven wrong again and again and again and again. By this point you are just validating him and his believs. His followers will never abondon him, his charisma is to great for that.
Not sure of you'll see this, but if you want to be entertained watch the Lent Hovind vs Dapper Dino debate. Manages to get Kent "Dr Dino" Hovind to admit he doesn't know what a dinosaur is.
@@lloyds7828 Kent won what? The “I don’t understand science for shit award?” Because the only thing Kent Hovind has ever proved, was that he isn’t worth listening to.
You know after all this SJW vs. anti-SJW crap that now exists literally everywhere on the internet, it's nice to take a little trip back to the atheism 1.0 days...
I was a teen back then and I learned so much science in those days. You actually had to be knowledgeable to be relevant in the community back then. We had the four horsemen: Dennett, Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris..... And now Milo Yiannopolis and Steven Crowder are somehow considered intellectuals. How the mighty have fallen.
You obviously didn't read his case. That's ok, people blindly talk about others situations all the time without the facts. Makes you the perfect puppet.
@@vickyharo469 I read his case, it was a very obvious case of tax fraud. Maybe tax fraud due to ignorance of the law, but still fraud nonetheless. If Person A steal 5000 purses and are not aware that thiefing is a crime, and he get arrested for it and then even gets explained why it is exactly a crime. Do you think that Person A still is right because he thinks that thiefing laws are bullshit? Because that is what you are, you still think Kent is correct because he gave reasons to why he thinks his tax fraud case was bullshit. If it really was bullshit, then why did the supreme court deny his case? The supreme court doesnt care about taxes, as they are garantueed to be paid, no matter the tax income. So what reason does the supreme court have to deny Kent if his case was faulty? You know why? Because they are experts in law, and people who believe Kent are not. Why do you think that no single professional lawyer was interested in Kent's case? Because the case was doomed to be lost. There was no way to get it in court and lawyers cannot be paid untill they defend a court case. So going for Kent's case meant wasting days or even weeks of preparing a case, just to be denied a payment.
@@Predated2 you really don’t understand a lot.. you think lawyers don’t get paid until the trial is over? Or until they defend? What? You should maybe go research some more.. Lawyers get paid before they even step into the courtroom many times..
@@tylerj3088 I was a bit hyperbolic, but the most money is made during the actual defense. It's not really worth your time if you don't even get into a courtroom. That's not to say that it's not going to look good on their portfolio unless they win the case.
Poppy M You're right, his fanbois went nuts on his channel saying that KC was angry and unhinged... ya know, because having a civil debate where we don't make frivolous claims means someone has to be angry and therefore loses all credentials. That comment section is a damn warzone.
*"First off, he's not qualified to teach in any but private christian schools that have no educational requirements for their staff."* Nope. He's not even qualified for that. They don't accept criminals.
You know it amazes me how common this is. Us academics (Neuropsychology student) are often perceived as omniscient but even though I read physics as an intellectual personal interest of mine, I am by far not a rocket scientist by any metric of the imagination. It is a curious phenomena why people talk about things they do not understand. I'd dread the thought of someone would ask me to explain physics to them, I understand my limitations there.
One recommended video after watching this is "What happens if you drink bleach". I can totally understand why one wants to ask this after watching the whole video.
"Hubble's Law." "Okay, uhm, uhh...describe that for the average viewer." Sure, Kent. You TOTALLY knew Hubble's Law. You just wanted an explanation for the "average viewer."
KC says: X happens because of Y and that equals Z. KH: "You're missing the point" Crocodiles don't make ducks! I can't believe it took me 26.5 years to realize how dumb this crap is that Kent spews
It’s ok. I fell for his shit too. I remember watching Kent in adult Sunday school class. We thought he was brilliant. Bible thumpers think he is a god, but boy he is certainly a laughingstock in the mainstream science community
I have a literal IQ of 140, and I believed this bullshit until I was 30. So don't feel bad. Religious thought is pervasive to the human mind. That's why it's dangerous. It can make smart people say, believe in, and do really dumb shit. And I humbly apologize for mentioning my IQ. I didn't bring that up to try to sound smart, it's to illustrate a point. That you can brainwash a child into believing their religion is true and in the face of ALL known evidence they will cling to that. Beliefs inform actions and actions have consequences. When those beliefs aren't rational then the actions won't be reasonable and that can lead to catastrophic consequences, ie: suicide bombings, the crusades, terrorism, the Spanish inquisition, the Salem witch trials etc... So don't feel bad that you were duped. A lot of us were. But now that we have broken those thought shackles of religion it is almost our duty to offer our best criticisms of religion.
@@drewrayford144 That isn't true. I'm not anywhere close to stupid. But when you get brainwashed as an infant to believe in "god" it can really affect even an intelligent person's ability to reason. It's why religion is so dangerous.
Just discovered you crocoduck! Was referred to this debate by Gutsick Gibbon who spoke highly of the way you handled it. Everything from the opening statement to the end was incredibly succinct and perfectly handled. Very impressed and youve got a new subscriber. Really great stuff.
Hovind is adorable: "Does anybody on this earth understand that?" Yes widdle Kenty-wenty, there are things that you need more than a 5th grade education to begin to comprehend.
I never went to college but i understand what kc was saying the space is the one that expanding at the soeed of light not the mass ie. stars,galaxys planets. They move but relatively to they're gravity. It just hurts my brain how hovin cant or won't understand that
I love how Kent is just a tottering old man who claims to have taught physics and biology but has no real degree and doesn’t know even the basics of any of the topics he’s claimed to have taught. Also he keeps using out of date books and media articles to prove his point. What an old fool. He argues like an old man lol.
I'll play devil's advocate (ironic) here, he's trying to say that if the earth is 50,000 years old ducks would still be ducks, and that it would be the same no matter how much time passes. He's honestly crazy in regards to this, and basically any scientific matter.
Hey King Crocoduck, I was one of the people(Thomas) who was in your hangout without needing to be. I left at around the 39 minute mark. The reason that I was in the hangout was because, for some odd reason, I was strolling through twitter and I found that you had posted a link to the hangout. I clicked on it and watched it for a while, but I didn't know that I was actually part of the hangout; I thought that I was just a viewer. Once I exited the hangout, I went back to your twitter to see why you had posted the link, but it wasn't there. It must of been some glitch of twitter's or google's part, but regardless I apologize for interrupting the hangout.
Contrast it with Kent's opening statement. It seemed obvious that Kent didn't have one and just wanted to pick apart everything that was said. I'm not even sure he had written down a single thing before this debate. His tactic was: "Say the Bible is real" "Use anything said to show the Bible is real" Ummm... ok....
Brian Stevens That opening statement was pathetic and you know it. Reading a script that was spewing nonsense and opinion with zero facts, you cal for a mic drop? Brian you and I have talked before, you are better than this... He should change his name to King Crockofcrap. You atheists are so funny, it's like you need a support group to feel better about the nonsense you believe.
I really don't think Kent is stupid. He teaches stupidity for sure, but i think he knows better. You can't be corrected for so long and still make the same arguments you know are wrong. Pay attention to how carefully he navigates a conversation to not have to answer a question that compromises his position.
Well some of his family members have come out to say he's very narcissistic. They tend not to set up mental pathways to correct any of their preconceived notions.
I don't think Hovind understood what "redshifted into oblivion" meant. I think it went completely over his head that red shifting can cause wavelengths to lengthen to a frequency below visibility.
Not just below visibility, but completely out of existence. If something leaves the cosmic horizon, its recessional velocity relative to us is greater than c, so the light it emits from that point forward will never reach us
Every time Kent mentioned how the pitch of the car's horn gets lower, the faster it moves away from the listener, I half expected a light bulb to finally turn on in his head and he'd realize that the frequency eventually gets to infrasounds that the human ear can not detect, but no. Ironic that he doesn't accept a mechanism in dark energy that could be twisted into being the physical manifestation of god's hands stretching out the universe, seeing how we can't explain it, yet, but no, he's _that_ stupid.
He also didn't seem to understand, prior to bringing it up and KC explaining this, that the Doppler effect and red shift are essentially the same thing but one is for sound and the other light.
I bevlieve Kent Hovind even himself metioned that if the car breaks the speed sound barrier, you can not hear the sound. But somehow he pretended that for light and speed of light barrier it does not work or whatever. Or is he rly just that dumb?
Technically yes. You can get a doctorate in divinity from a seminary. Though if you're going to make religion your profession, please go to a reputable seminary. Kent went to one in a trailer in the middle of nowhere.
Hovind, while in the can for 58 felonies, towards the end when he was anticipating coming out had his buddy Theo, (or was it Rudy?) started doing something he called debates where Theo or Rudy would read him the debate transcripts from atheist debates of previous years and Hovind would bravely respond to each of them (and of course there was nobody to respond back to him in these canned jokes). Hovind NEEDS to have people debate him in order to restore some of his lost stature as a hero of YEC'ers. He wants them to be big public halls again but he seems to have figured out he'll have to take them where ever and with whomever he can. I'm glad KC did good, but I get no joy in giving the creep, Hovind any step up with his people, his cult, his "ministry".
Hovind got annihilated. But KC didn't annihilate him. KC just explained the facts. Hovind demonstrated his lack of understanding and/or willingness to try to understand them by arguing from incredulity each time.
+Remiel Pollard And his unpreparedness... He did not even bother to read up on current astrophysics before going into a debate about it... What a joke.
Kent Hovind's lack of knowledge of physics, which he claims to have taught, is incredible. The last 15 minutes of this video, concerning relativity, was particularly painful to listen to.
owned ? so changing the sumbject , redefining the meaning of words , appeals to emotion ,denial of constants, assuming the imppossible . etc would count as "owning" not only are the sumjects that KC explained true we got some prototype technology based on it including a prototype system that compresses spacetime by making negative dark energy enough to be consistently measurable
moldaris thats cute. the church used to kill people who dared to prove things like 'the earth goes round the sun,' now you want to play the victim against these 'tax funded lies' simply because the evidence has shown that the earth is much older than 6000 years and that species are not permanent? What do you think of star light? why are stars millions or billions of light years away if the world is only 6 thousand years old? If species are permanent, then please explain why the various layers of rock contain different species? A completely different world than our modern one? That over 99% (I forget the exact #) of species are extinct, and that the currently existing ones appear to be descended from the ancient fossils that are so different?
it's seriously like conversing with a mentally handicapped person. we're talking about cosmology, Kenny. not which animal goes quack and which animal goes moo.
that part of the discussion was all theoretical. even crocoduck said it was. also it deviated from the real topic "is evolution a fact?" So based on corocducts logical views the stars are far away and the light could not be created in between the earth and stars because the speed of light has always been the same. So has the moon been moving away from the earth at the same speed because a million years ago the moon would have been apart of the earth? Does the logic only go one way?
i wonder if kent ever saw a mule? because (if you dont know) its the offspring of a horse and a donkey, but its not either a donkey or a horse and it cant breed. so what is it kent?
Ken: I taught science at high school for years. Next minute, Ken says he hasn't heard of dark energy, he then mixes it up with dark matter, then he admits that he doesn't understand how relativity works, despite it being a bedrock pillar of science that is one of the most tested, verified and reliably predictable scientific theories around. I pity his poor students.
This is excellent. All the stuff I grew up being told clarified from the viewpoint of science. Ah. Ask the scientist to a debate to speak on these things. This is why I don’t actually want philosophical debates or that is not where I’m at right now. My education was robbed in school. People did not talk about the ramiifications of scientific thought. We just read theory and memorized for test taking. And promptly forgot the whole exercise. KC, you explain a lot of stuff I have heard all my life in completely confusing terms all my life. Patient and determined to at least help the listeners. Thanks soooo much. I will be replaying this video to clear up things I have never understood. Great discussion. Thanks thanks so much.
