The Evolution of Carnivores (Order Carnivora) Debate - Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind) vs. Dr. Chris Thompson

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 25 січ 2025

КОМЕНТАРІ • 723

  • @pancakeofdestiny1509
    @pancakeofdestiny1509 9 днів тому +4

    Huge respect for Dr Thompson for not letting mr Hovind run his script

  • @crimsonking5961
    @crimsonking5961 13 днів тому +17

    At around 1:40:00 Kent agrees that animals in the same kind can diversify so much they can no longer bring forth. Doesn't that defeat his entire argument about how animals can't have a common ancestor; dogs and cats for instance.

    • @rockroll9761
      @rockroll9761 13 днів тому +2

      No because it does it bring forth a different variation

    • @crimsonking5961
      @crimsonking5961 13 днів тому +4

      @rockroll9761 how do you determine if dogs and cats are different kinds or different variations of the same kind.

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 13 днів тому +2

      No, bc the original parent Kinds, could bring forth after their Kinds.

    • @dunestudios7395
      @dunestudios7395 13 днів тому +5

      @flashgordon6670 If an offspring loses the ability to bring forth after its parents' kind, has it become a new kind?

    • @crimsonking5961
      @crimsonking5961 13 днів тому +2

      @@flashgordon6670 Yes, just like the original parent kind of dogs and cats could bring forth after their kinds.

  • @grumpygramps129
    @grumpygramps129 13 днів тому +31

    I feel sorry for Donny having to sit through the same debate from Kent, it does make me laugh when Kent says he has had 300 + debates, no you haven't Kent you have 1 debate you have just re used it 300 times.

    • @TaxEvasi0n
      @TaxEvasi0n 13 днів тому +1

      I have to agree. For the most part I agree with Kent as I am a Christian myself, but I don't like the way he doesn't address things. He tends to stay relatively close to the surface and go 'nup'.
      His arguments need to be updated. I like Kent, but all his debates are the same.

    • @rockroll9761
      @rockroll9761 13 днів тому +4

      300 debate victories

    • @grumpygramps129
      @grumpygramps129 13 днів тому +7

      @rockroll9761 really if misunderstanding science and bearing false witness to the viewers is a victory, then i guess you are correct.

    • @RyanWelke
      @RyanWelke 13 днів тому +2

      @@grumpygramps129 guessing your assuming evolutionism is science.

    • @grumpygramps129
      @grumpygramps129 13 днів тому +5

      @RyanWelke well i assume Astronomy, Geology, Paleontology and evolutionary biology are all sciences, and all provide evidence that Kent is incorrect.

  • @w4rsh1p
    @w4rsh1p 12 днів тому +4

    34:00 Open discussion starts. I completely skipped Kent's presentation.

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 12 днів тому +3

      Oh he’s changed it this time, you missed out it’s much better now.

  • @DPM917
    @DPM917 13 днів тому +28

    When your central criticism of evolution is that “it’s just a religion” because obviously religious beliefs can’t be demonstrated by evidence, while claiming a religious book must always be literally correct, proves at least one thing for sure : irony is alive and well.

    • @ABC123jd
      @ABC123jd 13 днів тому +3

      The difference is that Kent doesn't demand that his religion be taught in science classrooms

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 13 днів тому +2

      Then you need to understand the distinction, between what people believe in their heads and what the Bible actually says.
      People believe all kinds of craziness that they think the Bible means, but never actually says.
      Like the Trinity, the immortal Soul, going to Heaven, Hell or Purgatory at the moment of death, etc.
      They also practice non biblical Pagan festivals, like Christmas, Easter, birthdays etc.
      The Bible is proven with Archaeology, Prophecy fulfilment and Textual analyses. Watch the Exodus Decoded by James Cameron and Archaeological evidence that proves the Bible is true, by Don Patton, if you don’t believe me.

    • @DPM917
      @DPM917 13 днів тому +7

      @@flashgordon6670The fact that New York and London exist and can be proven by archaeological evidence, isn’t evidence that the stories about a NY born and raised Spider-Man that occurred in NY, or a London born Harry Potter, are historically accurate.

    • @RyanWelke
      @RyanWelke 13 днів тому +3

      And it’s not wrong to call evolution a religion.

    • @RaymondZuendel
      @RaymondZuendel 13 днів тому +5

      @RyanWelke just because you have decided to makeup a religion and call it evolution dosen't help your argument

  • @DukeAB-re5cy
    @DukeAB-re5cy 13 днів тому +24

    Kent and his acolites think covering their ears and shouting La-la-la-la very loud is taking a position.

    • @creationismsuperthesisguy
      @creationismsuperthesisguy 13 днів тому +5

      Or saying "eAsY wIn 4 kEnT" means he actually did well instead of embarrassing himself like he always does 😂

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 13 днів тому +6

      No, you think covering your eyes and closing your mind to reality, proves your Magic Evolution Religion. 🙈🧠

    • @nusquadcoalition5661
      @nusquadcoalition5661 13 днів тому +3

      @@DukeAB-re5cy Who was interrupting who more during this debate. I think the pure gentlemenship of Dr. Hovind is incredible.

    • @dunestudios7395
      @dunestudios7395 13 днів тому +1

      @@nusquadcoalition5661 You have a right to interrupt an opponent who is gishgalloping and spewing fallacies.

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 12 днів тому +3

      Gishgalloping means going away from the previous point or topic in the discussion. When did DR Hovind ever do that? And even if he did, don’t all humans do that occasionally?

  • @avi8r66
    @avi8r66 14 днів тому +47

    The first fallacy is calling Kent a Dr. Everything is downhill from there.

    • @anthonyjames5474
      @anthonyjames5474 13 днів тому

      Lol a 5 yr old can see evolutionism is a fairytale

    • @RedefineLiving
      @RedefineLiving 13 днів тому +6

      @@avi8r66 If this is the best you have, I’d say he won.

    • @seandriver7923
      @seandriver7923 13 днів тому +4

      @@RedefineLiving won what all Kenny can do is denial and insults and my book

    • @RyanWelke
      @RyanWelke 13 днів тому +8

      Somebody doesn’t like that Kent made the evolution religion look laughable like he always does.

    • @seandriver7923
      @seandriver7923 13 днів тому +6

      @@RyanWelke Kenny is the Joke , with his colt compound and DVD series. He did noughing but insult and deflect. Let's talk about fruit , cars ECT. My book of fairy tales so what

  • @bakerchiropractic1065
    @bakerchiropractic1065 13 днів тому +3

    At 1:08:15 Hovind used the term “vaporware”…he doesn’t understand terms he uses
    “ a computer program that is advertised but is not yet or is never made available.”
    Has nothing to do with the contextual discussion

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 12 днів тому +2

      More Ad Hominem bc you lack worthy arguments and evidence.

  • @michaeloud6044
    @michaeloud6044 13 днів тому +15

    You’d have better luck debating chat gpt with Kent’s bullshit answers prerecorded and ready to be vomited up at a moments notice.

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 13 днів тому +5

      The Truth never changes I’m afraid. Unlike your silly Magic Evolution Religion.

    • @LandonAshworthDirects
      @LandonAshworthDirects 12 днів тому +1

      Amen

    • @krisnovicki7526
      @krisnovicki7526 11 днів тому

      Don’t reference chat gpt that’s just dumb

    • @BillMorganChannel
      @BillMorganChannel 11 днів тому

      @@flashgordon6670What happened?

    • @DM-bh2gg
      @DM-bh2gg 9 днів тому +1

      Well, it is not Kent problem that you took naturalism as your assumption and now you are trying to show naturalism as conclusion. It is your problem that you have inherent circular reasoning as base of every claim you make.

  • @LandonAshworthDirects
    @LandonAshworthDirects 12 днів тому +8

    At this point, I’ve watched every single debate that Kent has done that’s available online… I’ve concluded it’s best to just fast-forward through any time that he talks because he’s literally never said anything outside of what Gish taught him to say, and the only true substance comes from the other presenters

    • @mikerodgers7620
      @mikerodgers7620 12 днів тому +2

      You have learned nothing.

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 12 днів тому +2

      The Truth never changes I’m afraid. Unlike your silly Magic Evolution Religion.

  • @joncraven6524
    @joncraven6524 8 днів тому +1

    Hovind hates talking genetics and will try and run from it every time. His adolescent attitude and reaction to it speaks volumes.

  • @Ciachoo
    @Ciachoo 13 днів тому +10

    >people in comments actually agreeing with Hovind in 2025
    feeling a bit old as I still remember lurking YT around 2008 and seeing people actually enjoying his shows of ignorance
    we are not advancing too much as a species

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 13 днів тому +3

      Ad hominem bc you lack evidence and substantive arguments.

    • @auh2o148
      @auh2o148 13 днів тому

      And that is proof that evolution is false

    • @dunestudios7395
      @dunestudios7395 13 днів тому +3

      @@Ciachoo It's literally one guy replying to all the anti-Hovind comments. @flashgordon6670

  • @paulw9873
    @paulw9873 9 днів тому +2

    He still does not understand that the mutation does not have to be in both of the animals that are mating, only needs to be in one of them.

  • @janschropfer439
    @janschropfer439 13 днів тому +10

    At some point I created an algorythm which predicts what Kent will say based on 3 different hour long "debates" (read sermons) of Kent the con-man Hoving. It is horryfing it was 87% accurate. I will get to the point I could set up AI to debate Kent and win without any need of my intervention because it would be able to precisely predict what he will say

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 13 днів тому +2

      Can you create an AI algorithm that can disprove 2+2=4?
      Can AI Algorithms Magically Evolve themselves from nothing?

    • @janschropfer439
      @janschropfer439 13 днів тому +4

      @@flashgordon6670 actually to some degree yes - I studied self learning algorythms, got degree on that. They can evolve on base of allowed change from me to the algorythm.
      The 2+2 disprove is simply dumb, because that is logic/math

    • @janschropfer439
      @janschropfer439 13 днів тому +3

      @@flashgordon6670 and i would do you even one better - we created robots who could basically "breed". It is self replication, as would single cell organisms do, but they can take in material and self-replicate.

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 13 днів тому +1

      Did any of that involve Intelligent Design?

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 13 днів тому +1

      If you can disprove 2+2=4 then you’ll have a chance of disproving Dr Hovind.

