(If) I Debated Kent Hovind... Best Evidence for Evolution
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ก.ย. 2024
- Kent Hovind, once young-earth creation's shining star, has repeatedly challenge me to debates. In this video, I lay out my conditions for such a thing happening... and also just bypass the whole notion by presenting my personal favorite lines of evidence for evolution, along with Kent's most substantive rebuttals to said points. Voila! A debate with no debate needed.
DNA Evidence That Humans & Chimps Share A Common Ancestor: Endogenous Retroviruses
• DNA Evidence That Huma...
Judgment Day: Intelligent Design On Trial
• Judgment Day: Intellig...
Thanks to @StatedClearly and @AtheistJr
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @paulogia
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/p...
www.amazon.ca/...
teespring.com/...
Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast
paulogia.buzzs...
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
- Upton Sinclair
Kent has not done 270 debates. He has done one debate 270 times.
Great point. He's a broken record, using the same old memorized script for every "debate" he does.
“I don’t expect Kent to ever, in six thousand years, agree to this…”
I see what you did there 😆
yay! someone did.
Belief in Creationism requires faith in the following unobserved process:
1. Presuppostion that a Non-Naturalistic process for life coming from non-life exists & already occurred.
Belief in Evolutionism requires faith in the following unobserved processes:
1. Information being added to the genome
2. Increasing genetic complexity
3. The primary definition of Macro-evolution
4. Evolution Theory also relies on the presupposition that a Naturalistic process by which life comes from non-life exists and already occurred, despite no observations of this either.
All existing scientific evidence could be interpreted to support either side:
1. A common designer, or
2. A common ancestor
So what scientific or logical reason does anyone have to choose Evolutionism over Creationism? It requires faith in more processes which haven't been scientifically verified / observed.
Occam's razor is the problem-solving principle that "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity". It is generally understood in the sense that with competing theories or explanations, the simpler one, for example a model with fewer parameters, is to be preferred.
So why are many choosing the explanation which requires faith in more unobserved processes when it isn't necessary? That's not the scientific or logical approach.
The answer is: Scientism
They're believing that whatever claims are within the current consensus of academia are automatically scientific claims. It doesn't work that way. The Methodological Naturalism requirement allows them to include their best Naturalistic explanation for questions they can't answer with observation.
“Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer (or Creationism), such a hypothesis is excluded from peer-review because it is not naturalistic. Of course the scientist, as an individual, is free to embrace a reality that transcends naturalism."
- Dr. Scott Todd, immunologist from Kansas State University as printed in Nature Magazine
So, in effect, Scientism is causing them to blindly believe mainstream academia's consensus like a religious text without properly understanding the only reason Creationism is excluded is due to pre-existing philosophical bias, NOT because it's less scientific.
Pre-existing bias is a systematic error in the scientific method. They can't even prove Naturalism is a true philosophy.
@@real.snatch 1. Mutations.
2. Natural selection on the genetic level. More efficient genes are passed on to the next generation.
3. Speciation, also known as the production of new species.
4. This is called abiogenesis, which has nothing to do with evolution.
There are observations of each of these.
@@real.snatch no of what you said is true plus you watch Kent cry hard
@@real.snatch
Why can't you fundies ever say anything in one paragraph?
Edit:Why does God make forget when a question mark is to be used?
Kent saying that one of his idols is Gish is a very telling statement considering his "debate" style.
agree
I found myself crowing "He admits it!".
that is probably because it isn't about a debate or arguments, but it's all about attention.
Kent is just a narcissist with a pigs tail thinking his tail is as shiny as that of a peacock.
Kent also being flabbergasted that scientists continue finding stronger and stronger evidence for evolution, and that somehow that's a bad thing, really speaks to how he views the world.
@@JD-wu5pf Wrong. There's no such thing as evidence for evolution unless you're as childish as a screaming 3 year old that lost his mommy for 2 minutes.
Ken's entire presentations are simply attacks on straw men. He has to redefine words and misrepresent concepts. He NEVER argues against actual positions.
More to the point if you try too he will never respond
It's not really an attack on straw men.