"Dr" Hovind doesn't seem to understand, among many other things, the purpose of an opening statement in a debate. Rather than stating his case and his core arguments, he responded to KC's opening statement. This serves to demonstrate his vast ignorance of a vast range of concepts and topics. It's profoundly perplexing how he ever taught anything, much less science.
How many times must this charlatan (moron?) be told that evolution does not say 'a duck gives birth to something other than a duck?' Evolution is a change in POPULATION over time. Not any single individual. I've listened to all his 'seminars', debates and videos. (I think I'm addicted to listening to really dumb people who think they know everything.), and he has heard the real definition of evolution at least a hundred times, yet he ignores it and continues to claim that evolution says a duck gives birth to 'something else'. He cannot have a debate without automatically switching the topic to his version of evolution (Straw Man) simply because he knows he has no other ammunition in his creationist guns. His refutation of the light distance problem is at a level below that of a five year old's, as he does not even seem to grasp the difference between start, solar systems and galaxies, (keeps confusing them), has no comprehension of what a red shift means in terms of the age of the universe, and seems to believe that repeating the phrase "light years are a measure of distance, not time" somehow magically dissolves the equivalence between time and distance, which is implied in the equation that he says he accepts! When he can no longer argue his position he abruptly changes the topic. CANNOT admit he is wrong on any point. He say he's not using the mature universe theory and then proceeds in the next sentence to use the mature universe argument! Then he accuses KC of "not getting it". How thick does he think people are? He says claiming the speed of light could be different in the past is not refuting the laws of physics. Doesn't he realize how ridiculous he looks when he contradicts himself like that? He cannot grasp even the simplest fundamentals of astronomy, yet he insists that astronomy is wrong and he is right! The sheer arrogance of this shyster is stunning! If one watches his earliest 'seminars' and compares them to his latest videos it's obvious that he has used the identical arguments, even the same phrases and sentences, as well as his 'slides', for many, many years. His son Eric's seminars are virtually identical, even down to the same jokes! He brags constantly about how he destroys professors and evolutionists in debates, and that he will take on 10 scientists simultaneously but they are all afraid to do it because they know he always wins. If you look closely you will notice that he doesn't hesitate to use textbooks in his seminars that are 20 to 50 years old, and that he never uses a recent textbook as they would have up to date information in them.He never, ever uses peer reviewed articles, only rubbish written by quacks and fellow creationist "scientists", and isn't shy to quote out of context. He's seminars content is the same today as it was 15 years ago, and I mean IDENTICAL, down to the last word, which shows he does not have the ability to counter the latest in evolutionary and astronomical discoveries, so he just keeps plugging away repeating the same crappy outdated arguments over and over again. The concept of expanding space-time is NOT that hard to understand, and if he's as clever as he boasts he shouldn't have a problem, yet he cannot grasp the most basic principles of relativity, his questions make him sound like the idiot he is. He is used to dealing with an audience that gasps in wonder when they hear him say "The second law of thermodynamics says"... when in fact his scientific knowledge is below that of the average 10th grade level student.
Yes, he understands perfectly. The problem is, he has nothing substantive to say. His whole "style" (if we want to be charitable) is to deliberately misrepresent what his opponent is saying. He can't strawman without his opponent speaking first. Though he tries...
The most assuming part is how he fucking proves everything KC said right, down to treating science like it's a courtroom because apparently all he heard was that one word without anything following it.
"You're using the argument that the universe was created looking old." "No, I'm not using that argument! I'm arguing that the universe was created mature! To us, it looks old!" So, yes, you're using exactly that argument, Kent. And you're also using an argument which most Creationists have long since objected: the "light on the way" argument. If God created the universe with light on the way, it would depict images which never actually happened; ergo, making God a deceiver. There's a reason most theologists, even Young Earth theologists reject this argument.
What we're seeing here is that christian apologists and young earthers appear to debate "in the moment." Meaning that they only take into account what they are presently saying. Anything you have said, anything they have said, anything they have studied, and all the future consequences of such, they disregard randomly to suit their "argument."
+J Sennette It's creationist math. Of *COURSE* he's going to be off by a factor of 31,557,600. That's how many seconds are in a year, and how much time it takes for light to travel a distance of a light year in one year. He's only just said *the speed of light is THIRTY ONE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED AND FIFTY SEVEN THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED TIMES FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT that's all.*
xD KC's face palm just made it all that much more glorious, literally had to pause as I was losing my shit laughing so hard, though I feel bad for Kent, he can't seem to grasp seemingly simple concepts like a light year is a measure of distance within a Earth year, or how two points can expand in distance without ever moving, despite his constant protests of "I get it" when explained.
The big bang theory says the universe is expanding, which means the space between objects is expanding. The second most popular example is an ant on the surface of an inflatable balloon. Lets say two ants on an balloon and you start to blow air into it. As the balloon expands, the ants get further apart, but they are not moving relative to the surface of the balloon. The cosmic speed limit (the speed of light in vacuum) only applies to objects moving through space, it does not apply to space itself. The further an object is away from us, the faster it moves away. If something is far enough away from us, at some point the space between us will be expanding faster than the speed of light. Once a galaxy is far enough to be receding away from us at the speed of light, it slips across the cosmic horizon, which is boundary to the observable universe. Kent Hovind may or may not be well intentioned, but he clearly does not understand the science well enough to be in a position to refute it. Kent Hovind continuously says, that he understands the concepts KC is talking about, but he is either lying or misunderstands. KC is not making this stuff up. I have actually studied astrophysics and I can verify that KC knows what he is talking about. Kent clearly shows how he starts with an assumption of reality and refuses to accept basic scientific principles that show his view to be absurd.
Fred Jaminso " No one gives a fuck about physics, if you really want to understand how the world works, study electricity and magnetism." Omg, are you brain damaged ? Electricity and magnetism are part of any physics course..
Atheists invoke unseen infinite inaccessible universes, But not an infinite creator. "The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith." - Paul Davies
5tonyvvvv Atheists don’t invoke anything, theists do. The multiverse is a construct used by some scientists to reconcile quantum mechanics with relativity, not a construct used by atheists to invoke that which they don’t believe in. TL;DR: You are completely ignorant about multiverses and their role in physics.
"You didn't corner me... (Now let me proceed to repeat my IDIOTIC theory one more time...)" I think you broke his brain when you started talking about relativity. Well done KC! This was even better than Ken Ham vs Bill Nye! Can't wait to watch the sequel! 😂
Let's just make sure we have this right. okay. In one corner. A person who only has a degree in theology. In the other corner. A person with computational biophysics, astrophysics, quantum field theory research experience. There is no real debate here.
Gadi K i should actually correct myself. In this corner, a person with a high school diploma and two fake degrees (theyre not accredited at all) And in the other corner an actual scientist who contributes to the sum knowledge of man.
But you acted like it was a disqualifier. For example, if I were to debate Kent Hovind on evolution, I would kick his ass even though he at least has a college degree and I don't.
K.C.: If the light takes 13 billion years to get here, how can the Earth be young? Kent Hovind: You believe we evolved from a rock! Really smart to avoid evolution completely.
When I watched Kent starting his opening statement, I wondered 'how long until he goes back to his tired old script?'. Then I got my answer; about a minute and a half. I even started reciting along with him, because I've heard it so many times that I've memorized what he's going to say next. It's honestly kind of sad.
@@belgarath6388 Too much, probably. But, I enjoy watching/listening to AronRa, Matt Dillahunty, KC and others, so I'm almost obligated to listen to them tear this charlatan to shreds over and over.
@@BlazingSun39 Cant disagree there, the AaronRa/Hovind video exchange were especially entertaining allthought it did give me the urge to scream and cuss everytime Hovind opened his mouth. Well that's the usuall reaction most of the times, the charlatan got about as much understanding of the most basic sciences as a fiveyear old.
I don't say this to try and suck up or to exaggerate: I think K.C. has a genius level I.Q. The wealth and breadth of his knowledge and understanding of science, physics and astronomy are very impressive. But lots of people are smart - it takes a special kind of person who is intelligent but is also able to explain complex topics and scientific disciplines in a way that a layman can understand. I feel like I'm learning when I listen to K.C. - and that's worth commending. I'm just grateful that people like him exist to stand up to The Hovind's of the world's who spread bullshit with a firehose. I salte you, Crocoduck. Unfortunately, Kent never listens to his debate opponents, nor would KC be able to dumb things down enough for him to understand anything.
For some bizarre reason I thought you were talking about Kent and I thought this was going to be a slam on him isnt it? Then I realized the science debater is king croc. I guess I saw a k and thought something dumb.
Is it irrelevant though? He was charged for fraud and was caught lying in court. As he has lied before it is surely a good idea to keep in mind that he will do so again. If he was imprisoned for robbery or something of the like then yes his prison time would indeed be irrelevant. But as he was done for fraud, I'd say that is extremely relevant.
@@gregoryhanley1301 Gregory Hanley Hi Greg. You are correct beyond any doubt that Kyle, the author of this post, used an ad hominem fallacy. But I'm sorry to say that you've given yourself away in this post by referring to Hovind's Lectures as "unanswerable". I'm not psychic, and I don't believe in psychics - hopefully you don't either. But I have in mind a _predictive model,_ like how the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is a _predictive model._ In my predictive model, anyone who thinks that Kent Hovind makes convincing arguments on that branch of science has never read one single book on that topic, even one dumbed down for laypeople. How could I know this about you without ever having met you? Simple. I'll have to explain by analogy because the scientific answer is apparently outside of your current understanding (easily fixable). Let's say that there was an atheist going around debating Christians, saying "Your religion says that _Jason Cream_ pushed someone off a cliff as a sacrifice and now it is impossible for humans to commit sin. So you worship the guy that Jason Cream pushed off the cliff. But there is no evidence that Jason Cream kicked a turtle off a cliff, or even that Jason Cream existed. | Therefore, Christianity is false. And you are all _so stupid_ for believing it! (hit Spongebob in the head with a toy mallet) Only someone braindead would believe in Jason Cream and the turtle he kicked off of the cliff! It's stupid! Dumbest thing I've ever heard!" Quickly analyze what I've done there. I've _invented_ "problems" for Christianity that don't actually exist. And I achieved that by lying about Christianity. So now you either have the option of correcting my misinterpretation, which will never keep me from repeating these same lies - that parts hopeless. _Or_ you can agree that there's no evidence that Jason Cream existed, while insisting that that isn't the point. In that case, I'll just claim victory. But *_YOU_* will know better. And you will form in your mind a predictive model: "Those who think my arguments have neither been raised as Christian, nor have they read the Bible." (You gave yourself away just like that.) That would be an excellent predictive model, and it would predict a couple facts about the people who find my lectures "unanswerable". And now, the shoe is on the other foot. If you just pointed out the OP's fallacy, you'd have seemed keen and insightful. You might _still_ be keen and insightful - I sure hope you are - but on this particular topic all you have to do to correct your misapprehension is watch any of the thousand videos that _do_ answer KH's fabricated "problems". To save time, why don't you tell me Kent Hovind's most *UNANSWERABLE* point from his lectures. You probably won't find it in this debate because even though it was a long time ago, I remember Kent was too ignorant to conceptualize the effect of zero point energy on spacetime so he just kept saying stuff like "that's stupid, I don't believe you" about dark energy's effect on spacetime expansion, lol. So give me his _most_ unanswerable point and I'll answer it for you easily. Then you should take it on faith, since you are comfortable with faith as the Evidence of Things Not Seen, that since I can answer his most "unanswerable" point with a verifiable, replicable naturalist explanation, then also I can also answer his easier ones. By the way, I'm not an evolutionary biologist either. Cheers.