  • @thebard420
    @thebard420 12 днів тому +5

    Kent has claimed nothing ate meat before the fall of man. Funny a God that would create carnivores before they ate meat....

    • @JarrellAnnJames
      @JarrellAnnJames 12 днів тому +3

      How does “dr” Kent know that the Dino’s did not eat meat ? Is that in the Bible ? If so please provide a scripture as support for “dr” hovinds assertion.

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 12 днів тому +1

      The carnivores today are descended from their parent Kinds that were vegetarians. But they still ate eggs, fish and milk, bc that doesn’t count as carnivorous does it?

    • @JarrellAnnJames
      @JarrellAnnJames 12 днів тому +2

      @@flashgordon6670 how do you know what they ate or are you just making an assertion?

    • @thebard420
      @thebard420 11 днів тому

      @flashgordon6670 so your saying they evolved to eat meat?

    • @bighairyviking387
      @bighairyviking387 11 днів тому +3

      ​@@thebard420 no he believes god said Abracadabra and changed everything, but left no evidence of it so as to test our faith in him, so that he could condemn us to eternal damnation if we don't believe in his magical nature.

  • @creationismsuperthesisguy
    @creationismsuperthesisguy 13 днів тому +8

    Another kent hovind debate where he is playing checkers and his opponent is playing 3d chess. Kent you can't assume you win because you're "defending god." You have to use good arguments that actually are substantiated by facts, data, natural observations, experiments, tests, and studies that generate reproducible results. Etc. Just saying "there is no geological column" for the five millionth time doesn't mean anything. That is still just an untrue claim.

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 13 днів тому +1

      Yep Dr Hovind surpassed your burden of proof easily and your Champion failed stupendously.

    • @nusquadcoalition5661
      @nusquadcoalition5661 13 днів тому +1

      @@creationismsuperthesisguy He's saying there is no geologic column because there is no way to date those columns because the minerals in these columns would have been established all at once according to the evolutionary theory, which would make all minerals the same age.

    • @nusquadcoalition5661
      @nusquadcoalition5661 13 днів тому +2

      @creationismsuperthesisguy And you speak test, experiments and observation. Give me a solid evolutionary experiment where an reptile turn to a mammal that they observed not imposed interpretation on a fossil.

    • @dunestudios7395
      @dunestudios7395 13 днів тому +2

      @nusquadcoalition5661 We could do that, but the experiment would take about 200 million years. Why do you people have this hang-up that science must be directly observable in real-time to be true?
      We believe the earth has a molten core even though we've never seen it. Do you believe it's "not science" to posit that the earth has a molten core?

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 12 днів тому +1

      📏🖍 there’s your evidence, can you see now? Here try these amazing Magic Evolution goggles. 🙈

  • @seandriver7923
    @seandriver7923 13 днів тому +6

    Insults and denile makes Kenny a doctor come on Donny mute him

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 12 днів тому +2

      Ad Hominem, where’s your evidence for Magic Evolution?

  • @83flightgang
    @83flightgang 10 днів тому

    20:31 religion: 20:32 human beings' relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine, or worthy of especial reverence.

  • @petrosnemardos
    @petrosnemardos 11 днів тому +1

    Why cant kents opponent stop shouting ? Where's the moderator ?

  • @aaronmolloy6934
    @aaronmolloy6934 14 днів тому +12

    Before even watching, I'm going to predict that Kent has absolutely nothing new to say. I'm ready for Kent bingo!

    • @erik.a.s
      @erik.a.s 14 днів тому +5

      Just don’t make it a drinking game, or you might end up dead.

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 13 днів тому +5

      Bc all his arguments stand proven with all the Real Science.

    • @kennnnys
      @kennnnys 10 днів тому

      ​@@flashgordon6670 youre wrong

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 9 днів тому +1

      Ty coming from a wrong person with Monkey Brains is a compliment.

  • @onethreeify
    @onethreeify 11 днів тому +1

    there is only one thing i would like to ask "doctor" chris tompson: have you ever seen a dog give birth to a banana? no, so your theory fails. and, he really should learn more about his religion of evolutionism because if it were true, there would only be "the common ancestor", but he always says "a common ancestor", showing that he actually knows that only micro evolution happens. there is a common ancestor for all dogs, that is called a dog. and there is a different common ancestor for all bananas, thats called a banana. but, whatever, i guess he doesnt need to understand his religion well enough to get a job in academia

    • @bighairyviking387
      @bighairyviking387 11 днів тому +5

      That was a special kind of nonsense. You could have just said you don't understand what evolution is.

  • @markc4176
    @markc4176 13 днів тому

    FYI I believe youtube is slowing down the download speed while watching this video. Videos before and after all have the same latency with no lag, but your video has nearly constant lag.

  • @alphabeta1337
    @alphabeta1337 14 днів тому +16

    Another victory for Kent

    • @Krim.LauraSaarinen
      @Krim.LauraSaarinen 14 днів тому +6

      Never won ONE debate.

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 14 днів тому +7

      That’s right he won hundreds.

    • @NickTimmer
      @NickTimmer 13 днів тому

      I just paid Patriot Bible Institute $2000. Please refer to me as Dr CreativeWhiz from now on.

    • @IdmodeOmega
      @IdmodeOmega 11 днів тому +1

      Hundreds of “oh my… this guy cant be real…”

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 11 днів тому +1

      You’re new here aren’t you?

  • @hueysimon2726
    @hueysimon2726 14 днів тому +2

    That's because "kind" and family or genus don't necessarily mean the same thing. "Kind" was a term used a long time ago before men created new terms to categorize animals. So there could be Tiger kinds or domestic cat kind.

    • @erik.a.s
      @erik.a.s 14 днів тому +1

      Could you give a definition of kind?

    • @NickTimmer
      @NickTimmer 13 днів тому +2

      ​@@erik.a.sno creationist has. Clint from Clint's Reptiles is the only one I heard try in his Steel man of Creationism video.

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 13 днів тому +1

      Chromosome Family Kinds, determined by the Chromosome Boundaries.

    • @Will_Schrank
      @Will_Schrank 13 днів тому

      Why do you suppose people created new terms to categorize animals?

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 12 днів тому +1

      To inflate their egos and grift grant money.

  • @jamusloos2859
    @jamusloos2859 12 днів тому +2

    Chris just keeps assuming when Kent says "you don't know any such thing" he means "i don't understand". Stop and listen to the assumptions you are making and maybe you will get it.
    Great job again Kent.

    • @JarrellAnnJames
      @JarrellAnnJames 12 днів тому

      Hmmm kent makes the assertion that Dino’s did not eat meat . “dr” hovind can offer no proof to support his assertion.

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 12 днів тому +2

      Except all the knowable evidence.

  • @stapedtryniti
    @stapedtryniti 13 днів тому +1

    The battle is eternal

  • @tobias4411
    @tobias4411 13 днів тому +7

    👇
    Many Christian denominations accept and believe in evolution.
    If evolution were considered a religion, would that mean they adhere to two religions? Such a premise logically doesn't make sense.

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 13 днів тому +4

      It means they made a deal with the Devil. God doesn’t compromise.

    • @RyanWelke
      @RyanWelke 13 днів тому

      Nobody accepts evolution, it’s a belief, and yes there are so called “Christians that try to mix the evolution religion with Christianity, I was one for ten plus years.

    • @nusquadcoalition5661
      @nusquadcoalition5661 13 днів тому

      @tobias4411 It means they're confused that these 2 ideas conflict with one another. What you don't mention is that over 60% of the nation does not believe in the evolutionary theory. Smh

    • @davidgibbs6261
      @davidgibbs6261 13 днів тому +2

      @@tobias4411 It is correct that the Bible and Evolutionism are mutually exclusive.
      You cannot hold both beliefs. Anyone who claims adherence to both simply does not understand what either one teaches.
      They could claim to be a slinky too, but, yeah.

    • @iwkaoy8758
      @iwkaoy8758 13 днів тому

      Christian except Historical evolution,but knot the bee leave system evolution/Neo darwinism
      Animals historically evolve,but that's different from the word evolve or evolution.
      Animals don't evolve, day historically evolve.

  • @hueysimon2726
    @hueysimon2726 14 днів тому +1

    Two parents that are both brunets can have blonde haired children. My dad's hair was really light blonde as a young child and my mom's hair was black. My dad's hair as he grew older darkened to black. I am the oldest child with black hair and my brother and sister both have blonde hair.

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 13 днів тому +1

      Does that prove Intelligent Design, or Magic Evolution?

  • @The-DO
    @The-DO 12 днів тому +1

    Reasons to Believe is great

  • @project_nihilist
    @project_nihilist 13 днів тому +5

    12:41 Anyone want to bet 20 bucks Kent goes _”Nut-unh_ *mi book says a thing”?*
    Seriously this guy thinks Knights in the Middle Ages hunted _Dragons for Glory_ and that’s why dinosaurs are extinct now… seriously dude thinks dragons am real

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 12 днів тому +1

      Video: What Does Soft Tissue in Dinosaur Bones Mean for Evolution? - Dr. Kevin Anderson
      Dinosaurs still exist today. Crocodiles, sharks, snakes, turtles, tortoises and lizards, are all as old, as dinosaurs supposedly are, according to Magic Evolution. And besides which, fish, amphibians, invertebrates, plants, fungi, sponges, algae, insects, arachnids and micro organisms, all still exist today, and they’re even older than dinosaurs, according to Magic Evolution. There is no evolution, as they all exist simultaneously, throughout all history. And fossils are found, buried by the Global Flood that all known Science, confirms or coincides with.
      Mary Scheister is still a Creationist. Will you stop misrepresenting her work and pretending that she’s on your side, when she isn’t?
      The Global Flood explains all the knowable evidences perfectly. The fact that so many fossil graveyards exist at all, proves catastrophe, over gradual uniform Naturalism.
      The Global Flood was like a gigantic washing machine, churning everything around and saturating the dinosaur bones with water rapidly. Then deposited them and they dried out rapidly, as the Receding Floodwaters subsided.
      The sedimentary rocks were formed, as if a gigantic cement mixer, churned up all the rocks, dissolved minerals and debris, and then deposited it rapidly. Burying the dinosaurs rapidly, so as to be able to become fossils.
      The huge pressure that oil is under, under the rock strata, comports with the global flood model and disproves the gradual uniform Naturalism model.
      Bc the rock strata wouldn’t be able to sustain the huge pressure, for more than several thousand years, without cracking and releasing the oil.
      The flash freezing of mammoths, also comports with the global flood model, and debunks gradual uniform Naturalism.
      Bc when the Ice Canopy was broken and fell down to Earth, this triggered the Ice Age. Flooding the Poles with solid water. The excess moisture in the atmosphere, from the heated rising oceans, also condensed rapidly at the Poles and on the mountains. Funny that they’re still flooded with solid water today and are slowly melting back, bc there’s much less moisture in the atmosphere today, than around the time of the global flood.
      There only needed to be, a tiny fraction of the heat that you think, would have necessitated the global flood. Bc the rapid expansion of the gases in the oceans, combined with the rapid expansion of the atmosphere, by way of the Ice Canopy breaking. Caused the air pressure to suddenly drop and the mother of all Storm Surges.
      Plus the mountains didn’t exist beforehand, so the water level only needed to rise, a fraction of the amount that you think.
      All the sea creature fossils, on top of the mountains all over the world, coincides with the Global Flood.
      All the desertification process, coincides with the global flood.
      All the oldest plants and trees, coincides with the global flood.
      Tracing all the languages and cultures back, coincides with the global flood.
      The mitochondrial Genetic bottleneck, coincides with the global flood.
      Etc.