He attacks a plastic toy for children.
Somethingsomething Kent Hovind is a manchild who'd lose a fight against a wet paper bag so he has to pick on a children's toy from the safety of his "studio".
He reminds me of Jordan Peterson 🙄
@@RainbowFlowerCrow yeah, they're a matching pair of clowns.
That's because he's using a script.
One that he can't deviate from.
Actually, having seen a few of Kent’s ‘debates’, I’d have to say that Kent has never been in an actual debate at all.
They were all very sad, Cat's was hilarious, Aron gave him a whooping, but Dave holding him to the fire was golden.
@@kerianhalcon3557 I gotta (re-)watch all of those! #06452-017 is his own devil.
I had my fun, let’s say that.
@@ErrantMasa don't forget to see king crocoducks debate. They were debating the creation of the universe, and Kent kept on trying to discuss evolution.
So much for '1 topic at a time' Kent.
@@iseriver3982 almost forgot KC! thx!
We need to stop with the “evidence for evolution” debates and start asking for evidence of creationism. Make them show validity of their claims, not simply deny the validity of evolution.
Look at the trees!
Oh, Kent's sermons that he keeps sticking to are "filled with supposed evidence". Flawed, but yeah... he tried
@@kerianhalcon3557
Which are evidence of trees. And squirrels.
I can answer you proof positive of creationism - Gawd Proves creationism. Creationism proves Gawd. Gawd proves the bible which proves creationism. And The Bible proves the creationism , of which proves gawd.
Now stop asking and pay money in the collection plate.
they will say there is no evidence of evolutions, therefore god
demonstrating evolution is the best way to show the literal christian god does not exists
THIS! This is the debate I never knew I needed. An explanation of why nobody (understandably) wants to debate such a pedantic man as Kent Hovind, but then we also still get the closest thing that one could have to a real debate! As opposed to Hovind's lecturing. And with the integrity of one Paulogia, to boot! I love this so much!
thank you!
Paulogia is pedantic. and that’s what i expect from someone as informed as he is.
kent just spits out a mishmash of prepared set of lines that don’t even have anything to do with the questions.
@@darthvirgin7157 lol, I read the first thing you said and I was like "what's this guy got against Paulogia", and then I looked up the word pedantic. If Paulogia is pedantic, I would say it's only in a good way, in that he cares about minor details that make a big difference in how you understand an idea. (I assume that's what you meant as well.) As for Hovind, I believe *petty* is the word I was really looking for. People don't avoid Kent because they're afraid of him, they avoid him because *Kent Hovind is a petty man.*
@@darthvirgin7157 Paulogia is not pedantic. A pedant is overly concerned with details that do nothing to improve the understanding of the issue, while trying to show off their learning.
I don’t think Paulogia has ever done that.
@@ernest3286
Funny how you and Science Explains made the same mistake.
The OP did NOT say that Paulogia is pedantic.
"o debate such a pedantic man as Kent Hovind,"
That says Kent is pedantic. Which is being very kind to Kent.
I might be in the minority on this, but I am fairly convinced that Kent understands most, if not all, of the arguments for evolution. I think he's just a conman without a conscience.
Actually, that seems to be the majority consensus among atheists on the internet. Same goes for Ken Ham and Ray Comfort.
Yeah. I don't believe for a minute that these troll-tier apologists believe the shit they're spouting.
👍👍
Kent originally called what he does as "Creation Evangelism" which is more correct and honest description than the "Creation Science" label used now.
Kent is not here to teach.
He's here to preach.
He muddies the waters of actual debate in an obviously dishonest attempt to discredit actual science in order to make his childishly oversimplistic world view seem equally as likely as scientifically observable reality.
He's lying for the Lord and thinks he's cool to do so cos ends justifies means.
@@religionisevil8850 idk about ray (haven't heard much of his stuff), but ken and kent clearly know how evolution works
"I have done 220 debates" He's done 0 debates. He just plays pigeon chess.
This is about the closest proximity Hovind deserves to anybody
|Was too close to me
Except a Cellmate, in Prison, Again...😁
Finally. Someone figured out you don’t need the physical Kent present to have a debate. Great video!!
