"kent will be debating you on this subject but obviously he can't be expected to know anything about the subject, especially from your point of view because, well, he doesn't care about anything other than shooting his mouth off" i'm glad you're doing these debates cos i don't have the patience for the BS the religists crank out. i can barely watch.
Kent can't even be expected to answer his own rhetorical questions _to himself._ Have you ever actually listened to the man flail around pretending to be getting to a point? Or read his "dissertation"? I have. On camera, even, in a single multi-hour sitting, commenting line by line. In his dissertation he constantly asks "How old is the Earth?" (including twice on one page) and he never gets around to actually answering it. Kent _never answers questions._ Not even his own. He talks until people forget what he said, does that sleazy little chuckle of his, and changes subject knowing his intended audience have forgotten what the subject was but feeling confident that if Kent chuckled then that settled everything.
I forget who said it but someone said, anybody who gets into creationist apologetics will soon come to a point when they have to decide between being honest and being a creationist.
I assume it has something to do with the fact he owes people money over his evolution challenge and admitting what evolution is also would be an admission he owes that money
@ajscuell7155 i think he believes what he's saying un that he believes his religion. He knows he's telling lies and being misleading on the science but he believes he's right and no evidence ua going change that
@@CreationMyths I downloaded a pdf of it and showed it to my 12 year old daughter. She said if she handed it in as a school project she'd be lucky to get an "F" for it!
"Please Dan pretend Kent totally knows what he's talking about and give him arguments in a way that helps keep up this pretense that he isn't the total ignoramus we all know he is." Sorry but, non serviam.
You had to create a video to demonstrate that Hovind doesn’t understand science? Honestly that’s a bit like asking, “Is the Pope a Catholic?” or “Do bears shit in the woods?”
Amusingly, the Popes are Orthodox. The guy in Rome doesn't have the title but Orthodox leaders do. Of course, the guy in Rome has a dozen other titles! And yeah, Hovinds getting things wrong is a universal constant.
It's astonishing that people who care so much about accurately explaining biodiversity are happy to admit that a man whose opinions they value, and who they believe is truly adding weight to the argument, doesn't actually know what he's talking about. The cognitive dissonance of them running a channel where they make a show of going into all the details are happy to platform someone who, by their own admission, is incapable of engaging in a technical conversation, is baffling. Something is going wrong in any part of society that produces this kind of behaviour. It's akin to seeing the imbeciles that get elected to government by groups of people who have, historically, never had the benefit of a decent education. It's monumentally depressing, and very disturbing too.
"people who care so much about accurately explaining biodiversity" They don't. They care about _explaining biodiversity _*_away._* With a magical wave of their hand, woosh! goddidit, ta-dah, sadtrombone.wav "happy to admit" It costs them nothing to pretend to be humble and self-effacing; it actually increases their perceived worth to their fellow sheep. It's an act. They do the same trick when they lie "I used to be an Athiest(tm)(r)(c)"; it makes them seem like they're admitting to being bad but now they're better in some way for recognizing it. It plays well with the audience, even though it's a lie. "man whose opinions they value" They don't value Kent's opinion, they value that he's willing to lie for Jesus as hard as he does. What he says doesn't matter, _that he is saying things_ is what does to them. "they believe is truly adding weight to the argument," Kent adds the weight of being a celebrity. You have to get into the psychology of the unintelligent, but it boils down to mimicry; really smart people are famous, so if we get famous people we'll be smart. They don't understand it doesn't work that way, because they're not real people with a basis in reality, they're sheep trained to follow mindlessly. It especially doesn't matter what the _quality_ of the "celebrity" is; they'll happily get into the proverbial bed with people from a sect they despise if it means they have an infamous name to throw around. Apologetics is a performance. You go on stage, you _Say The Line, Bart,_ people cheer, that's all there is to it. The Stupids watch movies were scientists are nerdy losers, so they think being educated is dumb, but people respect real scientists, so they put on the performance of being _like_ how they _perceive_ scientists to be. That's why they respect fake diplomas and "biblical universities". Form without the function. Kent fits the form of what they think Smart looks like, but the 'function' of actually knowing what words mean is "for nerds." "A dumb person's idea of a smart person" is the usual term used. It's even less sophisticated than monkey-see-monkey-do. They are, quite literally, aping their betters, but like in the clip shown here, they don't even know which parts matter most so they will eagerly sabotage themselves. You could forgive a monkey for doing it, but these are supposed to be slightly more evolved. Their audience doesn't care either way. "This guy knows nothing of the topic so listen to what he says and remember he loves Jesus so he's right" is all that matters to them.