    • @RyanWelke
      @RyanWelke 9 днів тому

      @@project_nihilist since dragons were just another word for dinosaurs the word dinosaur wasn’t invented until 1841 by Sir Richard Owens, then yeah dragons were real.

  • @Pterodactyl_Hunter
    @Pterodactyl_Hunter 13 днів тому +16

    Dr. Chris Won. All kent could do is repeat dogs produce dogs. So stupid.

    • @RyanWelke
      @RyanWelke 13 днів тому +4

      @@Pterodactyl_Hunter yep, Kent won another debate.

    • @anthonyjames5474
      @anthonyjames5474 12 днів тому +1

      Cite anything other than a dog which gave birth to a dog

    • @thebard420
      @thebard420 12 днів тому

      ​@anthonyjames5474 where do you draw the line between a dog and wolf?

    • @anthonyjames5474
      @anthonyjames5474 12 днів тому

      @thebard420
      A wolf is a dog lol. What are you talking about?

    • @thebard420
      @thebard420 12 днів тому

      @anthonyjames5474 the common ancestor of a dog is a wolf. A wolf is not a dog. Where then do you draw the line from when a wolf becomes a dog. Common ancestry is a long linage of change over time. No where does evolution say non dogs come from dogs?

  • @flashgordon6670
    @flashgordon6670 14 днів тому +9

    Yet another W for the Dr Kent the Hulk Hovind and Team Creation.
    Another crushing defeat for Team Monkey Brains. 🙈🧠😭

    • @RaymondZuendel
      @RaymondZuendel 14 днів тому +6

      So his demonstrated ignorance on the topic is a win for him.....😂😂😂😂

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 13 днів тому +2

      Accepting reality counts as ignorance?

    • @RaymondZuendel
      @RaymondZuendel 13 днів тому +2

      @flashgordon6670 when has Kent ever accepted reality?

    • @creationismsuperthesisguy
      @creationismsuperthesisguy 13 днів тому +1

      If only he could ever win something in real life. Like if he could find some evidence that actually supports some of his claims. Do some "hydrological sorting" experiments and show it actually works. I won't ever consider yelling about science on UA-cam a real scientific victory. Kent (and pretty much all creationists) settle for that because that's all they can do. This "victory" has changed absolutely nothing about the things you want it to change. But hey whatever helps you sleep at night I guess.

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 13 днів тому +2

      When have you ever not had to resort to Ad Hominem?

  • @AkaCrimsonHeel
    @AkaCrimsonHeel 4 дні тому

    Good mediating donny

  • @83flightgang
    @83flightgang 10 днів тому

    20:16 Science: the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, EXPERIMENTATION, and the TESTING of THEORIES against the EVIDENCE OBTAINED. So you don’t have to observe something millions of years ago to understand how it works or happened… You could conduct experiments and weigh the evidence obtained against the theory….. I could say that very same thing by your own logic…… “you wasn’t there to observe it, so you can’t say it’s true or science”….. you wasn’t there to observe god create the universe, so it’s not true or science….. except one thing, we have scientific from EXPERIMENTS AND TESTING AGAINST THEORIES TO BACK UP OUR CLAIM…… where is your data from experiments and test for creation?????? (BESIDES THE BIBLE) that’s not data or scientific…… if it is, then I went to Hogwart’s as a kid and made friends with Harry Potter…… oh, and spider man is my great uncle……

  • @morriscarstairs2685
    @morriscarstairs2685 12 годин тому

    Budinsky: "Look how they massacred my boy."

  • @colegetev5759
    @colegetev5759 10 днів тому +1

    Let’s look at this through the lens of real science. Religion aside:
    7 steps of the scientific method:
    Question, Research, Hypothesis, Experiment, Data Analysis, Conclusion, and Communication
    Evolution:
    Question: Do living creatures evolve into totally different kinds of species over long periods of time?
    Research: modern day ‘peer reviewed’ journal swear they did. (no observable evidence) if so where is this happening?
    Hypothesis: all living creatures will evolve into all different kinds of animals, plants and bacteria over long periods of time.
    Experiment: analyze fossils. They prove a creature died. Let’s stare at the animals and wait for them to produce a new creature..
    Data Analysis: all living creatures, trillions, over time produce only after their kind. Trillions of examples attesting to the word of God.
    Conclusion: we should believe that all creatures evolved from simpler creatures over long periods of time. Really? It’s not observable science.
    Communication: there’s no evolution from one kind to another. There only speciation within the kind. Speciation is observable.
    Creation
    Question: Are all living creatures created by God?
    Research: Bible said yes. It’s been around for thousands of years longer than any journal.
    Hypothesis: all living creatures bring forth after their kind. Genesis 1:24
    Experiment: look at trillions of example of creatures bringing forth only after their kind.
    Data Analysis: data supports hypothesis
    Conclusion: Genesis 1:24 is correct.
    and Communication: the word of Jesus will forever stand the test of time.
    The score is trillions to 0.

    • @jameswright...
      @jameswright... 4 дні тому +1

      Evolution has been observed 😂
      The bible is man-made make-believe historically scientifically and morally wrong.

    • @bobthemonitor9697
      @bobthemonitor9697 День тому +1

      Fossils tell us so much. More than the fact that they died, it also told us they were born, to parents very similar but not identical to themselves. the fact that heritable genetic differences exist through generations, which is observable today, is evidence enough for evolution

  • @keeperofknowledge4120
    @keeperofknowledge4120 14 днів тому +5

    @1:02:24 you got to hand it to Dr. Chris. That's a cute slide. He goes from bears to a golden retriever puppy :) awww. Kent is a good debater, but he doesn't have the expertise to argue about genetics. He didn't want to get into the technical details during his opening statement, but regression analysis is a powerful statistical technique that is used in pretty much all scientific disciplines. It's a pretty good method actually, and not do easy to throw away, but I don't think he actually knows how multivariate stats works so he just glosses over it by shouting bananas!

    • @whyaskwhybuddry
      @whyaskwhybuddry 13 днів тому +2

      Does the Evolutionist in this debate talk about how Hox Genes actually PREVENT major morphological changes in body plans? I haven't watched the whole debate yet.

    • @whyaskwhybuddry
      @whyaskwhybuddry 13 днів тому +1

      Regression analysis on a process you didn't witness still requires so many assumptions.

    • @keeperofknowledge4120
      @keeperofknowledge4120 13 днів тому

      @@whyaskwhybuddry that's not how it works. This is why he can't just gloss over it. People don't know what they're discarding. Do you trust that there's a relationship between height and weight?

    • @whyaskwhybuddry
      @whyaskwhybuddry 13 днів тому +2

      @@keeperofknowledge4120 No, there's not a strong relationship between height and weight. We see that in humans today. A 7 foot individual can weigh less than a 4 foot 7 person.
      Science requires observation thru testing. What Dr T is putting forth is just Cladistics that Kent has repeatedly said is mankind trying to group things. The animals don't care how we group them, they know what species and gender to look for in a reproduction mate.

    • @whyaskwhybuddry
      @whyaskwhybuddry 12 днів тому

      @keeperofknowledge4120 And you have no IDEA what Evolutionists are INCLUDING. They are including a ton of assumptions that are just unknowable and unprovable.
      "Prove" to me that chickens arose from something like a Tyrannosaurs by doing the opening scene of Jurassic Park movie. Duplicate it.

  • @thomasknudsen3686
    @thomasknudsen3686 13 днів тому +5

    Any video that portrays Kent Hovind as Doctor of anything is not standing for truth

    • @RyanWelke
      @RyanWelke 13 днів тому +2

      @@thomasknudsen3686 sounds like someone’s upset that Kent makes the evolution religion look real stupid

    • @thomasknudsen3686
      @thomasknudsen3686 13 днів тому +1

      @@RyanWelkeis Kent Hovind a doctor of any kind?

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 12 днів тому +3

      Ad hominem bc you lack worthy arguments. Where’s your evidence for Magic evolution?

    • @avi8r66
      @avi8r66 9 днів тому +1

      @ Evidence for evolution is found in every book on biology and in the diversity of life all around you. In the high schools and univerisities it goes beyond the books and the students conduct their own tests and see it for themselves. You can even watch evolution happen here: ua-cam.com/video/plVk4NVIUh8/v-deo.html
      And again, stating the fact that Kent is not a dr of anything is not an ad hominem, it is a fact.

    • @RyanWelke
      @RyanWelke 9 днів тому

      @ yep evolutionists really do a good job at forcing their religion in tax supported schools, tax supported colleges and tax supported universities and they really work hard to have only the evolution religion taught so students will get brainwashed and indoctrinated into believing in evolution. And the bacteria experiment isn’t evolution, it’s still bacteria, it’s no help for the evolution religion. And yes saying Kent isn’t a doctor is not a doctor is ad hominem attack

  • @echoingerudite205
    @echoingerudite205 13 днів тому +2

    This is a good debate. Kent did a good job showing that Chris believes a story that he imposes unto what is seen and believes the unobserved assumptions made to fit the story proves the story that was imposed true. Hope these two have a round two.