Perhaps, but the amount of material about Kent's "debates" that Paul had to study to produce this must be staggering.
I'm sure it's normal to study an opponent in preparation for a debate with them, but it looks like Paul did a lot more than normal research here.
I would prefer not to call this a debate, but rather an analysis of Kent's debates, and their flaws. With the bonus of explaining why further debates along similar lines being pointless, and suggesting ways to make future debates serve some honest purpose.
If we want to be absolutely fair, a true debate does require the opponent has time to respond. Not that I'm terribly worried about a fair debate with a man who has never demonstrated good debating practise.
Endogenous Retroviruses... you must not have heard me son.. I said.. I'm not prepared for that!
@@stevewebber707 You are being overly a pedantic here. Of course this video is not an actual debate. No one said as much, and Paul himself acknowledged it. This objection just completely misses the point of what being said over a petty semantics quibble. No offense intended, but the concern is utterly stupid.
I mean... we all figured that part out. It's only the _slowest_ people out there who were slower to figure it out than Kent Hovind. He's basically been using a soundboard of his "greatest -shits- hits" his entire life.
@@EdwardHowton lmao, "greatest shits" 😂
I think the best comparison for ERVs are how mapmakers used to occasionally include fictional towns on their maps in order to tell who was plagiarizing from them. The odds of putting a fake town with the same name in the same spot as the original (making the exact same "mistake" in exactly the same way) was so infinitesimally small that it was considered proof that the second person had simply copied from the first.
Winner!
trap streets, and they totally haven't stopped using them
@@lordsrednuas but maps have also been found uncopywritable, regardless of trap streets because they consist of only public data. At least in the US. See **Nester's Map & Guide Corp. v. Hagstrom Map Co.**
@@Rosyna I thought that case was only about trap streets and that maps could still be copyrighted in the U.S?
I believe there have been cases in other countries where companies have paid out after being caught copying maps complete with trap streets.
Fun fact: the longest word in the English language with no repeating letters is Uncopyrightable
Thanks Paul for dealing with this petulant con man in a way that is calm and respectful. You're showing him far more courtesy than he does his own interlocutors!
I gave up on Kent ever being serious when AronRa destroyed him so bad he started talking about planets.
not sure what the point of even debating him is. his strategy is to just recite the same script he's used for decades, then loudly refusing to comprehend any counter arguments.
Considering his debate "hero" has a fallacy named after him should tell you everything
@@DurpenHeimer who's his hero and what fallacy?
@@manusiabumi7673 2:21 - the Gish Gallop is named after his hero
@@manusiabumi7673 He refers to it in the video; Duane Gish, namesake of the infamous Gish Gallop.
🤔
The Hovind Hop
The Dr. Dino Dupe
The Kent Conclusion
Yo, just wanted to let you know I find your vids both informative and comforting as one of the only athiests in a VERY christian area! Love your work, man! Keep it up!
Thanks. That means much.
You're not alone! I am in the same situation.
@paulogia I was also raised on Kent Hovind's tapes so it's nice to see you and people like you cover him!
@@Paulogia Thank you Paulogia for your efforts at providing peace and tranquility to the minds of former believers like yourself. Despite growing up in a Sikh family my household was reasonably secular, thus I had religion thrust on me but not mandated or forced. Which made my journey into secularism a shrug of the shoulders, rather than a monumental moment - as it is for the more indoctrinated. I simply reached a point where I had enough evidence and education to realise it was not true. Nor was there the threat of eternal damnation and never-ending torment if I didn't believe that a 500 year old man built an ark and that a magical jew walked on water. However, perpetual non-believers like me that shake their head, mock and wag their finger do nothing more than fuel believers persecution narrative and reinforce their faith. Whereas a person like yourself is such a great Apostle 😉 for a life of freedom and love. Not for atheism necessarilly because the real tragedy is the waste of the one life we know we have, to be lived under the fear of a celestial dictatorship with the constant fear of incurring wrath by enjoying oneself. Unfortunately, I bear the curse of Ham since I was born in Queensland, Australia as Ken Ham was. So by the rules of original sin and based on geographical proximity my children and the progeny of my lineage are already condemned to eternal torment. Just wanted to say thanks for what you do and keep calling them out because I know Ham is never on but Answers News has pivoted to being even more vile. They have a new young Ken disciple called Patricia Engler who was undoubtedly conceived immaculately from the spawn of Ham, Hovind and Comfort but birthed from the barren womb of Georgia Purdom who has abandoned any modicum of scientific integrity (not that she had much to begin with) to ensure she provides enough ignorance to cover for Ken.