It's cool that Sam accidentally said something honest, but he's still a profoundly bad-faith interlocutor as anyone who's ever had the misfortune of talking to him can relate.
SFT has uploaded a review of your interaction. Kent attempted to deflect at the beginning with this nugget of insight, with words to the effect “it’s been fifty years since I looked into this subject”. I’m not to sure if it was some kind of flex admitting you don’t know what your talking about. Evolutionary Biology has had significant advances in the last decade let alone five decades. He has had hundreds of debates on evolution, going by this statement he has not conducted any debate prep. By watching his performances I think this checks out.
I think he tried to hide what he was saying with a big world that I can't even find out to spell. When they accuse you of using big words to sound smart. Really what he can say is let assume that kent doesn't know the subject.
At this point so many details about evolution have been thrown at Kent's fully-enclosed bone of a skull so often that the information _has_ to have fully permeated it, so I'd argue it's not at all fair to say Kent doesn't know the basics of evolution. No, I'd say he knows them alright. That's how he can so effectively dance around and ignore them and be so completely wrong all the time.
Oops. Wonder what the fallout for Sam will be? Wonder if he'll be moderating much longer if kent has any pull over sitting for truth.... though moderating is a strong word, more just interrupting... everyone...
There's an actual term for this practice, though I forget what it is. I typically think of it as a _false concession._ Faking humility to virtue-signal to their fellow membersheep that they are morally superior by pseudo-demeaning themselves. It's why we keep seeing them lie "I used to be an atheist". Same deal when you prove a point they made wrong, pretend to accept it, and then change subject to something else based on the thing they just agreed with you about was false.* They insult themselves in a fake show of humility to up their reputation. *For an example of this, _Religulous._ Francis Collins answering a question about... I think it was 'why do you believe in the divinity of Jesus', and he answers "The contemporary writings about Jesus", to which he agrees there are no such things. He "concedes" the point, but doesn't actually care that he's wrong and will still give the same answer if asked again. False concession.
Kent Hovind, the man who thinks hitting a Sponge Bob toy with a hammer makes him look smart. When he bought his first PhD he used to appear as Dr Dino with a white lab coat and a stethoscope around his neck! He didn't even know there was such a thing as a doctor that wasn't a medical doctor!
What's the point of "interacting" with kent? It's just rehashing the same things over and over for decades. Also, STF moderating.. the joke of the day 😂
Sam said: _Dan, maybe for your next, uh, response, just grant that Kent doesn't know the nomenclature or what - whatever and just provide an argument or something like that that'd be cool. That's it that's all._ So basically Sam asked you to provide an argument without Kent understanding the proper definitions of the terms you're using in your argument? That reminds me of the famous scene of Goethe's _Faust_ in which the devil - Mephistopheles - disguises himself as Dr. Faust to give one of the doctor's students advise how to go on with his studies. *Student* _Yet surely words must have a sense._ *Mephistopheles* _Why, yes! But don’t torment yourself with worry,_ _Where sense fails it’s only necessary_ _To supply a word, and change the tense._ _With words fine arguments can be weighted,_ _With words whole Systems can be created,_ _With words, the mind does its conceiving,_ _No word suffers a jot from thieving._ This pretty much summarises Kent's debate techniques, he's been a prime student of Mephistopheles's approach. He doesn't care about the meaning of concepts but bends the words to his antiquated world view. And I suppose he does this _intentionally._
@@shassett79 You’re right, congratulations! As a moderator, I was trying to prevent Dan from continuing his fallacious ad hominem and poisoning of the well, and encouraging him to actually make an argument. I expected more. FYI, I didn’t interrupt Erika a single time in the last open mic when she talked with Donny, but that’s because she took a scholarly approach. Dan can say whatever bad things he wants about me, for the sake of argument, I will just grant all of that also…..
@@RedefineLiving If you're as keen to talk as you seem, we can set up a time for you to appear here and I'll give you all the time you want. Perhaps you can explain why you feel the need to wipe Kent's butt for him.
I can't remember if it was Socrates or Plato who said that if someone needs to be defended with "Don't be too hard on him, he doesn't know the first thing about this topic", he's not worth listening to anyway.
No definitions allowed! Have a conversation with only descriptions: No, negative, opposing words used to explain concepts, ideas, notions let, permitted, freely given! Hold, receive, contain a verbal, vocal dialog, aural intercourse in possession of sole, singular, alone examination of ideas. ...Oh yeah. Makes things much clearer when you replace definitions with descriptions.