    • @Deathadder90
      @Deathadder90 12 днів тому +1

      It struck me that Kent just selectively ignores the results and even the existence of scientific studies.
      Instead he uses child like logic to try and denounce the results of centuries of studies in a wide variety of fields.

    • @echoingerudite205
      @echoingerudite205 12 днів тому +1

      @@Deathadder90 No he just doesn't accept the idea we know what happened 100 million years ago as science.

    • @Deathadder90
      @Deathadder90 11 днів тому

      @@echoingerudite205 Which is literally: not understanding centuries worth of studies while denouncing them at the same time for religious convenience.
      There were at least 3 or 4 times where he went: "oh I don't know this yet, I should study it"
      I can guarantee you that he doesn't actually study it. He just spends time looking for ways to throw shade on any notion.
      Just the whole "just lines on a piece of paper" is such a giveaway to his scientific inadequacy.

  • @Thisisthelifeofzach
    @Thisisthelifeofzach 13 днів тому

    Consider allowing the questions to be off topic (free flowing). It's more mental gymnastics that squeeze the fruit to allow juice to flow- for the thirsty. It will expose who knows more about reality and isn't that the point of mental exercise of debates? Stale mate is not as juicy. Maybe save the off topic questions for after the "on-topic" questions have been exhausted. Make it its own time. Some questions that are off topic are actually on topic but expansive and can create opportunities to test "all is relative".

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 13 днів тому +1

      No, it works by the Super chats having priority and when the debaters have to go.
      What was your question?

    • @Thisisthelifeofzach
      @Thisisthelifeofzach 13 днів тому

      @@flashgordon6670 Sorry, Who are you?

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 12 днів тому +1

      Me

  • @bakerchiropractic1065
    @bakerchiropractic1065 13 днів тому

    Budinsky keeps talking about an organic discussion..which definition is he using ?
    “relating to or derived from living matter.
    "organic soils"
    Similar:
    living
    live
    animate
    biological
    natural
    biotic
    Opposite:
    inorganic
    CHEMISTRY
    relating to or denoting compounds containing carbon (other than simple binary compounds and salts) and chiefly or ultimately of biological origin.
    2.
    (of food or farming methods) produced or involving production without the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, or other artificial agents”

  • @bakerchiropractic1065
    @bakerchiropractic1065 13 днів тому

    Adam’s one job was to name the animals and leave the sheep alone

  • @manofgod321
    @manofgod321 14 днів тому +15

    I think the funniest thing I heard from an evolutionist in the chat was that the chicken is the closest relative to the T-Rex. There really is no remedy for that kind of stupidity…

    • @jessec4443
      @jessec4443 14 днів тому +4

      Great argument from incredulity, Creationist! 😂😂

    • @Ghjiijbv
      @Ghjiijbv 14 днів тому +4

      its pretty simple dude: genetics. you skipped school a lot I guess

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 13 днів тому +4

      Incredible claims require incredible evidence.

    • @VanHalenIsolated
      @VanHalenIsolated 13 днів тому

      @@flashgordon6670 the irony of your comment just makes me smile. Before reading the following, we know for a fact that evolution happens because genetics ONLY has to do with RELATEDNESS and we share an extreme amount of DNA with chimpanzees whilst being seriously homologous with them, radioactive decay dating of multiple different isotopes giving exact same ranges of dates no matter how many times creationists try to discredit radioactive decay dating without factoring in contamination as actual scientists do, and the fact that we share approximately 12 endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) in the EXACT SAME location as chimpanzees. Each ERV in the same location has a 1 in 10 million chance. That’s 1x10^-7. You get 12 ERVs on the exact same spots, that’s 1 in 10^{84} , or 1 in:
      1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
      There are less atoms, yes ATOMS, in the observable Universe than this number. You have a better chance of randomly guessing 1 of 12 chosen atoms in the observable Universe than the chances of us having all of these ERVs on the same exact location as chimpanzees by chance. There are a million atoms in the width of a human hair to give you an idea.
      Now to the evidence of T. Rex and chickens!
      The evidence that chickens are among the closest living relatives to Tyrannosaurus rex comes from multiple lines of research, particularly genetics, comparative anatomy, and paleontology. Here’s an overview:
      -Molecular Evidence (Protein and DNA Analysis)
      In 2007, researchers, led by Mary Schweitzer, extracted collagen proteins from a well-preserved T. rex fossil (dated to about 68 million years ago). By comparing these ancient proteins to modern species, they discovered that the sequences were most similar to birds, especially chickens and ostriches.
      • Key Reference: Organ, C. L., et al., “Molecular Phylogenetics of T. rex,” Science, 2007.
      This molecular analysis confirmed that birds, including chickens, are more closely related to theropod dinosaurs (like T. rex) than to reptiles like crocodiles or lizards.
      -Anatomical Evidence
      • Hollow Bones: Both theropod dinosaurs and modern birds, including chickens, have lightweight, hollow bones, a trait that aids in mobility and, for birds, flight.
      • Wishbones: The furcula (wishbone) is a defining feature of birds and is also found in theropod dinosaurs, including T. rex, linking them anatomically.
      • Skeletal Similarities: Theropod dinosaurs and birds share similar arrangements of their hips, legs, and feet, as well as certain skull features.
      -Feathered Relatives
      Fossil evidence shows that many theropod dinosaurs, including close relatives of T. rex, were feathered. For example:
      • Fossils of Yutyrannus, a large theropod closely related to T. rex, show the presence of feathers, demonstrating a continuum from feathered dinosaurs to modern birds.
      -Evolutionary Lineage
      Modern birds are the descendants of small theropod dinosaurs. Chickens, as modern birds, share a common ancestor with T. rex through this evolutionary lineage:
      • Dinosaurs like T. rex belong to the clade Theropoda.
      • Birds evolved from a subgroup of theropods known as maniraptorans.
      -Behavioral Evidence
      Modern birds exhibit behaviors seen in fossil evidence of theropods, such as brooding and nesting, indicating a shared evolutionary heritage.
      Conclusion: Chickens are closely related to T. rex because they are both part of the dinosaur lineage. Birds are the only surviving dinosaurs, and chickens, as modern birds, share molecular, anatomical, and behavioral traits with their ancient theropod ancestors.

    • @creationismsuperthesisguy
      @creationismsuperthesisguy 13 днів тому +1

      ​@flashgordon6670 there is evidence to support that claim

  • @krisnovicki7526
    @krisnovicki7526 11 днів тому

    How would one classify a similarity? … seems irrational to know everything from each animal and know what similarities match -

  • @seandriver7923
    @seandriver7923 13 днів тому +6

    Dogs came from a dog plant , cats coming from a cat plant. More possible than a God sparking then into being.

    • @ABC123jd
      @ABC123jd 13 днів тому +1

      Something that's impossible can't be more possible than something else

    • @seandriver7923
      @seandriver7923 13 днів тому

      @ABC123jd how can that be impossible there are plants, there are cats and dogs. Life forms coming from other plants is not magic. To say it's impossible every plant would have to be searched.

    • @ABC123jd
      @ABC123jd 13 днів тому

      @@seandriver7923 Based on your logic, God producing cats and dogs is just as possible. If you can believe that animals come from plants because you can't falsify the process of plants producing animals, then you should have no problem believing that God created them because you can't falsify God creating animals.

    • @seandriver7923
      @seandriver7923 13 днів тому

      @@ABC123jd you could not be more wrong. We know there are other plants , we know there are cats and dogs. We don't know there are God's show me a God and yes it becomes a possibility. .I never said plants made them I said they came here from another plant.

    • @ABC123jd
      @ABC123jd 13 днів тому +1

      @@seandriver7923 We do NOT know that plants produce animals or that animals come from plants. Yet you want to say it's possible anyways. Okay, so even if we don't know that God exists, then it's still possible that God exists. And if it's possible that God exists, then it's possible that God created animals. You're using a double standard.

  • @bobthemonitor9697
    @bobthemonitor9697 День тому

    This video is probably fine, but considering Kent has been perma-banned from youtube and GBC was knocked down for ban evasion, you should probably refrain from hosting him in the future. Doing so could put you in the crosshairs for ban evasion, wouldn't want that stream to be reported

    • @StandingForTruthMinistries
      @StandingForTruthMinistries  День тому

      Do you see him scheduled for future shows?

    • @bobthemonitor9697
      @bobthemonitor9697 День тому +1

      ​@@StandingForTruthMinistriesnot presently, luckily, I'm just saying so now so you don't accidentally schedule him for future streams further than two months out

  • @bakerchiropractic1065
    @bakerchiropractic1065 13 днів тому

    The Hebrew word for kind ( as in species “ is “min”.. Aramaic word for "kind" is ḥasad or “to beg” or “to be mild”…the Greek word used in the Bible for “kind “ is chrēstos (kray-stos) or “good , useful, benevolent”

  • @rubba6818
    @rubba6818 8 годин тому +1

    DNA is not complicated it is built up of 4 puzzle pieces. Lol. Secondly, 99% of our DNA is JUNK. XD JUNK. Pointless argument.

  • @bakerchiropractic1065
    @bakerchiropractic1065 13 днів тому

    If Jehovah was the origin of all living creatures , it’s clear they all had a common origin using common logic and definitions …

  • @kennnnys
    @kennnnys 11 днів тому +1

    I know more than you. Best burn ever

  • @Mark-ge3tt
    @Mark-ge3tt 13 днів тому +1

    Jeep is owned by Chrysler, not General Motors.

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 13 днів тому +1

      Not all jeeps are made by Chrysler.

    • @Raiders1917
      @Raiders1917 13 днів тому

      Jeep is owned by FCA which is Fiat.

    • @dunestudios7395
      @dunestudios7395 13 днів тому

      @@flashgordon6670 Are you Kent Hovind?

    • @Mark-ge3tt
      @Mark-ge3tt 12 днів тому

      @@Raiders1917 Still not GM.

    • @Raiders1917
      @Raiders1917 12 днів тому

      @@Mark-ge3tt Not Chrysler either

  • @RedefineLiving
    @RedefineLiving 14 днів тому +14

    Another easy for Kent. You see folks, evolution is simply just not science.