"A lightyear has nothing to do with time. It is a distance in relation to time" People actually listen to this guy and think he is smart because he prepared a script to half ass answer questions. But that was 25 years ago...
Geez, I was a truck driver for nearly 20 yrs. I didn't go to college and I get it. Clearly Mr. Hovind lives out where the buses don't run. So frustrating. What an entertaining debate! I would definitely tune in to listen to the slaughter on more debates.
GraveyardShift. love your name! I've worked graveyard for a decade now, and listening to these debates has been a big help to pass the time. Looking forward to the next slaughter as well!
GraveyardShift Kent is just stubborn which is what stops him from learning about the natural world. He must realize that the "there is no evidence" applies to his side too.
Chad Broderick it's neither a distance, nor time then... It's velocity. So, it may also be possible to have 1 lightyear per year. But yeah, it really sounds absurd.
1 lightyear per second can only be the speed of a tachyon (which is possible according to general relativity but has never been observed and cannot be transformed to baryon matter). at that speed, it has about the same energy a baryon particle of the same mass would have at the speed of sound if my calculation is correct (maybe i'm wrong by 10^3).
I highly recommend watching the debate between Conspiracy Catz and Kent Hovind. Catz shows exactly how to handle Kents tactics during a debate, and it was an absolute slaughter. It was so bad that Kent refused to debate him ever again. I think if you stuck on point like Catz did, Kent would have given up after the first debate. Though these 3 videos are one of my favourite debates.
Hovinds opening statement ("rebuttal") stats: -"Evolution is a religion" - 10 times -"X produce X" - 13 times -"Kind" - 16 times -"5-year old" - 3 times -"Banana" - 1 time
Let's just take a moment to notice that in the opening statement, KH said he was going to respond to as many of the "50-60" points made in the opposition as he could, and then spend 9 mins on 1 point (one kind can only mate with same kind), then a quick rant about schools and finished with talking about The Green Mile. His time management is worse than his understanding!
It's so frustrating that he keeps saying he understands, when he clearly doesn't, there is nothing wrong with not understanding relativistic physics. People won't think you're an idiot for it.
@Heather S I’m sure some rando on the internet made king crocoduck back away. Or more likely dealing with Mr.Hovind and his minions produces borderline retardation. Give me a few and I’ll do just that.
Kent wasn’t happy that the Hubble constant disproved a young universe. So he had to make a claim that the stars went past the speed of light for awhile, but now he’s made a claim that he has to and hasn’t shown evidence for.
King croc o' shit.. is more accurate. This man is a fool to the nth degree. Any idiot who sees a house in the forest and denies a creator clearly needs his head examined.
Only just found your channel after finding Erika on YT. I've watched many Hovind debates. I love your word Hoviding. This by far is the best debate where someone has managed to keep Hovind on topic (just) and managed to explain topics to Hovind where he is clearly is over his head. By the way, imagine the utter destruction to our solar system and Earth of having a galaxy and some stars just 2 light days from us so Adam and Eve could see it that is yanked away in an instant by god to be 13.8 billion years away. The gravity alone from the mass of a star so close would strip our atmosphere away in an instant just before we would be sucked into the star due to gravity.
not in a hard science sense, but it's a science in the same way as economics, in that fairly reliable models can be built that describe and predict events and relationships between different variables. The big difficulty in any of these social sciences is the massive number of extraneous variables that must be addressed, isolated, and accounted for.
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do. - Isaac Asimov - I don't think there is a better quote to describe this "discussion"
I'm like a moth to the flame...I know the blinding stupidity is going to hurt...but...but...I have to click play... *clicks play* "OH GOD WHY?!? WHAT HELL HAVE I WROUGHT?!? WHAT HAVE I DONE?!?!" *death*
Kilotip1 That's how I felt about this video. I tried to stay away from it until I just had to dive bomb into mental oblivion. Hovind is such a dipshit.
Goddamn. Kent got his ass handed to him. It's funny, when he isn't allowed to gish-gallop all over the place, he kinda falls apart then resorts back to his mantras.
King crocoduck: *Tells Kent he does not specialize in biology, asks not to talk about it* Kent: *Repeatedly brings up evolution* KC: what did i expect?
@@AuthorLillith Ahh I see...I couldnt for the life of me figure out why Kent would even take this debate since that isnt his area of expertise and judging by croco's knowledge of the subject its clearly his.
@@AuthorLillith Thats not true and you know it. Every debate Kent does is based around the creationist vs evolutionist argument and he single handedly dismantled the theory of evolution. He is undoubtedly an expert in that. Im guessing he wanted to prove that hes not 1 dimensional in his field of study so he took this debate
putzthewondersloth lol, your KC boy, not only almost bored me so much with reading word for word a paper her wrote for his opening. Funny KC only wants to stick to one topic. Typical of you bundle of idiots.
UclaChris1 Science bores you. No wonder you can't wrap your head around it. Kent was outmatched, outclassed, and forced to resort to the same argument time and time again - an argument also proven fallacious without KC breaking a sweat. Your stupidity and ignorance is excusable in your religion, however, since we're apparently all inbred.
3For the time will come when men will not tolerate sound doctrine, but with itching ears they will gather around themselves teachers to suit their own desires. 4So they will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. Proof of Gods existence is easy, from the big to the small everything testifies to "him". Nothing comes From Nothing, therefore a creator that exist outside time space in matter is a necessary precondition for anything to exist. Matter cannot create itself it lacks that attribute. We find information in DNA similar in characteristic to binary code literally proving an intelligent agent created it, Multi-billion letter code spontaneously generating is mathematically impossible. We find molecular machinery inside the cell that is irreducibly complex. Consider a mirror you are a complicated biological machine with thousands of working parts (comprising of billions of tiny parts) and living organisms working in a symbiotic relationship to produce your existence. You are not the product of chance and natural processes. The “scientist” say everything in the universe existed inside a dot no bigger than a period in a sentence, there is absolutely no evidence atoms could be compressed that dense. The atheist position is that there was an explosion that produced an orderly universe governed by laws of physics, chemistry, mathematics, etc. That those conditions just happened to create life, that life could survive reproduce and morph into billions of distinct species forming ecosystems and food webs, it’s a ridiculous and unsustainable worldview. I think Gods creating is a lot more sustainable worldview based on evidence provided, The geologic column doesn’t even exist in a nature, it’s a theoretical concept based on circle reasoning, The evidence for man evolving from ape is handful of wildly mutilated skeletons, the 97% DNA similarity is a lie, if you even look at the evolution of whales timeline you see that 95% of the physical change from land mammal occurs in a 8 million year span, genetically impossible, we find species of animals from every order of the animal kingdom completely unchanged over hundreds of millions of years something that shouldn’t be possible considering that evolution is driven by genetic mutations that don’t stop, did you ever stop to think why is the mosquito from Triassic park the same mosquito that exist today, there are soft tissues found in dinosaur bones, humans are the only animal that don’t belong to any niche. I could go on for days just covering all the lines of evidence from forensic to historical data that completely debunks this material worldview. The word of the Lord proves correct when it says For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking and darkened in their foolish hearts. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools,…
Justanothervoice123, could you please learn to separate your thoughts a bit. Using quotation marks when you quote something would be handy as well. I'll probably be the only person who would ever bother reading this mess. "Everything testifies to 'him'"? Does that include the laryngeal nerve? How about the fact that a whale's flipper has the bone structure of a land mammal rather than a fish? Nothing comes from nothing. I assume you mean the universe. Show me where science actually clams the universe came from nothing, I'll take a look. Until then, I'll just continue to expect the universe has always existed in some form or another and that the furthest back we can view it is the point of the Big Bang. DNA patterns are well beyond my grasp, but I can say one thing for certain: you can't provide any scientific evidence that the first DNA strand was billions of characters long. Irreducible complexity has been destroyed time and time again. Like my tie clip? I made it from a mouse trap after removing the triggering mechanism. Oh, so you do know about the Big Bang singularity. Why did you pretend the universe came from nothing? I understand that you don't believe it, but that just means you believe the universe came from nothing. That's your hang-up. What else are you misrepresenting, that the Big Bang is just an atheist believe or that the Big Bang was just an explosion? Oh... you are. How very sad. And look, there's the bomb in the junkyard analogy. That's covered very well by several branches of science already, but I'll try to give a super-quick summary. Space-time began to expand with all the concentrated energy within. It cooled into hydrogen. Hydrogen atoms became attracted to themselves to form concentrations about the expanding universe. They formed early stars. These stars fused to form heavier elements, fusing those to form even heavier elements, etc. until some went supernova and formed things like gold, uranium, etc. These heavier elements allowed planets like ours to form. Some elements reacted with each other to form chemicals. These chemicals have been shown to be able to form the building blocks of life like amino acids. Outside of that, I'm not going to speculate as to how it actually happened as it's still being debated. Needless to say, "God did it" is not a working theory at this point, but I'll let you know if anything changes. Credit where credit's due, at least you don't believe evolution says we came from a rock. As far as the geologic column goes, yeah, I don't know anywhere there is a single, unbroken example of every layer from every time. I'm pretty sure the Hawaiian islands don't have a layer for Mount St. Helens or that Egypt doesn't have a layer for Louisiana swamps. Humans. Are. Apes. Humans are also mammals and vertebrates. The evidence of our ancestry includes thousands of individuals becoming more and more dissimilar from us the deeper we go, cross-confirmed by radiometric data. DNA also supports this as the closer related we are to other creatures, the more our coding matches their, including oddities such as retroviruses. You'll have to show evidence that it is "impossible" for whales to have 5% different DNA over 8 million years. As far as other creatures remaining structurally unchanged for millions of years, that's perfectly fine. If a creature is optimally adapted to an environment, any change from its structure would be a hindrance. If the environment changes, then changes could possibly help. If you've got anything else, I'll be willing to listen, but try to format it in a way that's more readable, okay? And just for the record, if someone tells you you're a fool if you don't agree with them, they're probably trying to shame you into silence so that they're the only voice to be heard.
I got it, when Crocoduck explains the space moving faster than the speed of light he means like (time listening this 1:04:23) you have a bunch of marbles piled up in the center, and you pour fast running water onto the top of them. The water pushes the marbles apart causing them to move, not as fast as the water but enough to force them further from each other. An explosion like the big bang is just a more complex form of this happening in a spherical radius. Did I get it?
I think you understood it wrong. in your model the marbles themselves are still moving, which is not what is happening. it is more like having a number of marbles on a large sheet (20 meter in diameter) of black rubber. each marble has a white cross underneath them to signal their starting location. the marbles themselves are moving a little bit, say 0.1 m/h, from their cross, this motion is relatively random. meanwhile, there are people/machines pulling the rubber apart at a speed of 2 m/h/m of rubber, no matter how much the rubber expands this speed remains the same. let's say that the speed of light in this model is 35 m/h. the marbles at the very edges of this sheet are able to see each other at the start, but as the rubber is stretched more and more this changes. the distance between the marbles becomes to much for the speed of light to bridge. I'm a biomedical scientist so I'm not great at explaining this, so this is the best I can do. hopefully this helps.
I understood it as pins on a piece of fabric, the fabric is stretched, thus all the pins in relation to the fabric did not move but in relation to each other their distance changed.