You are so dishonest, Dan. You weren't there to debate. If you actually watched the whole open mic, the whole point of agreeing that Kent doesn't know the technical terms you asked him about is so that the debate could move forward. You have a PhD in biology, so I would hope that you are better versed than Dr. Hovind in biological nomenclatures.
@@RunQC Speaking of which, is this you doing Sam's bit about how "big words no fair to god boys?" Here, I'll say it again at fifth grade reading level for you and Hovind: Kent does not understand evolution and people who don't understand things probably shouldn't try to correct people who do.
@@RunQC No, Hovind made an unsupported claim which seems to generally contradict biology, but is unable to demonstrate a relevant understanding of the subject. You don't have to understand biology to ask questions, but you can't credibly reject it if you don't.
"kent will be debating you on this subject but obviously he can't be expected to know anything about the subject, especially from your point of view because, well, he doesn't care about anything other than shooting his mouth off"
i'm glad you're doing these debates cos i don't have the patience for the BS the religists crank out. i can barely watch.
It is hard to watch, isn't it?
Kent can't even be expected to answer his own rhetorical questions _to himself._ Have you ever actually listened to the man flail around pretending to be getting to a point? Or read his "dissertation"? I have. On camera, even, in a single multi-hour sitting, commenting line by line. In his dissertation he constantly asks "How old is the Earth?" (including twice on one page) and he never gets around to actually answering it. Kent _never answers questions._ Not even his own. He talks until people forget what he said, does that sleazy little chuckle of his, and changes subject knowing his intended audience have forgotten what the subject was but feeling confident that if Kent chuckled then that settled everything.
Kent has been corrected many times, at this point he's deliberately choosing to be wrong
Absolutely. There is no way he believes his own nonsense.
I forget who said it but someone said, anybody who gets into creationist apologetics will soon come to a point when they have to decide between being honest and being a creationist.
I assume it has something to do with the fact he owes people money over his evolution challenge and admitting what evolution is also would be an admission he owes that money
@ajscuell7155 i think he believes what he's saying un that he believes his religion. He knows he's telling lies and being misleading on the science but he believes he's right and no evidence ua going change that
@@richardsuplee8137 I think the whole thing is an act and a scam.
Anyone who takes Kent remotely seriously should go check out his "PhD thesis."
Hello, my name is Kent Hovid.
I got a better more realistic looking PhD degree from a gumball machine at a Mall, in 1976!!!
@@CreationMyths I downloaded a pdf of it and showed it to my 12 year old daughter. She said if she handed it in as a school project she'd be lucky to get an "F" for it!
Dapper Dinosaur & friends did a series of livestreams reading Kent's "thesis" a few years back, highly entertaining to put on in the background.
"Please Dan pretend Kent totally knows what he's talking about and give him arguments in a way that helps keep up this pretense that he isn't the total ignoramus we all know he is." Sorry but, non serviam.
Wow - one of the best examples of saying the quiet part out loud that I have seen
RIGHT? Couldn't believe he just said it.
Of course he does not know the basics of Evolution, he works very hard not to!
I've always wondered how these folks' lives could change if they spent as much time actually learning as they did looking for excuses to avoid it.
how embarasssing... i bet Hovind is livid about that.. lol
probably not. Because god is on his side he doesn't need to be humble🤣
He was definitely not pleased with me...
The best part of the interaction was when Kent tried to explain genetic drift 😂
Just zero clue what that means, despite being one of the basic concepts in evolution, a field in which he is definitely an expert.
@@CreationMyths Next time ask which mechanism is more efficient, genetic drift or Tokyo drift.
I was sort of surprised when he didn't say, "A pair of Levis floating down a river."
Sam definitely isnt worth having in a chat.
Absolutely pointless.
You had to create a video to demonstrate that Hovind doesn’t understand science?
Honestly that’s a bit like asking, “Is the Pope a Catholic?” or “Do bears shit in the woods?”
You're not wrong! But not everyone has gotten the memo, so we'll keep working on it.
Amusingly, the Popes are Orthodox. The guy in Rome doesn't have the title but Orthodox leaders do. Of course, the guy in Rome has a dozen other titles!
And yeah, Hovinds getting things wrong is a universal constant.
You’re only supposed to ask Kent things he knows, which kind of limits the scope of.
Redefine living is incredibly condescending and stupid. You gotta pick one, buddy.
Thanks Dr. Dan!