    • @VanHalenIsolated
      @VanHalenIsolated 14 днів тому

      😣 I’m not sure you know what science is if you think evolution isn’t science. There’s more evidence for evolution than gravity, plate tectonics, and germ theory of disease. Young Earth Creationists, especially those like Kent Hovind, sound like flat earthers to everyone else. There’s no evidence whatsoever for a designer and a plethora of evidence to the contrary.

    • @alphabeta1337
      @alphabeta1337 14 днів тому +2

      ​@@VanHalenIsolatedActually there is absolutely zero evidence for Evolution.

    • @Raiders1917
      @Raiders1917 14 днів тому +1

      Agree to disagree yeah

    • @RaymondZuendel
      @RaymondZuendel 14 днів тому +9

      Kent didn't understand what was being discussed

    • @abegrey740
      @abegrey740 13 днів тому +3

      LOL. You see folks the bible is a book of fiction.

  • @CreationMyths
    @CreationMyths 13 днів тому +3

    I love the vast majority of these comments are hate-watchers. So different from even just a few years ago.

    • @grumpygramps129
      @grumpygramps129 12 днів тому +3

      @CreationMyths to be honest i think Kent is doing alot more harm for Christianity than good.

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 12 днів тому +2

      If you’re not a Christian then what right do you have to judge?

    • @CreationMyths
      @CreationMyths 12 днів тому +2

      @ lol if you *are* a Christian then what right do you have to judge? Pretty sure I remember something about that in the New Testament.

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 11 днів тому +1

      No bc we’re talking about an internal issue.
      If you’re a member of a yachting club, are you going to take any crap from a biker?

    • @RyanWelke
      @RyanWelke 9 днів тому +1

      @@grumpygramps129 guys like Kent and Standing for truth are the ones that broke me free from my brainwashed and indoctrinated state in believing the evolution religion.

  • @AkaCrimsonHeel
    @AkaCrimsonHeel 4 дні тому

    Building up a complex concept and ushering it into the world through "science" (propoganda) is not science. All will bow down to theyre creator.

  • @hueysimon2726
    @hueysimon2726 14 днів тому +3

    The Bible doesn't say that the Earth is flat. You are deducing from terms they used to claim that they are saying that it's flat. It also mentions the 4 corners of the earth. Are there corners? No. It was a metaphor. Some of the Bible is poetry. Some of it is history. Some of it is ethics teachings.

    • @niklaswikstrom78
      @niklaswikstrom78 13 днів тому +5

      So nice to be able to know pick and choose what part is allegory what is actual truth / facts, to fit your own beliefs or modern understanding of the silly things in the bible.

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 13 днів тому +1

      Last time I checked, circles don’t have corners.
      Continents do have corners of sorts.

  • @henno3889
    @henno3889 14 днів тому +6

    Funny how creationists like Rant Hovind feel that they must defend their iron age views over and over and over again, for instance with videos like this, while science just consolidates its conclusions with verifiable evidence and then moves forward. If only there were some evidence for those genesis fairy tales, Rant might also move on at some point in his miserable life.

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 13 днів тому +4

      What do you mean? We still use Iron today, and bronze, and stone.

    • @RedefineLiving
      @RedefineLiving 13 днів тому +2

      Yet here you are, posturing for your position also. Derp.

    • @henno3889
      @henno3889 13 днів тому

      @@RedefineLiving I'm not. I don't have to.

    • @RedefineLiving
      @RedefineLiving 13 днів тому

      @@henno3889 You literally are. Oof

    • @xsmoke1980
      @xsmoke1980 13 днів тому

      Amazing how you could watch this debate and still be so gullible. Amazingly ignorant.

  • @bakerchiropractic1065
    @bakerchiropractic1065 13 днів тому +3

    Logic to Hovind “ nature is the common designer” bud

  • @Gwaithmir
    @Gwaithmir 13 днів тому +9

    Despite having no scientific credentials or even an accredited degree, Hovind presents himself as someone who understands the science of evolution better than people with advanced science degrees who research in labs and publish peer-reviewed papers. During his presentations, he sounds like a stand-up comedian when he attacks evolution, or a used car salesman when he is attempting to make a point by getting his audience to buy a video or book from him. Many of his slideshows read like a top 10 list of commonly seen (and refuted) arguments for creationism that contain little to no actual data or proof. These arguments are interjected with painfully unfunny "jokes" and anecdotes, which are topped off with a healthy serving of mined quotes.

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 13 днів тому +4

      Did you Intelligently Design your amazing ad hominem argument? Or did it Magically Evolve itself?

    • @creationismsuperthesisguy
      @creationismsuperthesisguy 13 днів тому +2

      ​@flashgordon6670 pointing out that somebody lacks character and credibility is not an ad hominem you need to learn what an ad hominem fallacy actually is.

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 13 днів тому +4

      As hominem means you don’t have anything worthwhile to say, so you’re just attacking the messenger.
      Grow up Monkey Brains. 🙈🧠

    • @dunestudios7395
      @dunestudios7395 13 днів тому +1

      @@flashgordon6670 Ad hominem is literally all you do here in the comments

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 12 днів тому +2

      I’m allowed to bc I’m not in an official debate and I’m defending against your troll attacking the channel and you’re doing it.

  • @Evidence1
    @Evidence1 11 днів тому +5

    To all Kent Hovind followers in the chat:
    No scientist ever in the history of science believes that one kind of animal gives birth to another kind. This is a straw-man Kent uses in every debate.

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 9 днів тому +2

      Look again at your Magic Evolution drawings.

    • @RyanWelke
      @RyanWelke 9 днів тому

      @@Evidence1 it’s not a strawman, you’re blatantly denying the claims of your evolution religion.

    • @maxm3522
      @maxm3522 9 днів тому

      Evolution claims that a dog was produced by a non-dog

  • @MarkMiller-gt5tu
    @MarkMiller-gt5tu 14 днів тому +5

    Everytime Mr. Hovind speaks, I hear a goat going "bah bah, bahhahahaha, oh gee, what a "coincidence" he "just happens" to have the Sun, Moon, and Mercury, in the sign Capricorn. The goat.😊🎉.

  • @seandriver7923
    @seandriver7923 13 днів тому +4

    Kenny has an old book of crap it's gotta be true

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 13 днів тому +1

      The Bible is proven with Archaeology, Prophecy fulfilment and Textual analyses. Watch the Exodus Decoded by James Cameron and Archaeological evidence that proves the Bible is true, by Don Patton, if you don’t believe me.

    • @RedefineLiving
      @RedefineLiving 13 днів тому +1

      @@seandriver7923 Another goofy atheist statement that can’t be defended. Why so emotional?

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 13 днів тому +1

      The Bible is proven with Archaeology, Prophecy fulfilment and Textual analyses. Watch the Exodus Decoded by James Cameron and Archaeological evidence that proves the Bible is true, by Don Patton, if you don’t believe me.

  • @bakerchiropractic1065
    @bakerchiropractic1065 13 днів тому +4

    Kent debates like two retired garbage collectors sitting on the porch of the post office at Spit N Whittle Texas on a July 10 th sunny day

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 12 днів тому +2

      Don’t be condescending to people with superior occupations and intellect than you.

  • @joelercoaster
    @joelercoaster 14 днів тому +10

    Kent destroyed him 😂showing a bunch of Cartoon Network animations and made up timelines proves nothing 😂 the theory of evolution is not scientific, it’s not observable. Kent another easy W. 2+2 still = 4

    • @jessec4443
      @jessec4443 14 днів тому +8

      Misunderstanding evolution isn’t an argument against it. I’m sorry all you have is an argument from incredulity. 😢😢😢

    • @Ghjiijbv
      @Ghjiijbv 14 днів тому +5

      1:04 min , kent got destroyed😂😂talking about irrelevant stuff as always. im surprised he didnt mentioned the tornado again

    • @LM-jz9vh
      @LM-jz9vh 13 днів тому

      It's amazing how uninformed some of you people are and that you're easily convinced by frauds and charlatans.
      Start with BioLogos referenced below. It's a Christian organisation.
      ---------------------------------------------------------
      Francisco Ayala, a renowned evolutionary biologist and recipient of the National Medal of Science and the 2010 Templeton Prize *(and a former Dominican priest),* recently stated the consensus of the field in these terms [Ayala2010, pg. 49-50]:
      *The overwhelming majority of biologists accept evolution. Those who know professionally the evidence for evolution* ***cannot deny it.*** *Scientists agree that the evolutionary origin of animals and plants is a scientific conclusion* ***beyond reasonable doubt.*** *The evidence is compelling and all-encompassing because it comes from all biological disciplines including those that did not exist in Darwin's time.* In the second half of the nineteenth century, Darwin and other biologists obtained convincing evidence from a variety of disciplines, which had reached early maturity during the nineteenth century: *anatomy, embryology, biogeography, geology, and paleontology. Since Darwin's time, the evidence for evolution* ***has become much stronger and more comprehensive,*** coming not only from traditional sources but also from recent disciplines such as *genetics, biochemistry, ecology, ethology, neurobiology, and molecular biology.*
      ... ***Because the evidence is so overwhelming,*** ... evidence for evolution no longer engages the interest of biologists except when explaining evolution to the public or arguing with those who refuse to accept evolution. Although not sought and ***no longer needed,*** the evidence for the fact of evolution continues to accumulate.
      *"How many scientists question evolution?* - sciencemeetsreligion.org"
      "As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before. It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. ***The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming.*** *I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that."*
      ***"Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true.*** If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things."
      - Dr Francis Collins. Former head of the Human Genome Project and a Christian.
      ------------------------------------------------------------------
      In addition, look up the below articles:
      *"What is the evidence for evolution? - Common-questions - BioLogos"*
      (A Christian organisation)
      *"Does the Cambrian Explosion Pose a Challenge to Evolution? - Common-questions - BioLogos"*
      *"Is Evolution a Theory in Crisis? - Common-questions - BioLogos"*
      Watch *"DNA Evidence that Humans and Chimpanzees Share a Common Ancestor : Endogenous Retroviruses - Stated Clearly"*
      (Look for Dr Francis Collins at the end of the video, who was the former head of The Human Genome Project and is a Christian)
      *"Evolution: Library: Human Chromosome 2"*
      Watch *"Ken Miller on Human Evolution" - Kurpalac*
      (Kenneth Miller is a theist)
      *"Why scientists dismiss 'intelligent design' - Science"*
      *"15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense - Scientific American"*
      *"Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions | New Scientist"*
      *"What the Scientific Community Says about Evolution and Intelligent Design | American Civil Liberties Union"*
      *"The intellectual vacuity of mathematical arguments against evolution - Why Evolution Is True"*
      *"Once again: misguided calls for a thorough revamping of evolutionary biology - Why Evolution Is True"*
      *"Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur (Scientific American)"*
      *"Confessions of a former creationist - Trees In Space"*
      *"Project Steve - the petition about science that actually supports science"*

    • @jessebradley924
      @jessebradley924 13 днів тому +1

      "Not observable" except for all the observations. Reading comprehension must be horribly difficult over there in Kent Land. Tragic.