Check out Shannon Q. If you like Paul’s channel, you’ll love hers :)
I recommend dismissing Hovend outright. He is a hack and a dishonest one at that. There is no way he will honor debate rules.
He doesn't honour his own debate rules.
He changes topic constantly.
I sort of get the impression that debunkers of Kent's fallacies by now make up the majority of people watching his acts.
I don't think his "followers" are enough to keep him afloat.
We have more evidence he lies about his own debate structure than he has for the ark
And Paulogia is not a hack? I can't take you seriously
@@ricardoguzman5014 Good thing I don't care about you taking me seriously.
He doesn’t debate, he argues. I noticed that when he gets frustrated or is presented with actual facts that he can’t refute he uses words like dumb or stupid
Does not debate...he calls names just like Donald...oh never mind.
he also have habit of derail from the debate and then just wasting time saying the same thing until the debate became too long to keep continue.
Well, what can one expect from someone who idolizes the man for whom the Gish Gallop was named?
Tiktaalik was the fossil that majorly affected my belief in YEC! I remember writing to AIG at age 16 for an answer and being thoroughly unimpressed with their response.
That's so great. Thanks for sharing that story. Glad to hear there are a few creationists actually interested in finding out the answers to their questions.
I also grew up in this. I've been to the ark encounter twice. Lol. The first big thing that got me was an astronomy 101 course in college.
What was their response
@@morganbanefort181 something like "god formed tiktaalik to be fully suited for its environment, which required it to have some characteristics resembling fish despite being a land animal; isn't god great?!"
@@jaynajuly2140 thank you
Ok, hear me out: what if instead of debating Kent Hovind, you debated Josh Bowen *playing* Kent Hovind, then draw yourself as a body builder for the replay?
ha!
Shiny!
Darn, I said this in a response above, but you beat me to it.
It would be awesome.
Now THAT's a debate I'd watch. 😄
@@Paulogia Potential April Fools video mayhaps? I'd watch it.
LONG time debater here, your stipulations about definition integrity are an underrated part of debate. It's boring, but nothing productive happens if the terms are not in order. Importantly, it is considered the burden of the affirmative to define the round, and the negative to comply (so long as the definition isn't abusive). So I appreciate your willingness to comply Kent's definition of YEC if that was the resolution. I love watching debates, but no one bothers with building a decent top case, and thus people end up just talking past each other.
TLDR, nothing productive comes from "debating" dishonest people.
😮The only reason i Hc😅uh 😅nmmmmmmnmmmmmmnmmmmmmnnnnnnn😂
the issue is simple taking part in a debate doesn't validate ones position, especially if he's been proven wrong in essentially every single debate.
Someone should tell this to Kent.
Countless people have.
Kent doesn't learn facts that contradict the narrative that pays his bills.
I really like the strategic angle of granting creation in this "debate." It does a lot to preemptively trim the fat around the actual topic. Smart.
Yeah, it makes a lot of sense. Evolution and the existence of a god are completely separate topics, so if granting the opponents unrelated claims is going to avoid unnecessary, irrelevant objections, why not? Of course, that would rely on Kent dropping his "big bang and abiogenesis are evolution" nonsense, which I doubt he is capable of doing.
Yeah I am realizing how important this is to enforce that there is a difference between common-descent and abiogenesis. The conversation can get very confused otherwise
Agreed. It completely undermines Kent's "it's designed" rebuttal, because "design" is being granted (for the sake of argument). It focuses the debate on whether the "Designer" did the "Designing" via special creation or via common descent.