One analogy I’ve seen that I think help explain is imagine you’re baking cinnamon raisin bread. The dough has its raisins inside it and they are fixed distance apart from each other. Then you bake it and the dough expands and rises. The raisins have not moved, they are in their same starting position, but instead the dough has shifted them and changed their relative distance.
![Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0tYm41hb48o/mqdefault.jpg)
![Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate [HD]](/img/tr.png)
Please subscribe to the fabulous Steve McRae, who hosted and moderated this debate on his Great Debate Community channel. Who knows? You might see more of me on there…
ua-cam.com/channels/1SzlwfeQ_4-9LuV_00Efuw.html
KC - you are hero
this felt like you were picking on the handicapped. at the end.. i think he gave up on life.
+Runits It was about equivalent to beating a cripple kid that had accidentally tied his shoelaces together in a 100m dash wasn't it.
You're too kind my friend. You did an amazing job. You keep it laser focused and didn't allow Kent to Gish Gallop or shotgun. I think this may be the start of a line of debates with the both of you, or at the very least one or two more follow ups are a must. Negation of P would like to debate Hovind on the topic of morality which would be a nice change of pace from the norm...and honestly, I would like to have another of my own engagements with Kent to continue where we left off last time I showed him why his radiometric claims were absurdly wrong.
Great job KC! All hail da king
Reposted under my main account.
Wow... just finished.... I think I face-palmed with you. I've found the problem with apologetics is that they forget EVERYTHING you tell them. I've spoken to street preachers and explained to them how a genetic algorithm uses randomness to achieve a goal. Amazingly when I see them weeks later... I have to explain this to them again... they'll shout:
"BUT IT'S JUST ALL RANDOM!!! HOW CAN RANDOMNESS DO ANYTHING"
I know the face-palm too well...
"I know everything, but could you please explain it for the viewer."
Kent Hovind
Still didnt help Kent much...
The Christian version of "Er, can you explain this to my friend. He's dumb."
He never said that
@@unidentifiedleiviathan7250 True, but 30:58 was still pretty funny.
Does he think people are as uneducated as himself?
Kent thinks a light year is the opposite of a heavy year.
Mike V bet he doesn't know the diference between a light-year and a diet-year
A light year is the distance light travels in a year; 63241.1 AU (astronomical units).
Mike V Or maybe he thinks that all the years of universal history that he denies are mysterious “dark years” that “evull-utionists” invoke to explain anything, and that only light years have been “proven” to exist.
Kent's brain is heavy (because it's made of lead)
@ Mike V... I tried drinking light beer at night, it didn't help a bit as I still couldn't find my girlfriends car keys when she dropped them
Fun fact: Every time Kent says, "Explain that for the average listener," that really means Kent has no idea what that thing is.
Haha! I came to the same conclusion!
Kent: God made the stars move away after a few minutes.
KC: If that were the case, the light emitted from those stars would have been red shifted so much that we could not possibly observe the light.
Kent: Your missing the point. God moved the stars away from us so we could see them.
KC: You wouldn't be able to observe them because of red shift.
Kent: No, your missing the point!
And repeat. Saved you the hassle of having to listen to this debate, although it is very entertaining listening to KC bury Kent's ideas into the ground.
Kent speaks as if 2 svages coul observe "gods miracles" redshit 6000 years ago in awe with the naked eye.
Your missing the point though!
God is magical and doesn't have to follow physical laws! -
I bet that's what Kent would say.
@@LisaAnn777 That is what Kent would say, and is what Kent said. Kent's explanation for this is that God is powerful enough to have made the light appear as if it had been traveling for 13 billion years. It's all very scientific.
@@spec24 yeah I know after I watched the whole video lol. which is why it's insane he calls himself someone who loves science. If you have to use magical explanations then you don't value science at all 😆
I honestly feel bad for how many people he deceives.
@@LisaAnn777 I almost lost my son to the religious crazies (mind you, I have no problem with religion itself, but the God of the Bible and the Bible, not so much), and it was Kent Hovind who turned him around! HAHAHA!!!
"Can you explain that...for the average person" lol Kent trying to act like he knows Hubble's Law
Jordan T
Actually, he said, "What's tha...can you explain that for the average person." I laughed so hard I peed a little.
Jordan T I thought the same thing
Jordan T "Explain it for the average person, not for me, of course. I was mailed a doctorate from a trailer in the desert."
ROTFLMAO
Jordan T I think there's a few points where he could've just cornered him and told him he's throwing out all the laws of physics.
Came back to this to listen, again, to one of the most eloquent, yet fiercely worded pre-debate smack-downs in UA-cam history.
Glorious.
I came back to reminisce after KCs debate with McQueen.
I’m back now because Hovind official YT channel got deleted, this dude is comedy gold and he doesn’t even realize it
Yeah Kent destroyed crocoduck
In what argument did Kent destroyed him Please timestamp I@Cereal_Killer007
This crocduck character is articulate and just overall pleasant in his presentation. My higher education was, for the most part, not math/science based nor was it ever my much my forte. So it is a sincere compliment when I say he does a phenomenal job of breaking down complicated concepts to the layman. I wish I had more professors with that talent, as in my experience it was generally, ‘the bigger the egghead, the crappier the teacher.
I enjoyed this discussion despite the cringe of Hovind refusing to differentiate relativity from classic Newtonian mathematics.
I rarely subscribe to YT channels...but alright I’ll bite👍👍
“I resent having to be forced to pay for that to be taught in the school system”
What taxes Kent?
"I resent having to (...) pay (...)."
Fixed it ;) I know I am 3 years late but Kent is still the same laughingstock
You all obviously don’t do your own research haha have no idea what happened in the case of taxes and kent but you all think you are funny that’s what really matters here..
@@tylerj3088 he spend 8 years in prison for taxes.
So yes it's hilarious.
@@LisaAnn777 you don’t even know the facts lol anyone can become a sovereign citizen and not be held to the same as the rest but they must follow the law to a T or they will come after you when you are in the spotlight.. but you just see somebody went to prison and think that person is bad.. you are so far from the truth.. you think the court system is always just? You have much to learn..
@@LisaAnn777 do you know what becoming a sovereign citizen means? Do you know what happened when we were taken off the gold standard? We were in debt and bought out.. go do some research and find out the things they don’t want you to know about…
A debate between a crocodile/duck and a wall. That's unusual.
Thats highly insulting to the wall.
Kent: I will only discuss one topic at a time, stop bringing up other topics
Kent, in a debate about physics: brings up evolution and the Bible every other sentence
That's what he has to do to appear to win to his followers. He needs to throw out a multitude of points so that his opponent can't possibly refute them all.
@@spec24 You can't have one without the other.
@@lloyds7828you most certainly can.
Kent Hovind got red shifted into oblivion.
amen
To be fair to Kent he probably knows everything he says. He would never lie or deceive. He is just never ready and in the wrong place at the wrong time in the wrong debate....
He's simply never "prepared for that"
What's funny is Kent is correct and KC is pushing a BS theory that more and more people are disagreeing with.
Kent really seems to dislike tax law. Wonder why?
'Cause he can't fucking count. Crooked fucker.
@@happilyeggs4627 Hey, he mistakes billions of years for thousands, he clearly has problems with those pesky zeroes.
@ James Skelton... he also dislikes zoning laws, building laws and permits, safety laws and inspection laws concerning the structures he has built and especially those pesky "structuring cash transaction" laws. He also dislikes the laws against ; threatening investigators and those cooperating with the investigators, and those laws against filing false complaints.
Hovind was found guilty on 58 counts and faced a total of 288 years in prison, so he should be grateful that he only served 9... before sentencing he stood before a judge, tears flowing from his eyes, and begged for leniency saying that he was only trying to do god's work... doesn't seem Kent appreciates the leniency he received.
While in prison Hovind was transferred numerous times to different cell blocks... seems no one could stand him in there either.
@Wypipo Trippin No one has to believe in evolution. You can read about evolution and see the fossils, embryological, Genetic, etc evidence for yourself.
Kent is 100% right, taxpayers should not have to pay for the religion of evolution to be taught in the schools of the USA. That 'religion' is devastating the morality of many nations.
Kent Hovind didn't give an opening statement.... he just attacked KC's opening. I think Kent needs to realize if he shows evolution is wrong, that doesn't creationism is right... it just means evolution is wrong.
Yup and Hovind has done enough debates he knows how they go. He was just so humiliated by KC's opening that he felt like he had to whine about 1) too many different subjects (BS), and then 2) try to refute with his silly evolution rant.
Brian stevens I am a creationist but you are right if evolution is wrong that dose not mean creationism is right.
Easy Common Designer. It doesn't mean its in cell by decent for every species on earth that has simularites with another.
@@jimmynolet3752 How do you know there is a common designer? Do tell.
@@malirk There is an abundance of evidence, it is in our(christian) literature so many books are already written about the topics however your side which assume is non christian wants a bullet point run down & some of these topics are pretty in depth. I am 30 year Christian so a broad list does Exist. You just need to know how to navigate our literature and what authors to look at. My personal list is pretty big, however I didn't become Christian over logic and reasoning I became Christian over a Supernatural experience. I only follow this as a hobby. And to be honest making my list public I need to work on it and its low priority. I do have a question for you. If what we see in the NEWS is all narration as what's happening today. What is preventing the same thing happening in science?
King Crocoduck: *Beautifully crafted opening statement*
Kent Hovind: *dogs produce dogs*
MattZildjian CROCODILES DO NOT PRODUCE DUCKS YOU CANNOT TELL ME THEY ARE RELATED LALALALALALA IM NOT LISTENING.
MattZildjian That opening statement was pathetic, opinion with zero facts and spewing just to spew. You guys are so brainwashed. LoL
Robert Schilling ah, "opinion with zero facts" is much different than facts you couldn't understand. So please enlighten us with your outstanding intellect, with some details about your ascertain.
ROBERT WROTE - *That opening statement was pathetic, opinion with zero facts and spewing just to spew. You guys are so brainwashed.*
Perfect summary of Kent's opening.
I'm wondering if Robert listened to the debate at all. KC basically gave the history of the scientific method in a nutshell for his opening. Kent literally was rambling about dogs coming from dogs and talking to farmers.
Was KC's intro complex and at a high level? Yes
Was it impossible to understand? Not at all.
Was Ken's intro rambling? Yes
Did he make ANY points relevant to science on the age of the universe to back his claim? No
"We have Sir Kent Hovind"? When did this guy receive knighthood?
In jail?
yaj1979 I think he meant 'Durr Kent Hovind'
It's really Dr Dr Dr Dr Kent Hovind because he has 4 PhDs and is one of the most telligent people on God's eath
Kent E. Hovind (or, to use his full academic title, Kent E. Hovind)
No, just went out of his gourd and started jousting windmills.
Holy shit talk about murdering him from the get go that opening was straight up savage.
01:17:15 "Nooo, hold on Kent - are you telling me that a book full of supernatural and outrageous things said that people would be skeptical and scoffing it? Really???" I love the way you said it.
pornhub can wait!
Angel .O If this was a pornhub video it would be titled "Cunt getting absolutley pounded by King Cockofuck" (with reference to above reply)
they do turn into people, eventually, by the evolution theory.
mike jones key word, theory.
@brett yes i know, and you will have many atheists out there to equate theory with fact, which is intersting
mike jones they are that crazy.
"Well come out here to Alabama, you can see the stars just fine." Yes Kent, that's why you're wrong.
I watched this discussion and the one between hovind and Aron ra back to back. The things I have noticed in both:
- kent has his talking points and he will not move from those, even if he is proven to be wrong halfway.