    • @abegrey740
      @abegrey740 13 днів тому

      Nitroplasts

  • @MarkMiller-gt5tu
    @MarkMiller-gt5tu 14 днів тому +2

    🐐🐐🐐Kent Hovind.😂

  • @ThisisstillMYROOM.
    @ThisisstillMYROOM. 14 днів тому +5

    Chris , STOP interrupting and everything you've said regarding the bible is coming from pure ignorance !! Please go and educate yourself on what the bible actually says.....

    • @RaymondZuendel
      @RaymondZuendel 14 днів тому +5

      Just like everything Kent says about science is coming from his ignorance

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 13 днів тому +1

      Yeah fat chance.

  • @bobharrell4916
    @bobharrell4916 12 днів тому +2

    So he asks Doctor hovind a question then interrupts the whole time and then gets mad that he doesn't believe his nonsense... And his hatred for jesus and the bible is very apparent

    • @bighairyviking387
      @bighairyviking387 12 днів тому +5

      Kent is not a Doctor.

    • @bobharrell4916
      @bobharrell4916 10 днів тому

      If you go to a school and get a doctor at degree that means you're a doctor just because you don't like it is Irrelevant... darwin was a pastor nothing more..

  • @StneCldKilla
    @StneCldKilla 14 днів тому

    That one Maned wolf looks like a chupacabra lol 😳wouldn’t want to see that thing reaching under a door.

  • @RedefineLiving
    @RedefineLiving 13 днів тому +5

    Look at all the sniveling critics with nothing but slander. They come here obsessed and desperate but they don't come with any evidence. They make it so obvious it's only about their denial of the God they know. Just look at them.

    • @crimsonking5961
      @crimsonking5961 13 днів тому +6

      If you want evidence of evolution get off UA-cam and take a couple biology courses at an accredited university...

    • @RyanWelke
      @RyanWelke 13 днів тому

      @@crimsonking5961 biology doesn’t support the evolution religion.

    • @RaymondZuendel
      @RaymondZuendel 13 днів тому +4

      @@RedefineLiving the best you have is to imagine that everyone is denying that your invisible immaterial creator exists? Why should anyone believe that just because you say so?

    • @RyanWelke
      @RyanWelke 13 днів тому +2

      @@crimsonking5961and biology doesn’t support the evolution religion and the evolution religion has nothing to do with biology.

    • @crimsonking5961
      @crimsonking5961 13 днів тому +2

      @@RyanWelke sure it does and so does genetics

  • @thomashardy5650
    @thomashardy5650 14 днів тому +1

    If you want to have your mind blown. Set up a debate between Kent and Rabbi Tovia Singer. This Rabbi knows the New Testamemt better than any Christian I've ever known. Including Dr. Hovind. You will be shocked...and entertained.

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 13 днів тому +1

      What would the title of the debate be?

    • @thomashardy5650
      @thomashardy5650 13 днів тому

      @flashgordon6670 good question.
      Maybe; Can We Trust The New Testament? Or... Is Jesus, God?

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 12 днів тому +1

      Yes and No.

    • @thomashardy5650
      @thomashardy5650 12 днів тому

      Lol. Any title works for me, as long as Rabbi Singer gets to debate Dr Hovind.
      I've watched and followed up on every CSE class 20 times or more. And every Dr or witness in his orbit thoroughly.
      Dr Hovind was a mentor.... I've even spoken to Kent on the phone, in which he was Very Rude.
      Why would anyone be opposed to this debate? I think Kent has suffered enough and it's time to show him the truth.

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 9 днів тому +2

      You wouldn’t accept the Truth if you tripped over it.

  • @alphabeta1337
    @alphabeta1337 14 днів тому +8

    No Evolutionist has ever debunked Kent Hovind

    • @zTN52
      @zTN52 13 днів тому +6

      You must be new on this site.

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 13 днів тому +4

      And you must be new to the Real World. Don’t worry you’ll come around to the Truth, when you’ve finished climbing around the mountain. We’ll be waiting at the top for ya.

    • @bakerchiropractic1065
      @bakerchiropractic1065 13 днів тому +1

      Kent debunks himself bruh

    • @bakerchiropractic1065
      @bakerchiropractic1065 13 днів тому

      The magic sky captain poofed it all into existence-Hovind “science”

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 11 днів тому +1

      It all pooped itself into existence did it?

  • @WillBobbins
    @WillBobbins 13 днів тому +4

    This comments section is wonderful. The Bible believers need nothing but the word of God to explain everything. The evolutionists look for evidence and information. Neither will bend to eachothers view. Kents arguments, ironically, haven't evolved. He feels he is right despite anything. Even if God TOLD him that he was wrong... He would probably debate him.

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 13 днів тому +2

      Wow did you Intelligently Design your amazing argument, or did it Magically Evolve itself?

    • @bighairyviking387
      @bighairyviking387 13 днів тому +1

      ​@@flashgordon6670 his comment was intelligently constructed unlike your usual comments.

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 13 днів тому +1

      Aha! So you admitted that Intelligence is the driving force of the Universe. Gotcha Monkey Brains!
      Softly softly catchee Monkey!
      🙈🧠

    • @bighairyviking387
      @bighairyviking387 13 днів тому +1

      @@flashgordon6670 nope, I said that a comment was intelligently constructed. Unlike the one you just posted. Try thinking before you post.

    • @WillBobbins
      @WillBobbins 13 днів тому +2

      @@flashgordon6670 interestingly. I haven't committed to either side in my argument. I have simply stated the fact.
      Evolutionists take facts and evidence.
      Creationists take Biblical scripture.
      Kent has no new arguments or information beyond his initial preaching.
      Prove me wrong?
      And don't assume.

  • @jacobdavis5387
    @jacobdavis5387 13 днів тому +2

    Why did kent get banned from YT? His stuff helped me alot and now all my favorite debates are gone.

    • @RedefineLiving
      @RedefineLiving 13 днів тому +3

      @@jacobdavis5387 Do you see all his emotional critics in chat here? That’s why.

    • @RaymondZuendel
      @RaymondZuendel 13 днів тому +3

      @jacobdavis5387 Kent didn't get banned from YT, you are viewing him, some of his old channels got removed for not following terms of service agreements.

    • @jacobdavis5387
      @jacobdavis5387 13 днів тому +1

      @RaymondZuendel thats what I mean.. what community guide lines did he break do you know?

    • @RaymondZuendel
      @RaymondZuendel 13 днів тому +2

      @jacobdavis5387 misinformation, he was suspended several times for making claims about curing cancer and other medical advice he isn't qualified to spew

    • @Will_Schrank
      @Will_Schrank 13 днів тому +1

      In what way did his stuff help you?

  • @flashgordon6670
    @flashgordon6670 13 днів тому +2

    Welcome to the Creation Clinic, with the World Famous Dr Kent Hovind!
    Class in session.

    • @crimsonking5961
      @crimsonking5961 13 днів тому +4

      Dr Chris was the one giving the lecture.
      Kent should pay him for the class.

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 13 днів тому +2

      What, for teaching nonsense, lies and imagination?

    • @crimsonking5961
      @crimsonking5961 13 днів тому +4

      @@flashgordon6670 nope, for teaching science. You should re-watch the debate. Chris said a lot of interesting things about genetics and common ancestry

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 12 днів тому +2

      A lot of interesting Wrong things yeah.

    • @crimsonking5961
      @crimsonking5961 12 днів тому +1

      @@flashgordon6670 If you change the word "wrong" to "things I don't understand" you would be correct.

  • @patriotdefender808
    @patriotdefender808 14 днів тому +6

    Condescending Chris, just because you ‘classify’ animals does NOT mean the religion of evolutionism is true.

    • @jessec4443
      @jessec4443 14 днів тому +4

      Just because you don’t understand the basics of evolution doesn’t make it false. 😢😢😢

    • @oif3gunner
      @oif3gunner 14 днів тому +2

      ​@jessec4443 Doesn't make it true either though.

    • @jessec4443
      @jessec4443 14 днів тому +2

      @@oif3gunner Clearly, what’s your point?

    • @oif3gunner
      @oif3gunner 13 днів тому +1

      @@jessec4443 The same as yours.

    • @jessec4443
      @jessec4443 13 днів тому +2

      @@oif3gunner I have a feeling you really don’t understand what you’re talking about. Your argument only makes you look more ignorant. It’s a nothing-burger.

  • @petrosnemardos
    @petrosnemardos 11 днів тому

    "Racoon dog" 😅

  • @nusquadcoalition5661
    @nusquadcoalition5661 13 днів тому +2

    In my personal opinion, guys like Chris "defend" evolutiounary claims because they're chasing the clout and in-turn its more lucrative. Guys like this don't deserve a honest debate. He's just like a Dave Farina or Aron Ra, they don't care about truth, they're only care about whats better for their pockets. Lastly, the sad truth is that truth is uncommon for a fiduciary reason. Dr. Hovind, you have to face more formidable opponents. God Bless

    • @creationismsuperthesisguy
      @creationismsuperthesisguy 13 днів тому +5

      It's the exact opposite. Creationists don't care about the truth. They start with a conclusion and then try to contort facts and data to fit the presupposed conclusion. This comment is so ironic. You think kent hovind and Ken ham aren't lying about science and biology because it gets them clout and money?