It's astonishing that people who care so much about accurately explaining biodiversity are happy to admit that a man whose opinions they value, and who they believe is truly adding weight to the argument, doesn't actually know what he's talking about. The cognitive dissonance of them running a channel where they make a show of going into all the details are happy to platform someone who, by their own admission, is incapable of engaging in a technical conversation, is baffling. Something is going wrong in any part of society that produces this kind of behaviour. It's akin to seeing the imbeciles that get elected to government by groups of people who have, historically, never had the benefit of a decent education. It's monumentally depressing, and very disturbing too.
"people who care so much about accurately explaining biodiversity"
They don't. They care about _explaining biodiversity _*_away._* With a magical wave of their hand, woosh! goddidit, ta-dah, sadtrombone.wav
"happy to admit"
It costs them nothing to pretend to be humble and self-effacing; it actually increases their perceived worth to their fellow sheep. It's an act. They do the same trick when they lie "I used to be an Athiest(tm)(r)(c)"; it makes them seem like they're admitting to being bad but now they're better in some way for recognizing it. It plays well with the audience, even though it's a lie.
"man whose opinions they value"
They don't value Kent's opinion, they value that he's willing to lie for Jesus as hard as he does. What he says doesn't matter, _that he is saying things_ is what does to them.
"they believe is truly adding weight to the argument,"
Kent adds the weight of being a celebrity. You have to get into the psychology of the unintelligent, but it boils down to mimicry; really smart people are famous, so if we get famous people we'll be smart. They don't understand it doesn't work that way, because they're not real people with a basis in reality, they're sheep trained to follow mindlessly. It especially doesn't matter what the _quality_ of the "celebrity" is; they'll happily get into the proverbial bed with people from a sect they despise if it means they have an infamous name to throw around.
Apologetics is a performance. You go on stage, you _Say The Line, Bart,_ people cheer, that's all there is to it. The Stupids watch movies were scientists are nerdy losers, so they think being educated is dumb, but people respect real scientists, so they put on the performance of being _like_ how they _perceive_ scientists to be. That's why they respect fake diplomas and "biblical universities". Form without the function. Kent fits the form of what they think Smart looks like, but the 'function' of actually knowing what words mean is "for nerds." "A dumb person's idea of a smart person" is the usual term used.
It's even less sophisticated than monkey-see-monkey-do. They are, quite literally, aping their betters, but like in the clip shown here, they don't even know which parts matter most so they will eagerly sabotage themselves. You could forgive a monkey for doing it, but these are supposed to be slightly more evolved. Their audience doesn't care either way. "This guy knows nothing of the topic so listen to what he says and remember he loves Jesus so he's right" is all that matters to them.
I was just watching the "Live stream" of them responding to the video... What a headache
Haha I was in the chat then.
Looking forward to this full video!
It's cool that Sam accidentally said something honest, but he's still a profoundly bad-faith interlocutor as anyone who's ever had the misfortune of talking to him can relate.
My mental picture of Sam is that he is frustrated and upset all the time, just the focus of that feeling shifts from person to person
Moderating is a very generous definition of rescuing kent
Also, Sam looks like he suffers from progeria.
SFT has uploaded a review of your interaction. Kent attempted to deflect at the beginning with this nugget of insight, with words to the effect “it’s been fifty years since I looked into this subject”. I’m not to sure if it was some kind of flex admitting you don’t know what your talking about. Evolutionary Biology has had significant advances in the last decade let alone five decades. He has had hundreds of debates on evolution, going by this statement he has not conducted any debate prep. By watching his performances I think this checks out.
I think he tried to hide what he was saying with a big world that I can't even find out to spell. When they accuse you of using big words to sound smart. Really what he can say is let assume that kent doesn't know the subject.
Waste of time. Kent doesn't care to learn any of it. He just repeats his script which keeps the donation rolling in.
You can simplify the title as: “Kent doesn’t know”
At this point so many details about evolution have been thrown at Kent's fully-enclosed bone of a skull so often that the information _has_ to have fully permeated it, so I'd argue it's not at all fair to say Kent doesn't know the basics of evolution.
No, I'd say he knows them alright. That's how he can so effectively dance around and ignore them and be so completely wrong all the time.
Oops. Wonder what the fallout for Sam will be? Wonder if he'll be moderating much longer if kent has any pull over sitting for truth.... though moderating is a strong word, more just interrupting... everyone...
Very doubtful. One look at the channel and comments are praising Sam for being aggressive
@@nateswan9527 ugh, figures, personally I think he's just irritating
There's an actual term for this practice, though I forget what it is. I typically think of it as a _false concession._ Faking humility to virtue-signal to their fellow membersheep that they are morally superior by pseudo-demeaning themselves.