- kent does not know a lot of stuff, but has clever ways of asking the other party to explain it to him (the "explain for an average viewer" line). He then constructs a poor strawman out of it and improves on it in the following minutes by contradicting himself and blatently lying that he said the opposite prior
- In both discussions he closed with “believe what I say or burn in hell”
- kent cannot accept that he is wrong. KC explained the horizon of the universe and expanding space numerus times and all very clearly (which even I as a biologist could understand). Kent cannot accept that he is wrong on even 1 point as that would break his entire “7000 slide book of evidence”.
- kent has a boner for evolution, but cannot get away from “Rocks to human” bullshit.
All in all, I think Kent should not be invited anymore for whatever type of serieus discussion (but it is fine if you want to create some comedy). He has been proven wrong again and again and again and again. By this point you are just validating him and his believs. His followers will never abondon him, his charisma is to great for that.
piccolo917 yep
Sounds like u have a Ph.D. in Hovindity😊
It is an insult and waste of precious time to have kent on period. Why further this guys insatiable monetary need for press.
Kent Hovind: asks his opponent to explain something then says “correct” after they’ve explained it.
Not sure of you'll see this, but if you want to be entertained watch the Lent Hovind vs Dapper Dino debate. Manages to get Kent "Dr Dino" Hovind to admit he doesn't know what a dinosaur is.
I like how KC’s opening argument addresses every rebuttal Kent has for the entire debate series.
If god made man out of dirt, then why is there still dirt?!
Kent won
@@lloyds7828 Kent won what? The “I don’t understand science for shit award?” Because the only thing Kent Hovind has ever proved, was that he isn’t worth listening to.
@@CestJordan the debate. he understands better than you.
@@CestJordan Earendel is now 28 billion light-years away from us. How is that possible?
You know after all this SJW vs. anti-SJW crap that now exists literally everywhere on the internet, it's nice to take a little trip back to the atheism 1.0 days...
Cam I know! This debate really took me back
Cam It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.( because debating creationists really hurts my head)
The good days...
Fuck SJWs and fuck anti-SJWs
Agreed!
I was a teen back then and I learned so much science in those days. You actually had to be knowledgeable to be relevant in the community back then. We had the four horsemen: Dennett, Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris.....
And now Milo Yiannopolis and Steven Crowder are somehow considered intellectuals. How the mighty have fallen.
I love the fact he says if you don't pay your taxes the government comes for you. Yeah. You are a complete expert in that yo.
You obviously didn't read his case. That's ok, people blindly talk about others situations all the time without the facts. Makes you the perfect puppet.
@@vickyharo469 I think it makes you the perfect puppet
@@vickyharo469 I read his case, it was a very obvious case of tax fraud. Maybe tax fraud due to ignorance of the law, but still fraud nonetheless. If Person A steal 5000 purses and are not aware that thiefing is a crime, and he get arrested for it and then even gets explained why it is exactly a crime. Do you think that Person A still is right because he thinks that thiefing laws are bullshit? Because that is what you are, you still think Kent is correct because he gave reasons to why he thinks his tax fraud case was bullshit. If it really was bullshit, then why did the supreme court deny his case? The supreme court doesnt care about taxes, as they are garantueed to be paid, no matter the tax income. So what reason does the supreme court have to deny Kent if his case was faulty?
You know why? Because they are experts in law, and people who believe Kent are not. Why do you think that no single professional lawyer was interested in Kent's case? Because the case was doomed to be lost. There was no way to get it in court and lawyers cannot be paid untill they defend a court case. So going for Kent's case meant wasting days or even weeks of preparing a case, just to be denied a payment.
@@Predated2 you really don’t understand a lot.. you think lawyers don’t get paid until the trial is over? Or until they defend? What? You should maybe go research some more..
Lawyers get paid before they even step into the courtroom many times..
@@tylerj3088 I was a bit hyperbolic, but the most money is made during the actual defense. It's not really worth your time if you don't even get into a courtroom.
That's not to say that it's not going to look good on their portfolio unless they win the case.
Yeah no, this wasn't a debate. This was a slaughter.
Kent Hovind: "Many people believe oddball things..." The irony here just blows my mind.
It's so amazing that he can't hear himself speak 🤣🤣🤣
Thinking your favorite imaginary friend created all of the universe out of thin air sure sounds oddball to me.
Hovind: "I understand, I taught physics myself."
Me: "You're supposed to _learn_ physics before you try to teach it."
Poppy M You're right, his fanbois went nuts on his channel saying that KC was angry and unhinged... ya know, because having a civil debate where we don't make frivolous claims means someone has to be angry and therefore loses all credentials. That comment section is a damn warzone.
Yeah, you taught bad physics Kent.
*"First off, he's not qualified to teach in any but private christian schools that have no educational requirements for their staff."*
Nope. He's not even qualified for that. They don't accept criminals.
William Barnes haha he clearly does not know any physics
You know it amazes me how common this is. Us academics (Neuropsychology student) are often perceived as omniscient but even though I read physics as an intellectual personal interest of mine, I am by far not a rocket scientist by any metric of the imagination. It is a curious phenomena why people talk about things they do not understand. I'd dread the thought of someone would ask me to explain physics to them, I understand my limitations there.
Last time i was this early Mr. Hovind was still on the slammer!
Is the slammer a sex toy or something? Why would he be on it ;)
SackKickingFatMan it reminds me of Macs exercise bike from the newest season of it's always sunny. I can see Kent owning one of those.
RapiBurrito In the slammer like M C Hammer.
Kent: one topic at a time
Also Kent: *brings up biological evolution in a discussion about the age of the universe*
It's funny how he always reverts back to his script everytime he gets baffled by a topic lol
One recommended video after watching this is "What happens if you drink bleach". I can totally understand why one wants to ask this after watching the whole video.
@@LisaForTruth Theyre now feeding children holly bleach in american churches
@@aturchomicz821 disgusting
@Wypipo Trippin Thats not an insult...
@@LisaForTruth wait did you believe that?
@@justifano7046 I in NO WAY believe Kent on anything
This is actually painful to listen to...
If hell exists, I'm pretty sure it would involve listening to Kent Hovind for eternity.
Ten seconds into Kent talking I just unplugged my speakers and scrolled down to the expert section
I think I actually felt some of my brain cells popping during Kunt's parts.
"Hubble's Law."
"Okay, uhm, uhh...describe that for the average viewer."
Sure, Kent. You TOTALLY knew Hubble's Law. You just wanted an explanation for the "average viewer."
6 years later, Kent’s losing the exact same debates.
Then enlighten us and tell us where ALL the elements came from??
Kent didn't just miss the point he was dodging the point
Yeah but it's not polite to point
Lmfao
Kono......
DIO DA!
Dodge dive dip duck and dodge.
Argument ad Hovindum.
Argument ad Hovinding.
Asinus ad lyram.
Ad nauseum too, with Hovind!
Brilliant
Holy shit that is an amazing pun
KC says: X happens because of Y and that equals Z.
KH: "You're missing the point" Crocodiles don't make ducks!
I can't believe it took me 26.5 years to realize how dumb this crap is that Kent spews
Dare I say, pine trees don't make elephants!
It’s ok. I fell for his shit too. I remember watching Kent in adult Sunday school class. We thought he was brilliant. Bible thumpers think he is a god, but boy he is certainly a laughingstock in the mainstream science community
Sounds like you might be on the lower end of the gene pool when it comes to intellect.
I have a literal IQ of 140, and I believed this bullshit until I was 30. So don't feel bad. Religious thought is pervasive to the human mind. That's why it's dangerous. It can make smart people say, believe in, and do really dumb shit. And I humbly apologize for mentioning my IQ. I didn't bring that up to try to sound smart, it's to illustrate a point. That you can brainwash a child into believing their religion is true and in the face of ALL known evidence they will cling to that. Beliefs inform actions and actions have consequences. When those beliefs aren't rational then the actions won't be reasonable and that can lead to catastrophic consequences, ie: suicide bombings, the crusades, terrorism, the Spanish inquisition, the Salem witch trials etc...
So don't feel bad that you were duped. A lot of us were. But now that we have broken those thought shackles of religion it is almost our duty to offer our best criticisms of religion.
@@drewrayford144 That isn't true. I'm not anywhere close to stupid. But when you get brainwashed as an infant to believe in "god" it can really affect even an intelligent person's ability to reason. It's why religion is so dangerous.
Just discovered you crocoduck! Was referred to this debate by Gutsick Gibbon who spoke highly of the way you handled it.
Everything from the opening statement to the end was incredibly succinct and perfectly handled. Very impressed and youve got a new subscriber. Really great stuff.
Hovind is adorable: "Does anybody on this earth understand that?" Yes widdle Kenty-wenty, there are things that you need more than a 5th grade education to begin to comprehend.
Someone's watched Logicked's kent hovinid series.
I never went to college but i understand what kc was saying the space is the one that expanding at the soeed of light not the mass ie. stars,galaxys planets. They move but relatively to they're gravity. It just hurts my brain how hovin cant or won't understand that
@@markperalta7722 fr, I'm beginning to question if he genuinely doesn't comprehend it or if he is just purposefully being argumentive
I love how Kent is just a tottering old man who claims to have taught physics and biology but has no real degree and doesn’t know even the basics of any of the topics he’s claimed to have taught.
Also he keeps using out of date books and media articles to prove his point. What an old fool. He argues like an old man lol.
Kenty-wenty XD
23:38. Did Kent just say that ducks existed 50,000 years ago? But the world is only 6,000 years old! How can that be?
even the greatest con men sometimes slip up
I'll play devil's advocate (ironic) here, he's trying to say that if the earth is 50,000 years old ducks would still be ducks, and that it would be the same no matter how much time passes. He's honestly crazy in regards to this, and basically any scientific matter.
Technacally they did in God's mind when he was thinking about the earth for a long time
Hovind doesn't need to be accurate or consistent. Only charismatic. It's the hallmark of a cult leader.
Have no idea but I am sure Kent will find something stupid to say given time!!!
Hey King Crocoduck, I was one of the people(Thomas) who was in your hangout without needing to be. I left at around the 39 minute mark. The reason that I was in the hangout was because, for some odd reason, I was strolling through twitter and I found that you had posted a link to the hangout. I clicked on it and watched it for a while, but I didn't know that I was actually part of the hangout; I thought that I was just a viewer. Once I exited the hangout, I went back to your twitter to see why you had posted the link, but it wasn't there. It must of been some glitch of twitter's or google's part, but regardless I apologize for interrupting the hangout.
It was totally my fault, I accidentally posted the wrong link. My bad
'This topic is about evolution'
Hovind: 'Lets talk about Big Bang Theory'
'This topic is about physics'
Hovind: 'Lets talk about evolution'
Evolution is directly related to the big bang and physics...lol
You needed a mic drop after that opening statement.
King Crocoduck's opening statement was fucking impressive. Guy came into this prepared.
I know right? My god, it's been a while since I've watched KC. I forgot how amazing an orator he is.
Contrast it with Kent's opening statement.
It seemed obvious that Kent didn't have one and just wanted to pick apart everything that was said. I'm not even sure he had written down a single thing before this debate. His tactic was:
"Say the Bible is real"
"Use anything said to show the Bible is real"
Ummm... ok....
The bad thing about KC's opening statement was that Ken was going to speak after it.
Brian Stevens That opening statement was pathetic and you know it. Reading a script that was spewing nonsense and opinion with zero facts, you cal for a mic drop? Brian you and I have talked before, you are better than this... He should change his name to King Crockofcrap.
You atheists are so funny, it's like you need a support group to feel better about the nonsense you believe.