    • @nusquadcoalition5661
      @nusquadcoalition5661 13 днів тому

      @creationismsuperthesisguy No i don't because it doesnt get them clout and money. Matter a fact the persecution is is much higher as a creationist and this is a proven fact. Mainstream media won't even publish data that appeals to creation. They have institutions dedicated to keeping creation off main line viewership. If that's not propaganda, i don't know what is. You talk about presupositions like evolution doesn't have theirs. Dude the entire theory was a presuposition. Darwin was looking at the differences in bird beaks and concluded that all animals had a common ancestor, and this is 19th century, where ideas were being established to undermine biblical understanding. And we're still living in those times my friend. The Bible has been understood as the truth for ages and truth is not arbitrary, especially when it's refuted with lies.

    • @nusquadcoalition5661
      @nusquadcoalition5661 13 днів тому

      @creationismsuperthesisguy No I don't because it doesnt get them clout and money. Matter of fact, the persecution is higher as a creationist and this is a proven fact. They have institutions dedicated to keeping creation off main line viewership. If that's not propaganda, I don't know what is. You talk about presupositions like evolution doesn't have its own. Dude, the entire evolutionary theory is a presuposition. Darwin was looking at the differences between birds beaks and concluded that all animals and plants have a common ancestor, to put it simply. And this is 19th century, where ideas were being formed to undermine biblical truth. Creation has been understood as truth for ages and truth can never be arbitrary, especially when it's refuted with lies. Right now is a time where a lot of cover up's can't be shunned off as conspiracy anymore. But I have a question for you, and this will say it all for me, do you believe that primitive humans started with a darker complexion as Darwin insinuates in Origin of species (Which is not the whole name of the book, need i remind you)?

    • @creationismsuperthesisguy
      @creationismsuperthesisguy 13 днів тому +2

      ​@nusquadcoalition5661 you're already wrong in your first line so I didn't read the rest. Kent has made millions of dollars making this stuff up and pushing it out to the public. He has an entire cult of devoted followers living on his compound, dinosaur adventure land. He has people who adore him for telling them what they want to here even though it's a lie.

    • @nusquadcoalition5661
      @nusquadcoalition5661 13 днів тому

      @creationismsuperthesisguy Wow. Far out, man.

  • @Krim.LauraSaarinen
    @Krim.LauraSaarinen 14 днів тому +9

    Evolution is not religion. Doesnt he know what a religion is? I hate people who deny science just because the believe in some imaginary thing in the sky.

    • @alphabeta1337
      @alphabeta1337 14 днів тому +3

      Evolution is a religion masquerading as science. You mix a little bit of true science which agrees with creation with lots of false science and then claim there is no creation.

    • @patriotdefender808
      @patriotdefender808 14 днів тому +6

      Evolutionism is DEFINITELY a religion. You have to believe in something that cannot be proven.

    • @RaymondZuendel
      @RaymondZuendel 14 днів тому +3

      @patriotdefender808 that stands true for everything, because science doesn't prove anything, so by your logic everything you believe is a religion

    • @patriotdefender808
      @patriotdefender808 14 днів тому +1

      @@RaymondZuendel yes, exactly.

    • @RaymondZuendel
      @RaymondZuendel 14 днів тому +4

      @patriotdefender808 so you have alot of religions you worship

  • @ajscuell7155
    @ajscuell7155 13 днів тому +2

    Kent "loves science" apparently.
    Then goes on to dismiss dozens of fields of scientific research that all converge on an ancient earth and common ancestry as "spongebob imagination".
    What a clown.

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 12 днів тому +1

      Except that they all converge on Intelligent Design and not your Magic Evolution Fantasy.

    • @ajscuell7155
      @ajscuell7155 12 днів тому

      @@flashgordon6670 Provide some evidence for this hilarious claim, please. You can't. Nobody can.

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 11 днів тому +1

      The Age of Earth is discerned through the Bible, by adding up the lifespans that the Bible says, all the people in it lived. This adds up to about 6k years ago, for the Creation week.
      Beforehand, “Earth was without form and void. The Spirit of God moved across the waters.”
      There wasn’t any dry land, before the Creation week. So Earth didn’t exist, in a form that it does today.Therefore, pre dry land Earth, isn’t datable.
      Earth today is only datable, bc of what we’re told in the Bible and all the knowable Science evidence. When correctly understood, coincides with the same age, 6k years.
      C14 proves that Earth, can only be at maximum, 60,000 years old. The pre Global Flood Earth, had an ice Canopy. That prevented about 90%, of today’s C14 rate, in the atmosphere. By stopping the vast majority, of the sun’s x rays, uv light and harmful energy.
      This is why many things that are claimed to be millions of years old, by mainstream secular science, dates as 10s of thousands years old.
      Such as Coal for example and dinosaur fossils. The amount of C14 in them, dates in 10s of thousands of years. Bc they were living organisms, in the pre Flood world. That accumulated about 10%, of the amount of C14 into them than lifeforms do today.
      This coincides with the Bible account, of the pre Global Flood world. The Global Flood is the only way that all the fossils could be created and preserved, for thousands of years.
      Many other evidences, prove the rapid formation, of Earth’s rock strata and coincide with the Bible record, of our history.
      Radio Polonium Halos in Zircon crystals in granite, can only happen with rapid cooling and formation. Not a gradual buildup of deposition of particles and compression, as the mainstream secular Scientists claim.
      C14 in Diamonds proves they’re at most, 10s of thousands years old.
      The Salinity of the Oceans, coincides with the Bible record.
      The sea creature fossils, on top of the mountains, all over the world, coincides with the Global Flood.
      The desertification process of all Earth’s deserts, coincides with the global flood.
      The oldest plants and trees, coincides with the global flood.
      Tracing all the languages and cultures back, coincides with the global flood.
      The mitochondrial Genetic bottleneck, coincides with the global flood.
      See the Video: What Does Soft Tissue in Dinosaur Bones Mean for Evolution? - Dr. Kevin Anderson
      Dinosaurs still exist today. Crocodiles, sharks, snakes, turtles, tortoises and lizards, are all as old, as dinosaurs supposedly are, according to Magic Evolution. Fish, amphibians, invertebrates, plants, fungi, sponges, algae, insects, arachnids and micro organisms, all still exist today. They’re supposedly older than dinosaurs, according to Magic Evolution.
      There is no evolution, as they all exist simultaneously, throughout all history. Their fossils are found, buried by the Global Flood.
      The fossil graveyards proves catastrophe, over gradual uniform Naturalism.
      The Global Flood was like a gigantic washing machine, churning everything around.
      The sedimentary rocks formed, as if a gigantic cement mixer, churned up all the rocks, dissolved minerals and debris, and then deposited it rapidly. Burying the dinosaurs rapidly, so as to be able to become fossils.
      The huge pressure that oil is under, under the rock strata, comports with the global flood model and disproves the gradual, uniform Naturalism model. Bc the rock strata, wouldn’t be able to sustain the huge pressure, for more than several thousand years, without cracking and releasing the oil.
      The flash freezing of mammoths, also comports with the global flood model, and debunks the gradual, uniform Naturalism. Bc when the Ice Canopy was broken and fell down to Earth, this triggered the Ice Age. Flooding the Poles with solid water.
      The excess moisture in the atmosphere, from the heated rising oceans, also condensed rapidly at the Poles and on the mountains. They’re still flooded with solid water today and are slowly melting back, bc there’s much less moisture in the atmosphere today, than the time of the global flood.
      A tiny fraction of the heat that’s alleged, by the secular side, would’ve caused the global flood. Bc the rapid expansion, of the gases in the oceans, combined with the rapid expansion, of the atmosphere, by way of the Ice Canopy breaking; Caused the air pressure to suddenly drop and the mother of all Storm Surges. Plus the mountains didn’t exist beforehand; the water level needed to rise, a fraction of the amount, secular scientists claim.
      Lastly, Per-mineralised fossils, “soft tissues” In them and polystrata tree fossils, going through many layers that supposedly took millions of years to form.
      Sedimentation forms multiple layers, simultaneously, in turbulent waters. See the Colorado University flume experiments.
      Dinosaurs lived with humans in ancient times. Depicted in drawings and writing, in most ancient Civilisations, known as Dragons.
      The Nautilus Sea creature has far better eyes than we do, but supposedly is one of the earliest multicellular life forms.
      Undersea canyons in the Continental shelves, see Michael Oard’s seminar; The Receding Floodwaters.

  • @hueysimon2726
    @hueysimon2726 14 днів тому +3

    All I hear is the evolutionists are saying that God can't exist because of evolution while creationists are saying that evolution doesn't exist because of God. Sounds like both are based on faith, making them both religions. I agree with Ken's definition of what science is. It MUST be observeable or it is simply assumptions based on maybe some evidence. Well, religion is also based on evidence. It was observed at the time and documented at some point. The evolutionist cannot claim to have any observeable evidence no farther back than 6-10k years ago.

    • @RaymondZuendel
      @RaymondZuendel 14 днів тому +2

      @hueysimon2726 I don't think the "evolutionists" are saying god doesn't exist because of evolution, if anything people are saying god hasn't been demonstrated to exist

    • @hueysimon2726
      @hueysimon2726 14 днів тому +2

      @@RaymondZuendel Well, since nothing cannot come into existence from nothing, then something had to be first created.

    • @bighairyviking387
      @bighairyviking387 14 днів тому

      The vast majority of Christians accept evolution occurs.

    • @niklaswikstrom78
      @niklaswikstrom78 14 днів тому

      @@hueysimon2726 How do you know that something came into existence from nothing? It's always hard to tell with most Christians / Creationists if they are just profoundly ignorant, or disingenous. Hovind I think is probably just a liar

    • @Gwaithmir
      @Gwaithmir 13 днів тому

      There are plenty of Christians who accept evolution as a fact. Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with God's existence.

  • @IdmodeOmega
    @IdmodeOmega 12 днів тому

    Cant see one time Kent not saying “dogs produce dogs”… a pillar of evolution btw 😅

  • @seandriver7923
    @seandriver7923 13 днів тому +2

    Come on Donny turn off Kennys mick every time he tals about fruit, books, cars ect.. keep on topic kenny.. Rejecting God has noughing to do with the subject. There are thousands of different options there could be a dog plant and they came in a space ship. Faires could have made dogs. Kenny just wants to sneak the king James God into the debate.

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 13 днів тому +2

      Nah Intelligent Design makes far more sense and fits all the knowable evidence perfectly.