It's why we keep seeing them lie "I used to be an atheist". Same deal when you prove a point they made wrong, pretend to accept it, and then change subject to something else based on the thing they just agreed with you about was false.* They insult themselves in a fake show of humility to up their reputation.
*For an example of this, _Religulous._ Francis Collins answering a question about... I think it was 'why do you believe in the divinity of Jesus', and he answers "The contemporary writings about Jesus", to which he agrees there are no such things. He "concedes" the point, but doesn't actually care that he's wrong and will still give the same answer if asked again. False concession.
Kent Hovind, the man who thinks hitting a Sponge Bob toy with a hammer makes him look smart.
When he bought his first PhD he used to appear as Dr Dino with a white lab coat and a stethoscope around his neck!
He didn't even know there was such a thing as a doctor that wasn't a medical doctor!
What's the point of "interacting" with kent? It's just rehashing the same things over and over for decades.
Also, STF moderating.. the joke of the day 😂
I've seen the debate. It was frustrating to hear Sam bully you repeatedly.
Sam is a bully; he doesn't have much else to offer.
Sam said: _Dan, maybe for your next, uh, response, just grant that Kent doesn't know the nomenclature or what - whatever and just provide an argument or something like that that'd be cool. That's it that's all._
So basically Sam asked you to provide an argument without Kent understanding the proper definitions of the terms you're using in your argument?
That reminds me of the famous scene of Goethe's _Faust_ in which the devil - Mephistopheles - disguises himself as Dr. Faust to give one of the doctor's students advise how to go on with his studies.
*Student*
_Yet surely words must have a sense._
*Mephistopheles*
_Why, yes! But don’t torment yourself with worry,_
_Where sense fails it’s only necessary_
_To supply a word, and change the tense._
_With words fine arguments can be weighted,_
_With words whole Systems can be created,_
_With words, the mind does its conceiving,_
_No word suffers a jot from thieving._
This pretty much summarises Kent's debate techniques, he's been a prime student of Mephistopheles's approach. He doesn't care about the meaning of concepts but bends the words to his antiquated world view. And I suppose he does this _intentionally._
Kent does it intentionally. Never give him the benefit of the doubt. He has lost that right.
It is said that Socrates said, “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser”.
You're being too hard on yourself! Technically, you can't have lost the debate because you weren't suppose to be participating in it.
@@shassett79 You’re right, congratulations! As a moderator, I was trying to prevent Dan from continuing his fallacious ad hominem and poisoning of the well, and encouraging him to actually make an argument. I expected more. FYI, I didn’t interrupt Erika a single time in the last open mic when she talked with Donny, but that’s because she took a scholarly approach. Dan can say whatever bad things he wants about me, for the sake of argument, I will just grant all of that also…..
@@RedefineLiving If you're as keen to talk as you seem, we can set up a time for you to appear here and I'll give you all the time you want. Perhaps you can explain why you feel the need to wipe Kent's butt for him.
@@RedefineLiving you’re a safe space debater and embarrass yourself all the time.
I can't remember if it was Socrates or Plato who said that if someone needs to be defended with "Don't be too hard on him, he doesn't know the first thing about this topic", he's not worth listening to anyway.
How does one answer a question with words they don't know?
No definitions allowed!
Have a conversation with only descriptions:
No, negative, opposing words used to explain concepts, ideas, notions let, permitted, freely given!
Hold, receive, contain a verbal, vocal dialog, aural intercourse in possession of sole, singular, alone examination of ideas.
...Oh yeah. Makes things much clearer when you replace definitions with descriptions.
You are so dishonest, Dan. You weren't there to debate. If you actually watched the whole open mic, the whole point of agreeing that Kent doesn't know the technical terms you asked him about is so that the debate could move forward. You have a PhD in biology, so I would hope that you are better versed than Dr. Hovind in biological nomenclatures.
But he's told me he's the real expert! And yet...here we are...
How can Kent be confident that biologists are wrong if he doesn't even understand what they're saying?
@@RunQCNo, he asserts that from an apparent positon of abject ignorance.
@@RunQC Speaking of which, is this you doing Sam's bit about how "big words no fair to god boys?"
Here, I'll say it again at fifth grade reading level for you and Hovind:
Kent does not understand evolution and people who don't understand things probably shouldn't try to correct people who do.
@@RunQC No, Hovind made an unsupported claim which seems to generally contradict biology, but is unable to demonstrate a relevant understanding of the subject.
You don't have to understand biology to ask questions, but you can't credibly reject it if you don't.