I really don't think Kent is stupid. He teaches stupidity for sure, but i think he knows better. You can't be corrected for so long and still make the same arguments you know are wrong. Pay attention to how carefully he navigates a conversation to not have to answer a question that compromises his position.
It's all about the money man!!!
Completely agree. He is a scammer. I mean its not like he went to prison for financial crimes. Oh wait.
Oh he knows for a fact he is talking absolute shit. But his income depends on his ingorence.
Well some of his family members have come out to say he's very narcissistic. They tend not to set up mental pathways to correct any of their preconceived notions.
Well if someone could prove him wrong hed stop using the facts to destroy people like crocoduck
I don't think Hovind understood what "redshifted into oblivion" meant. I think it went completely over his head that red shifting can cause wavelengths to lengthen to a frequency below visibility.
Not just below visibility, but completely out of existence. If something leaves the cosmic horizon, its recessional velocity relative to us is greater than c, so the light it emits from that point forward will never reach us
Every time Kent mentioned how the pitch of the car's horn gets lower, the faster it moves away from the listener, I half expected a light bulb to finally turn on in his head and he'd realize that the frequency eventually gets to infrasounds that the human ear can not detect, but no.
Ironic that he doesn't accept a mechanism in dark energy that could be twisted into being the physical manifestation of god's hands stretching out the universe, seeing how we can't explain it, yet, but no, he's _that_ stupid.
Yeah, I was expecting a "god of the gaps" argument as well.
He also didn't seem to understand, prior to bringing it up and KC explaining this, that the Doppler effect and red shift are essentially the same thing but one is for sound and the other light.
I bevlieve Kent Hovind even himself metioned that if the car breaks the speed sound barrier, you can not hear the sound. But somehow he pretended that for light and speed of light barrier it does not work or whatever. Or is he rly just that dumb?
Can i become a dr if i answer everything with magic??
Mr Po can you become one if you talk truth for 25% of sentence then surmising 75% of it I guess u can be a Dr. like a evolutionest
if you go to the correct school you can.
Sure, you can be a 'Dr.' Like Captain Hovind. All you have to do is go and buy your fake degree from an unaccredited degree mill, just like he did.
Where's your argument? Darwin even had a 'magic wand.' Natural selection!!!!!
Technically yes. You can get a doctorate in divinity from a seminary.
Though if you're going to make religion your profession, please go to a reputable seminary. Kent went to one in a trailer in the middle of nowhere.
I don't think I've ever clicked a UA-cam notification so fast.
Dude, I waited months. I had no clue it was happening.
locke Edogawa lol same
Hovind, while in the can for 58 felonies, towards the end when he was anticipating coming out had his buddy Theo, (or was it Rudy?) started doing something he called debates where Theo or Rudy would read him the debate transcripts from atheist debates of previous years and Hovind would bravely respond to each of them (and of course there was nobody to respond back to him in these canned jokes). Hovind NEEDS to have people debate him in order to restore some of his lost stature as a hero of YEC'ers. He wants them to be big public halls again but he seems to have figured out he'll have to take them where ever and with whomever he can. I'm glad KC did good, but I get no joy in giving the creep, Hovind any step up with his people, his cult, his "ministry".
Hovind got annihilated. But KC didn't annihilate him. KC just explained the facts. Hovind demonstrated his lack of understanding and/or willingness to try to understand them by arguing from incredulity each time.
+Remiel Pollard
And his unpreparedness... He did not even bother to read up on current astrophysics before going into a debate about it... What a joke.
Kent Hovind's lack of knowledge of physics, which he claims to have taught, is incredible. The last 15 minutes of this video, concerning relativity, was particularly painful to listen to.
I expected an intellectual gap. I didn't expect it to be that wide
Kent is using an unchanged book from 4000+ years ago and still owned this creation denier who uses up to date tax funded lies.
owned ?
so changing the sumbject , redefining the meaning of words , appeals to emotion ,denial of constants, assuming the imppossible . etc would count as "owning"
not only are the sumjects that KC explained true we got some prototype technology based on it including a prototype system that compresses spacetime by making negative dark energy enough to be consistently measurable
There's no such thing as a creation denier as long as there's no evidence to deny
moldaris
thats cute. the church used to kill people who dared to prove things like 'the earth goes round the sun,' now you want to play the victim against these 'tax funded lies' simply because the evidence has shown that the earth is much older than 6000 years and that species are not permanent?
What do you think of star light? why are stars millions or billions of light years away if the world is only 6 thousand years old?
If species are permanent, then please explain why the various layers of rock contain different species? A completely different world than our modern one? That over 99% (I forget the exact #) of species are extinct, and that the currently existing ones appear to be descended from the ancient fossils that are so different?
The intellectual gap is expanding faster than the speed of light.
Never before have I laughed out loud so many times to an unedited debate than when Kent started trying to deal with the speed of light
Yes, at that point, I too lost it.
You are talking about Friedmann's equations to the guy saying "I love cosmology, I love to study the stars. ducks make ducks and cows make cows" LMAO!
but ducks do make ducks?
cows make milk noob lol.
it's seriously like conversing with a mentally handicapped person.
we're talking about cosmology, Kenny. not which animal goes quack and which animal goes moo.
that part of the discussion was all theoretical. even crocoduck said it was. also it deviated from the real topic "is evolution a fact?" So based on corocducts logical views the stars are far away and the light could not be created in between the earth and stars because the speed of light has always been the same. So has the moon been moving away from the earth at the same speed because a million years ago the moon would have been apart of the earth? Does the logic only go one way?
i wonder if kent ever saw a mule? because (if you dont know) its the offspring of a horse and a donkey, but its not either a donkey or a horse and it cant breed. so what is it kent?
Ken: I taught science at high school for years.
Next minute, Ken says he hasn't heard of dark energy, he then mixes it up with dark matter, then he admits that he doesn't understand how relativity works, despite it being a bedrock pillar of science that is one of the most tested, verified and reliably predictable scientific theories around. I pity his poor students.
he always forgets to mention that he thought creation science.
not science.
@@spatrk6634 good point
Kent Hovind and sentient beings are obviously not the same kind
This is excellent. All the stuff I grew up being told clarified from the viewpoint of science. Ah. Ask the scientist to a debate to speak on these things. This is why I don’t actually want philosophical debates or that is not where I’m at right now.
My education was robbed in school. People did not talk about the ramiifications of scientific thought. We just read theory and memorized for test taking. And promptly forgot the whole exercise.
KC, you explain a lot of stuff I have heard all my life in completely confusing terms all my life. Patient and determined to at least help the listeners. Thanks soooo much. I will be replaying this video to clear up things I have never understood. Great discussion. Thanks thanks so much.
"Dr" Hovind doesn't seem to understand, among many other things, the purpose of an opening statement in a debate. Rather than stating his case and his core arguments, he responded to KC's opening statement. This serves to demonstrate his vast ignorance of a vast range of concepts and topics. It's profoundly perplexing how he ever taught anything, much less science.
How many times must this charlatan (moron?) be told that evolution does not say 'a duck gives birth to something other than a duck?' Evolution is a change in POPULATION over time. Not any single individual. I've listened to all his 'seminars', debates and videos. (I think I'm addicted to listening to really dumb people who think they know everything.), and he has heard the real definition of evolution at least a hundred times, yet he ignores it and continues to claim that evolution says a duck gives birth to 'something else'.
He cannot have a debate without automatically switching the topic to his version of evolution (Straw Man) simply because he knows he has no other ammunition in his creationist guns. His refutation of the light distance problem is at a level below that of a five year old's, as he does not even seem to grasp the difference between start, solar systems and galaxies, (keeps confusing them), has no comprehension of what a red shift means in terms of the age of the universe, and seems to believe that repeating the phrase "light years are a measure of distance, not time" somehow magically dissolves the equivalence between time and distance, which is implied in the equation that he says he accepts! When he can no longer argue his position he abruptly changes the topic. CANNOT admit he is wrong on any point.
He say he's not using the mature universe theory and then proceeds in the next sentence to use the mature universe argument! Then he accuses KC of "not getting it". How thick does he think people are? He says claiming the speed of light could be different in the past is not refuting the laws of physics. Doesn't he realize how ridiculous he looks when he contradicts himself like that? He cannot grasp even the simplest fundamentals of astronomy, yet he insists that astronomy is wrong and he is right! The sheer arrogance of this shyster is stunning!
If one watches his earliest 'seminars' and compares them to his latest videos it's obvious that he has used the identical arguments, even the same phrases and sentences, as well as his 'slides', for many, many years. His son Eric's seminars are virtually identical, even down to the same jokes! He brags constantly about how he destroys professors and evolutionists in debates, and that he will take on 10 scientists simultaneously but they are all afraid to do it because they know he always wins.
If you look closely you will notice that he doesn't hesitate to use textbooks in his seminars that are 20 to 50 years old, and that he never uses a recent textbook as they would have up to date information in them.He never, ever uses peer reviewed articles, only rubbish written by quacks and fellow creationist "scientists", and isn't shy to quote out of context. He's seminars content is the same today as it was 15 years ago, and I mean IDENTICAL, down to the last word, which shows he does not have the ability to counter the latest in evolutionary and astronomical discoveries, so he just keeps plugging away repeating the same crappy outdated arguments over and over again.
The concept of expanding space-time is NOT that hard to understand, and if he's as clever as he boasts he shouldn't have a problem, yet he cannot grasp the most basic principles of relativity, his questions make him sound like the idiot he is. He is used to dealing with an audience that gasps in wonder when they hear him say "The second law of thermodynamics says"...
when in fact his scientific knowledge is below that of the average 10th grade level student.
Yes, he understands perfectly. The problem is, he has nothing substantive to say. His whole "style" (if we want to be charitable) is to deliberately misrepresent what his opponent is saying. He can't strawman without his opponent speaking first. Though he tries...
The most assuming part is how he fucking proves everything KC said right, down to treating science like it's a courtroom because apparently all he heard was that one word without anything following it.
He never taught any science in any professional/accredited sense
"You're using the argument that the universe was created looking old."
"No, I'm not using that argument! I'm arguing that the universe was created mature! To us, it looks old!"
So, yes, you're using exactly that argument, Kent.
And you're also using an argument which most Creationists have long since objected: the "light on the way" argument.
If God created the universe with light on the way, it would depict images which never actually happened; ergo, making God a deceiver. There's a reason most theologists, even Young Earth theologists reject this argument.
In the words of christian, cell biologist, professor at Brown Univ, Dr Kenneth Miller, "This makes God a wiiild and crrrrazy guy".
What we're seeing here is that christian apologists and young earthers appear to debate "in the moment." Meaning that they only take into account what they are presently saying. Anything you have said, anything they have said, anything they have studied, and all the future consequences of such, they disregard randomly to suit their "argument."
I absolutely love that in his opening statement Kent reiterates the very straw man argument that KC's name pokes fun at. Several times.
I gotta say: I've fell down a rabbit hole with Hovind and this is by far the best debate against him I've seen. Had him squirming!
>"if light travels at 1 light years per second it's a second old"
My sides are in orbit. Calculate the redshift of my sides KC
J Sennette I know i fucking keked so hard at that
Aaand that is why I'm not gonna watch this video lel.
Clearly showing Kent knows absolutely nothing about any actual science.
+J Sennette It's creationist math. Of *COURSE* he's going to be off by a factor of 31,557,600. That's how many seconds are in a year, and how much time it takes for light to travel a distance of a light year in one year. He's only just said *the speed of light is THIRTY ONE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED AND FIFTY SEVEN THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED TIMES FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT that's all.*
xD KC's face palm just made it all that much more glorious, literally had to pause as I was losing my shit laughing so hard, though I feel bad for Kent, he can't seem to grasp seemingly simple concepts like a light year is a measure of distance within a Earth year, or how two points can expand in distance without ever moving, despite his constant protests of "I get it" when explained.