    • @seandriver7923
      @seandriver7923 13 днів тому

      @flashgordon6670 you have to show a designer before it's even possible

    • @seandriver7923
      @seandriver7923 13 днів тому

      If earth was designed for anything it would be fish not humans because the earth has more water than liveable land. Whey would a God make millions of plants and just put life on one. How do we know that Jesus was not a Gold fish

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 13 днів тому +1

      You’re just being silly now.
      Complex Designs prove an Almighty Creator.
      You can say, “Nuh uh it all just happened by itself”, as much as you like. But it doesn’t make it true.

    • @seandriver7923
      @seandriver7923 13 днів тому

      @flashgordon6670 Smurfs might have done it It's dose not mean the God of the Bible did it

  • @ThisisstillMYROOM.
    @ThisisstillMYROOM. 13 днів тому +2

    CHRIS is indeed WRONG again, yes a man and woman can have a red haired child, a brown hair child, and a blonde haired child, I KNEW of a family that had three kids with exactly those hair colours.
    Also my daughters kids , only one kid had both parents brown eyes, the other kid had bright blue eyes inherited from his grandmother.
    Another easy win for Kent, you go brother.

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 13 днів тому +1

      What colour hair and eyes did the milkman have?

    • @ThisisstillMYROOM.
      @ThisisstillMYROOM. 13 днів тому

      @flashgordon6670 MY brother was very, very much like mum and I just like dad ( in appearance ), Dad had blondish brown hair and mum has black. My brother had mousy brown hair, mine is a combination of brown and ginger. It's very common as there's soooo much diversity through different tones of hair colour.

    • @ThisisstillMYROOM.
      @ThisisstillMYROOM. 13 днів тому

      @flashgordon6670 it's just people's lack of knowledge , and not observing what is clearly obvious around them. I know of a person , he has a ginger coloured hair, his wife's is dark brown, his kids , some have full on red hair, others have ginger and another one has dark brown hair. We had a neighbour many, many years ago, she went grey at a young age, but not her siblings. There are variations all throughout our genetics...
      Have you heard of dominant and recessive genes ? Oh and BTW, mums parents did NOT have black hair, she inherited black hair from her grandmother.

    • @ThisisstillMYROOM.
      @ThisisstillMYROOM. 13 днів тому

      @@flashgordon6670 It's like explaining to a 5 year old child. 🙄🙄🙄

    • @ThisisstillMYROOM.
      @ThisisstillMYROOM. 13 днів тому

      @flashgordon6670 Both parents with brown eyes there is generally a 25 per cent chance of a baby with blue eyes , though my daughter's are a brown, green colour. The child has bright blue eyes just like his grandmother on the dads side.

  • @ThisisstillMYROOM.
    @ThisisstillMYROOM. 14 днів тому +3

    CHRIS , the bible does NOT teach the earth is flat !! Kjv, It is he that sitteth upon the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in. A circle is ROUND.

    • @asphilosophyusa
      @asphilosophyusa 14 днів тому +3

      To be fair, circles are round _and_ flat since they are 2-dimensional objects.

    • @ThisisstillMYROOM.
      @ThisisstillMYROOM. 14 днів тому +2

      @asphilosophyusa A circle still has curvature and so does our earth. The earth is NOT flat.

    • @ThisisstillMYROOM.
      @ThisisstillMYROOM. 14 днів тому

      @asphilosophyusa AT a basic level, they can see the Earth's curvature through satellites that have been launched into space. Additionally, through the use of high powered telescopes, they've been able to examine planets both in our solar system and beyond, and all of them are spherical in shape.

    • @ThisisstillMYROOM.
      @ThisisstillMYROOM. 14 днів тому

      @asphilosophyusa It's a ridiculous argument. 🙄

    • @RaymondZuendel
      @RaymondZuendel 14 днів тому

      @ThisisstillMYROOM. yet most of the modern flat earth movement is evangelical Christians quoting bible verses and claiming mass conspiracies

  • @danoso0931
    @danoso0931 13 днів тому +1

    Forna supposed science teacher, curious about all things nature, with more than 300 febates under his belt... I find it surprising that Kent has never heard about bush dogs and racoon dogs. NOT!

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 12 днів тому +1

      They’re irrelevant to dogs coming from wolves which is what they were previously discussing. Your man just has to keep whatabouting, bc he can’t prove anything on a single discussing point.

    • @petrosnemardos
      @petrosnemardos 11 днів тому

      Debates.

  • @rockroll9761
    @rockroll9761 13 днів тому +3

    I made the mistake of reading comments before watching the show .
    when I saw all the crying Karen's in the comment section, I had to go watch for myself and as usual The evolutionary debater and his karens do not understand the words " laced with human assumptions"

  • @flashgordon6670
    @flashgordon6670 14 днів тому +5

    📏🖍 Behold the amazing Science instruments that prove Magic Evolution!

    • @abegrey740
      @abegrey740 13 днів тому +1

      Huh. Is the bible not lines on paper.

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 13 днів тому +1

      No, it’s words on paper. And it’s backed up with Archaeology, Prophecy fulfilment and Textual analyses.
      Watch the Exodus Decoded by James Cameron and Archaeological evidence that proves the Bible is true, by Don Patton, if you don’t believe me.

    • @abegrey740
      @abegrey740 13 днів тому +1

      @@flashgordon6670 because words are not made of lines and curves. OK. Still lines on paper.

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 13 днів тому +1

      Words are symbols that have meaning.
      Your fairytale religion has to draw pictures, bc it can’t make a water tight case with words.
      Monkey sees drawings connected with lines, Monkey believes Magic Evolution Religion.

    • @abegrey740
      @abegrey740 13 днів тому

      @@flashgordon6670 those words you hold so dear are included in a fictional story about your chosen god. I am glad you now see that your words and those lines both have meaning. At least you learned something today.

  • @loveofchrist4ChristAlone1840
    @loveofchrist4ChristAlone1840 14 днів тому +3

    So Dr. Chris Thompson is NOT a believer obviously, so why talk with an unbeliever? We are instructed not to do so, unless it's delivering the One True Gospel as guided by the Holy Spirit! Plain and simple!

    • @jaintly
      @jaintly 14 днів тому +5

      The truth stands up to any questioning and is not afraid to be questioned. Echo chambers breed only ignorance. Let the scales fall from your eyes and take your fingers out of your ears. God bless you, but use the intellect He gave you…not just following false teachers and prophets.

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 14 днів тому +4

      Bc otherwise we’re just preaching to the choir. You have to speak with unbelievers in order to preach the Truth unto them.

    • @loveofchrist4ChristAlone1840
      @loveofchrist4ChristAlone1840 14 днів тому

      @@flashgordon6670 I understand your reasoning, however we are taught NOT to debate, we are told to speak the truth to unbeliever's in the Power of the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord, and all of His Apostles did. None of them spoke without the leading of and in the Power of the Holy Spirit.
      This is purely revealed in the New Testament teachings.
      Lord bless you.....

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 13 днів тому +1

      What verses are you referring to?
      Having a conversation isn’t a Sin.

    • @xsmoke1980
      @xsmoke1980 13 днів тому

      It teaches the opposite.

  • @bakerchiropractic1065
    @bakerchiropractic1065 13 днів тому

    Given the G0D directed murders in the Bible by Yahweh/Yejovah…
    “God out to get the gory “

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 12 днів тому +1

      If God directs something then by definition it’s not Sin so it can’t be murder, it’s carrying out God’s Will for the greater good.
      Is Chemotherapy murder of Cancer?

  • @flashgordon6670
    @flashgordon6670 14 днів тому +7

    Premise 1: Miracles require Miracle Workers. Magic requires a Magician.
    Question 1: Is Life Miraculous and or Magical.

    Conclusion 1: Life is Created.
    Question 2: Is Evolution Magical and or Miraculous?

    Conclusion 2: Even if Evolution is true, beyond Adaptation within the Chromosome Family Kinds, it must’ve been Created.
    There’s no gradation of the fossils, it’s all in your Monkey Brains. 🙈🧠

    • @dunestudios7395
      @dunestudios7395 14 днів тому +1

      How are you supposing that life is magical or miraculous? That's an unprovable assumption and an invalid conclusion.

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 13 днів тому +1

      Bc it meets the definition of Miraculous, but not strictly Magic.

    • @dunestudios7395
      @dunestudios7395 13 днів тому

      @flashgordon6670 "highly improbable and extraordinary and bringing very welcome consequences."
      Is this the definition you used? At no point is a "miracle worker" required for an improbable event to occur.

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 13 днів тому +1

      Can you name a Miracle that happened by itself?

    • @dunestudios7395
      @dunestudios7395 13 днів тому

      @flashgordon6670 The formation of a pearl within a mollusk is highly improbable, extraordinary, brings welcome consequences. That checks all your boxes for a miracle doesn't it?
      Are you calling an oyster a miracle worker?

  • @jeffreyluciana8711
    @jeffreyluciana8711 13 днів тому +3

    e-volutionists yap on endlessly about nonsense

    • @zTN52
      @zTN52 13 днів тому +2

      Its nonsense for the ones unable to make sense of it.

    • @creationismsuperthesisguy
      @creationismsuperthesisguy 13 днів тому +3

      Because creationists constantly say things that are completely wrong

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 13 днів тому +1

      Your great grandpa is a potato isn’t nonsense? 🥔

    • @zTN52
      @zTN52 13 днів тому +2

      @flashgordon6670 What kind of "evolutionists" have you been talking too.

    • @grumpygramps129
      @grumpygramps129 12 днів тому +2

      @flashgordon6670 and i guess you still think the mustard seed is the smallest seed in the world, it must be true the bible said so.

  • @Gwaithmir
    @Gwaithmir 13 днів тому

    FYI, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivora

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 13 днів тому +1

      Trust me bro, facts.

    • @Deathadder90
      @Deathadder90 11 днів тому +1

      @@flashgordon6670 In the world of the Kents, be a Mary Schweitzer. Someone who set out to disprove the scientifically determined age of the earth by actually studying it but then had enough integrity to change her mind when studying the data. Kent on the other hand never actually studies anything, in this debate there are too many times where he says "I don't know this, I should study it". But he never does, because if he does, he's in trouble.

    • @flashgordon6670
      @flashgordon6670 11 днів тому +1

      They bought her out Mary Scheister.

    • @Deathadder90
      @Deathadder90 11 днів тому

      @flashgordon6670 Lol, no. She just went to school and studied actual data. Sorry reality doesn't conform to your young earth religion.