The big bang theory says the universe is expanding, which means the space between objects is expanding. The second most popular example is an ant on the surface of an inflatable balloon. Lets say two ants on an balloon and you start to blow air into it. As the balloon expands, the ants get further apart, but they are not moving relative to the surface of the balloon. The cosmic speed limit (the speed of light in vacuum) only applies to objects moving through space, it does not apply to space itself.
The further an object is away from us, the faster it moves away. If something is far enough away from us, at some point the space between us will be expanding faster than the speed of light. Once a galaxy is far enough to be receding away from us at the speed of light, it slips across the cosmic horizon, which is boundary to the observable universe.
Kent Hovind may or may not be well intentioned, but he clearly does not understand the science well enough to be in a position to refute it. Kent Hovind continuously says, that he understands the concepts KC is talking about, but he is either lying or misunderstands. KC is not making this stuff up. I have actually studied astrophysics and I can verify that KC knows what he is talking about.
Kent clearly shows how he starts with an assumption of reality and refuses to accept basic scientific principles that show his view to be absurd.
"Intelligent person explains all of physics to an idiot"
Fred Jaminso
" No one gives a fuck about physics, if you really want to understand how the world works, study electricity and magnetism."
Omg, are you brain damaged ? Electricity and magnetism are part of any physics course..
Atheists invoke unseen infinite inaccessible universes, But not an infinite creator.
"The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith." - Paul Davies
+Isaac Newton Ikr? Clearly Fred Jaminson is a brainfucked cult follower of "The Electric Universe" bullshit.
5tonyvvvv Atheists don’t invoke anything, theists do. The multiverse is a construct used by some scientists to reconcile quantum mechanics with relativity, not a construct used by atheists to invoke that which they don’t believe in.
TL;DR: You are completely ignorant about multiverses and their role in physics.
Yes you do, Atheists accept unseen inaccessible universes over a creator.. Its the same leap of blind faith!
kent hovind: exists
King Crocoduck: So...you've chosen death
I have to say KC, I shit myself laughing when Hovind Hovined....
Best part by far
I HOPE you changed your underpants, you evotard.
Always nice when the Godless Engineer stops by.
"You didn't corner me... (Now let me proceed to repeat my IDIOTIC theory one more time...)"
I think you broke his brain when you started talking about relativity.
Well done KC! This was even better than Ken Ham vs Bill Nye! Can't wait to watch the sequel! 😂
Let's just make sure we have this right. okay.
In one corner. A person who only has a degree in theology.
In the other corner. A person with computational biophysics, astrophysics, quantum field theory research experience.
There is no real debate here.
Gadi K i should actually correct myself.
In this corner, a person with a high school diploma and two fake degrees (theyre not accredited at all)
And in the other corner an actual scientist who contributes to the sum knowledge of man.
I don't agree with Hovind at all but his degree isn't a disqualifier.
I don't agree with Hovind at all but his degree isn't a disqualifier.
KingLink95 but it isnt a qualifier
But you acted like it was a disqualifier. For example, if I were to debate Kent Hovind on evolution, I would kick his ass even though he at least has a college degree and I don't.
"You keep climbing that mountain of truth, I'll wait for you at the top, okay?"
-A man devoid of truth.
This is gonna be good
Well crocaducks part...
no it wont.
this and that but feelings.....
shut up.
Yup.. that was hilarious. Hovind got bitch slapped.
K.C.: If the light takes 13 billion years to get here, how can the Earth be young?
Kent Hovind: You believe we evolved from a rock!
Really smart to avoid evolution completely.
It takes light eight minutes to reach earth from the sun
How tempted were you to point out, during your courtroom examples, that Kunt ought to be quite familiar with the process from firsthand experience?
When I watched Kent starting his opening statement, I wondered 'how long until he goes back to his tired old script?'. Then I got my answer; about a minute and a half. I even started reciting along with him, because I've heard it so many times that I've memorized what he's going to say next. It's honestly kind of sad.
Damn, how much Kent Hovind have you exposed yourself to? I'm pretty sure the idiocy levels reaches red after about half an hour of listening to him.
@@belgarath6388 Too much, probably. But, I enjoy watching/listening to AronRa, Matt Dillahunty, KC and others, so I'm almost obligated to listen to them tear this charlatan to shreds over and over.
@@BlazingSun39 Cant disagree there, the AaronRa/Hovind video exchange were especially entertaining allthought it did give me the urge to scream and cuss everytime Hovind opened his mouth. Well that's the usuall reaction most of the times, the charlatan got about as much understanding of the most basic sciences as a fiveyear old.
I don't say this to try and suck up or to exaggerate: I think K.C. has a genius level I.Q.
The wealth and breadth of his knowledge and understanding of science, physics and astronomy are very impressive. But lots of people are smart - it takes a special kind of person who is intelligent but is also able to explain complex topics and scientific disciplines in a way that a layman can understand. I feel like I'm learning when I listen to K.C. - and that's worth commending. I'm just grateful that people like him exist to stand up to The Hovind's of the world's who spread bullshit with a firehose. I salte you, Crocoduck.
Unfortunately, Kent never listens to his debate opponents, nor would KC be able to dumb things down enough for him to understand anything.
For some bizarre reason I thought you were talking about Kent and I thought this was going to be a slam on him isnt it? Then I realized the science debater is king croc. I guess I saw a k and thought something dumb.
I agree btw
I noticed when Kent gave a description of his background he left out all the prison time.
@@landry6975 The School of Hard Knocks is relevant education. This man has seen things, has known things, felt things, that few men do.
I'm all for defaming Kent
But his prison time is totally irrelevant to the conversation here
Is it irrelevant though? He was charged for fraud and was caught lying in court. As he has lied before it is surely a good idea to keep in mind that he will do so again. If he was imprisoned for robbery or something of the like then yes his prison time would indeed be irrelevant. But as he was done for fraud, I'd say that is extremely relevant.
What has that got to do with his unanswerable lectures? Have you heard of, 'Ad Hominem?
@@gregoryhanley1301 Gregory Hanley Hi Greg. You are correct beyond any doubt that Kyle, the author of this post, used an ad hominem fallacy.
But I'm sorry to say that you've given yourself away in this post by referring to Hovind's Lectures as "unanswerable".
I'm not psychic, and I don't believe in psychics - hopefully you don't either. But I have in mind a _predictive model,_ like how the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is a _predictive model._
In my predictive model, anyone who thinks that Kent Hovind makes convincing arguments on that branch of science has never read one single book on that topic, even one dumbed down for laypeople.
How could I know this about you without ever having met you? Simple. I'll have to explain by analogy because the scientific answer is apparently outside of your current understanding (easily fixable).
Let's say that there was an atheist going around debating Christians, saying "Your religion says that _Jason Cream_ pushed someone off a cliff as a sacrifice and now it is impossible for humans to commit sin. So you worship the guy that Jason Cream pushed off the cliff. But there is no evidence that Jason Cream kicked a turtle off a cliff, or even that Jason Cream existed. |
Therefore, Christianity is false. And you are all _so stupid_ for believing it! (hit Spongebob in the head with a toy mallet)
Only someone braindead would believe in Jason Cream and the turtle he kicked off of the cliff! It's stupid! Dumbest thing I've ever heard!"
Quickly analyze what I've done there. I've _invented_ "problems" for Christianity that don't actually exist. And I achieved that by lying about Christianity.
So now you either have the option of correcting my misinterpretation, which will never keep me from repeating these same lies - that parts hopeless.
_Or_ you can agree that there's no evidence that Jason Cream existed, while insisting that that isn't the point.
In that case, I'll just claim victory.
But *_YOU_* will know better. And you will form in your mind a predictive model:
"Those who think my arguments have neither been raised as Christian, nor have they read the Bible."
(You gave yourself away just like that.)
That would be an excellent predictive model, and it would predict a couple facts about the people who find my lectures "unanswerable".
And now, the shoe is on the other foot. If you just pointed out the OP's fallacy, you'd have seemed keen and insightful.
You might _still_ be keen and insightful - I sure hope you are - but on this particular topic all you have to do to correct your misapprehension is watch any of the thousand videos that _do_ answer KH's fabricated "problems".
To save time, why don't you tell me Kent Hovind's most *UNANSWERABLE* point from his lectures. You probably won't find it in this debate because even though it was a long time ago, I remember Kent was too ignorant to conceptualize the effect of zero point energy on spacetime so he just kept saying stuff like "that's stupid, I don't believe you" about dark energy's effect on spacetime expansion, lol.
So give me his _most_ unanswerable point and I'll answer it for you easily. Then you should take it on faith, since you are comfortable with faith as the Evidence of Things Not Seen, that since I can answer his most "unanswerable" point with a verifiable, replicable naturalist explanation, then also I can also answer his easier ones.
By the way, I'm not an evolutionary biologist either.
Cheers.
"A lightyear has nothing to do with time. It is a distance in relation to time"
People actually listen to this guy and think he is smart because he prepared a script to half ass answer questions. But that was 25 years ago...
Geez, I was a truck driver for nearly 20 yrs. I didn't go to college and I get it. Clearly Mr. Hovind lives out where the buses don't run. So frustrating. What an entertaining debate! I would definitely tune in to listen to the slaughter on more debates.
GraveyardShift. love your name! I've worked graveyard for a decade now, and listening to these debates has been a big help to pass the time. Looking forward to the next slaughter as well!
GraveyardShift Kent is just stubborn which is what stops him from learning about the natural world. He must realize that the "there is no evidence" applies to his side too.
1 light year per second!???!!! I fucking lost it!😂😂
Chad Broderick it's neither a distance, nor time then... It's velocity. So, it may also be possible to have 1 lightyear per year.
But yeah, it really sounds absurd.
Chad Broderick A lighting year is not a time unit!
1 lightyear per second can only be the speed of a tachyon (which is possible according to general relativity but has never been observed and cannot be transformed to baryon matter). at that speed, it has about the same energy a baryon particle of the same mass would have at the speed of sound if my calculation is correct (maybe i'm wrong by 10^3).
"If that were physically possible, fine, whatever" The point where KCD gave up on getting Kent to understand lightspeed.
I highly recommend watching the debate between Conspiracy Catz and Kent Hovind. Catz shows exactly how to handle Kents tactics during a debate, and it was an absolute slaughter. It was so bad that Kent refused to debate him ever again.
I think if you stuck on point like Catz did, Kent would have given up after the first debate. Though these 3 videos are one of my favourite debates.
Hovind: "Santa and the Easter Bunny are older than the theory of dark energy."
KCD: "Good point, Kent."
I laughed so fucking hard.
Hovinds opening statement ("rebuttal") stats:
-"Evolution is a religion" - 10 times
-"X produce X" - 13 times
-"Kind" - 16 times
-"5-year old" - 3 times
-"Banana" - 1 time
I would like to hear this supposed gods thought process: Yeah this human needs a bit banan in him... Yeah, perfect.
Holy shit, I never thought I could react to a UA-cam notification that fast
Let's just take a moment to notice that in the opening statement, KH said he was going to respond to as many of the "50-60" points made in the opposition as he could, and then spend 9 mins on 1 point (one kind can only mate with same kind), then a quick rant about schools and finished with talking about The Green Mile. His time management is worse than his understanding!
It's so frustrating that he keeps saying he understands, when he clearly doesn't, there is nothing wrong with not understanding relativistic physics. People won't think you're an idiot for it.
richard smith but he has a phd in truthology
how do you spell hovending? Is that right? I hope it stuck in our head for the future debate.
I love how he constantly says to his opponents that they are missing the point, yet it is him who is constantly demonstrated to be missing the point.
@Heather S I’m sure some rando on the internet made king crocoduck back away. Or more likely dealing with Mr.Hovind and his minions produces borderline retardation. Give me a few and I’ll do just that.
Kent wasn’t happy that the Hubble constant disproved a young universe. So he had to make a claim that the stars went past the speed of light for awhile, but now he’s made a claim that he has to and hasn’t shown evidence for.
"Intuitively, nobody understands it, it's relativity".
Dude what a kick-ass response
Listening to Kent is so painful.... so much ignorance...
that's a lie lunatic
Hoops590 STFU you stupid creatard
And a fraud -- a criminal fraud and a resume-puffing fraud.
King Crocoduck...patient, eloquent and intelligent.
Kent Hovind...OMG, stubborn, nonsensical and ignorant
Rich Thenative no he was not, he was not patient, he was not kind. He said to screw KH common sense.
King croc o' shit.. is more accurate. This man is a fool to the nth degree. Any idiot who sees a house in the forest and denies a creator clearly needs his head examined.
Rich Thenative
You got it backwards, buddy
+Johnny Cash anyone who assumes a god exist for no reason at all is the real fool.
Johnny Cash
Your argument, is donkey's years old and has been refuted ad nauseam. Look up "argument from design "
Only just found your channel after finding Erika on YT.
I've watched many Hovind debates. I love your word Hoviding.
This by far is the best debate where someone has managed to keep Hovind on topic (just) and managed to explain topics to Hovind where he is clearly is over his head.
By the way, imagine the utter destruction to our solar system and Earth of having a galaxy and some stars just 2 light days from us so Adam and Eve could see it that is yanked away in an instant by god to be 13.8 billion years away. The gravity alone from the mass of a star so close would strip our atmosphere away in an instant just before we would be sucked into the star due to gravity.
Hah, when you dumb down the physics to Kent Hovind's level, I can kinda grasp it
I admit to feeling as at sea as Kent Hovind evidently felt wading through the high end science explanations. Luckily the balloon example saved me. lol
BTW, I'm majoring in Political Science but watching your channel convinced me to pick a minor in Astrophysics. THANK YOU!
The Person Holy shit. That's quite a mix.
Anyone involved in public policy and administration should be literate in science and mathematics. Why? See the US currently.
Just remember that political "science" is not actually science.
not in a hard science sense, but it's a science in the same way as economics, in that fairly reliable models can be built that describe and predict events and relationships between different variables. The big difficulty in any of these social sciences is the massive number of extraneous variables that must be addressed, isolated, and accounted for.
If you are listening to Kent getting baffled in 2022, you are a red shift legend
2023! Woo
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do. - Isaac Asimov -
I don't think there is a better quote to describe this "discussion"
I'm like a moth to the flame...I know the blinding stupidity is going to hurt...but...but...I have to click play...
*clicks play*
"OH GOD WHY?!? WHAT HELL HAVE I WROUGHT?!? WHAT HAVE I DONE?!?!"
*death*
Kilotip1
That's how I felt about this video. I tried to stay away from it until I just had to dive bomb into mental oblivion. Hovind is such a dipshit.
Goddamn. Kent got his ass handed to him. It's funny, when he isn't allowed to gish-gallop all over the place, he kinda falls apart then resorts back to his mantras.
King crocoduck: *Tells Kent he does not specialize in biology, asks not to talk about it*
Kent: *Repeatedly brings up evolution*
KC: what did i expect?
Its a debate about evolution, that topic may come up a few times
@@Cereal_Killer007 no, it’s not an evolution debate. It was a debate to make kent stop lumping evolution with astrological events.
@@AuthorLillith Ahh I see...I couldnt for the life of me figure out why Kent would even take this debate since that isnt his area of expertise and judging by croco's knowledge of the subject its clearly his.
@@Cereal_Killer007 Kent has no area of expertise
@@AuthorLillith Thats not true and you know it. Every debate Kent does is based around the creationist vs evolutionist argument and he single handedly dismantled the theory of evolution. He is undoubtedly an expert in that. Im guessing he wanted to prove that hes not 1 dimensional in his field of study so he took this debate
At 57:00 Kent tried soooooooo hard to pivot away from getting called out for trying to pass off a paper about the universe as the observable universe
You blinded him with science!
Hovind was already blinded long ago. KC used science to help people SEE.
putzthewondersloth lol, your KC boy, not only almost bored me so much with reading word for word a paper her wrote for his opening. Funny KC only wants to stick to one topic. Typical of you bundle of idiots.
UclaChris1 Science bores you. No wonder you can't wrap your head around it. Kent was outmatched, outclassed, and forced to resort to the same argument time and time again - an argument also proven fallacious without KC breaking a sweat.
Your stupidity and ignorance is excusable in your religion, however, since we're apparently all inbred.
3For the time will come when men will not tolerate sound doctrine, but with itching ears they will gather around themselves teachers to suit their own desires. 4So they will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. Proof of Gods existence is easy, from the big to the small everything testifies to "him". Nothing comes From Nothing, therefore a creator that exist outside time space in matter is a necessary precondition for anything to exist. Matter cannot create itself it lacks that attribute. We find information in DNA similar in characteristic to binary code literally proving an intelligent agent created it, Multi-billion letter code spontaneously generating is mathematically impossible. We find molecular machinery inside the cell that is irreducibly complex. Consider a mirror you are a complicated biological machine with thousands of working parts (comprising of billions of tiny parts) and living organisms working in a symbiotic relationship to produce your existence. You are not the product of chance and natural processes. The “scientist” say everything in the universe existed inside a dot no bigger than a period in a sentence, there is absolutely no evidence atoms could be compressed that dense. The atheist position is that there was an explosion that produced an orderly universe governed by laws of physics, chemistry, mathematics, etc. That those conditions just happened to create life, that life could survive reproduce and morph into billions of distinct species forming ecosystems and food webs, it’s a ridiculous and unsustainable worldview. I think Gods creating is a lot more sustainable worldview based on evidence provided, The geologic column doesn’t even exist in a nature, it’s a theoretical concept based on circle reasoning, The evidence for man evolving from ape is handful of wildly mutilated skeletons, the 97% DNA similarity is a lie, if you even look at the evolution of whales timeline you see that 95% of the physical change from land mammal occurs in a 8 million year span, genetically impossible, we find species of animals from every order of the animal kingdom completely unchanged over hundreds of millions of years something that shouldn’t be possible considering that evolution is driven by genetic mutations that don’t stop, did you ever stop to think why is the mosquito from Triassic park the same mosquito that exist today, there are soft tissues found in dinosaur bones, humans are the only animal that don’t belong to any niche. I could go on for days just covering all the lines of evidence from forensic to historical data that completely debunks this material worldview. The word of the Lord proves correct when it says For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking and darkened in their foolish hearts. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools,…
Justanothervoice123, could you please learn to separate your thoughts a bit. Using quotation marks when you quote something would be handy as well. I'll probably be the only person who would ever bother reading this mess.
"Everything testifies to 'him'"? Does that include the laryngeal nerve? How about the fact that a whale's flipper has the bone structure of a land mammal rather than a fish?
Nothing comes from nothing. I assume you mean the universe. Show me where science actually clams the universe came from nothing, I'll take a look. Until then, I'll just continue to expect the universe has always existed in some form or another and that the furthest back we can view it is the point of the Big Bang.
DNA patterns are well beyond my grasp, but I can say one thing for certain: you can't provide any scientific evidence that the first DNA strand was billions of characters long.
Irreducible complexity has been destroyed time and time again. Like my tie clip? I made it from a mouse trap after removing the triggering mechanism.
Oh, so you do know about the Big Bang singularity. Why did you pretend the universe came from nothing? I understand that you don't believe it, but that just means you believe the universe came from nothing. That's your hang-up. What else are you misrepresenting, that the Big Bang is just an atheist believe or that the Big Bang was just an explosion? Oh... you are. How very sad.
And look, there's the bomb in the junkyard analogy. That's covered very well by several branches of science already, but I'll try to give a super-quick summary. Space-time began to expand with all the concentrated energy within. It cooled into hydrogen. Hydrogen atoms became attracted to themselves to form concentrations about the expanding universe. They formed early stars. These stars fused to form heavier elements, fusing those to form even heavier elements, etc. until some went supernova and formed things like gold, uranium, etc. These heavier elements allowed planets like ours to form. Some elements reacted with each other to form chemicals. These chemicals have been shown to be able to form the building blocks of life like amino acids. Outside of that, I'm not going to speculate as to how it actually happened as it's still being debated. Needless to say, "God did it" is not a working theory at this point, but I'll let you know if anything changes.
Credit where credit's due, at least you don't believe evolution says we came from a rock.
As far as the geologic column goes, yeah, I don't know anywhere there is a single, unbroken example of every layer from every time. I'm pretty sure the Hawaiian islands don't have a layer for Mount St. Helens or that Egypt doesn't have a layer for Louisiana swamps.
Humans. Are. Apes. Humans are also mammals and vertebrates. The evidence of our ancestry includes thousands of individuals becoming more and more dissimilar from us the deeper we go, cross-confirmed by radiometric data. DNA also supports this as the closer related we are to other creatures, the more our coding matches their, including oddities such as retroviruses.
You'll have to show evidence that it is "impossible" for whales to have 5% different DNA over 8 million years. As far as other creatures remaining structurally unchanged for millions of years, that's perfectly fine. If a creature is optimally adapted to an environment, any change from its structure would be a hindrance. If the environment changes, then changes could possibly help.
If you've got anything else, I'll be willing to listen, but try to format it in a way that's more readable, okay?
And just for the record, if someone tells you you're a fool if you don't agree with them, they're probably trying to shame you into silence so that they're the only voice to be heard.
Kent really gets a physics lesson about an hour in and blusters away making himself look completely idiotic.
I got it, when Crocoduck explains the space moving faster than the speed of light he means like (time listening this 1:04:23) you have a bunch of marbles piled up in the center, and you pour fast running water onto the top of them. The water pushes the marbles apart causing them to move, not as fast as the water but enough to force them further from each other. An explosion like the big bang is just a more complex form of this happening in a spherical radius. Did I get it?
yes
I think you understood it wrong. in your model the marbles themselves are still moving, which is not what is happening.
it is more like having a number of marbles on a large sheet (20 meter in diameter) of black rubber. each marble has a white cross underneath them to signal their starting location. the marbles themselves are moving a little bit, say 0.1 m/h, from their cross, this motion is relatively random. meanwhile, there are people/machines pulling the rubber apart at a speed of 2 m/h/m of rubber, no matter how much the rubber expands this speed remains the same. let's say that the speed of light in this model is 35 m/h. the marbles at the very edges of this sheet are able to see each other at the start, but as the rubber is stretched more and more this changes. the distance between the marbles becomes to much for the speed of light to bridge.
I'm a biomedical scientist so I'm not great at explaining this, so this is the best I can do. hopefully this helps.
I understood it as pins on a piece of fabric, the fabric is stretched, thus all the pins in relation to the fabric did not move but in relation to each other their distance changed.
One analogy I’ve seen that I think help explain is imagine you’re baking cinnamon raisin bread. The dough has its raisins inside it and they are fixed distance apart from each other. Then you bake it and the dough expands and rises. The raisins have not moved, they are in their same starting position, but instead the dough has shifted them and changed their relative distance.
But how does a pine tree give birth to a Mercedes 420 🧐