@@1970Phoenix, writes _"It focuses the debate'_
It does that by taking away the main weapon Kent uses to derail any debate -- which is why he'll never agree to a debate under those terms, or almost immediately violate the agreement.
As an atheist I would have never thought of granting creation to bypass the countless red herrings.
Yeah - its clever. But I'd word it as granting "design", as the word "creation" will be interpreted by most creationists as special creation happening over 6 literal days.
Put them with loaves of bread and feed thousands. Sound fishy?
I missed the "if" part at first. Glad it's hypothetical. He's beneath you.
Paulogia: "Evidences"
*somewhere in hell, Logicked throws his phone against the wall in frustration.*
Hahahaha.
This gave me a good chuckle
The use of "evidences" here was correct though, wasn't it?
@@germanvisitor2 Yes, but it is still a frustrating word to see. This is one of those cases where, despite the word being used correctly, it would have been objectively more correct, and less misleading, to not use it at all. This word needs to become obsolete and retired from the English language. I know the English language will always remain a shitty language and will never be properly reformed as it should be. But asking for a single word to be retired is not asking much, is it? I find more frustrating when people who are well-educated and understand how to use the word correctly use it, precisely because it only is harmful. No one gains anything from this word continuing to be used.
I work in the software engineering, and we would absolutely consider a common bug as evidence of reused code if the bug were specific enough (I've heard of it coming up when a mobile game was being accused of plagiarizing code) although usually in my experience we approach it from the other side (if we identify a bug, we search code related to it or derived from it for similar issues). He probably shouldn't use software code as an example without actually checking with a coder to make sure his analogy holds.
Yeah, unexpected problems appearing in an "original' and also in a suspected copy are great clues. This sort of analysis is also used to identify when, eg, map makers are copying other maps, because there are fake places/roads inserted into maps. The copiers don't know they're fake, so they copy them. The "evolution" of any kind of document can be traced in this way. It's not biological evolution, but it does provide evidence that the "evolution" is occurring.
Debating Kent Hovind is very much like playing chess with a pigeon...
He's made a career of not understanding. I wouldn't expect him to start now.
Instead of “whack an atheist” perhaps he should stop whacking his girlfriend?
Exactly.
Maybe his wives were the muses for the series? And to be fair, Kent also advocates for the beating of children... Listen to his dentist story.
What a man of god he is.
Snap!
Congrats for the victory paulogia!
Why debate someone who has no intention of being honest and who refuses to admit when they have been wrong? You would make as much progress smacking your head against a wall. Kent isn't worth that headache.
It's like arguing with a used car salesman.
The Telltale Atheist explained
in one of his newer videos something that really touched me:
That more Atheists need to Run for Office.
Not only did he not just state it but make great Arguments,
but he even provided Ways to learn how to run for Office.
Lol, Kent claims he isn't bothered by "Trolls" on his channel. Considering that people like him call anyone who doesn't agree with him a 'troll", I'd say he is very much bothered since he blocks and deletes them.
So... Gish is his hero... why am I not surprised. I guess that's why he loves to Gish Gallop so much.
Thanks Paul - that ERV content is the most digestible form I've seen to date. I'm less ignorant than I was an hour ago.
Cheers
perfect
Kent's claim that ERVs are just due to a designer just goes to show that creationism is completely unfalsifiable. It's nothing more than LastThursdayism in a more complicated package.
He's got nothing left but to claim God the deceiver.
The best evidence of evolution is the fact that it's still happening and both microevolution and macroevolution are directly observed in real life and in real time. Dozens of new species have evolved in our own lifetimes and every time it happened it was macro not micro.
New breeds or subspecies is micro. New species is macro.
They're the exact same fundamental process, but there is a defining factor and that is micro is within species and macro is between species.
Evolution deniers will deny that new species of fruit flies, bacteria, etc is not evidence of "macro"evolution. They will only accept macro evolution if you can show a cat "evolve" into a horse or something like that. They want one "kind" to evolve into a completely different "kind" which of course we can't show because evolution doesn't work like that...
Wait for Kenty boy's response where he'll misrepresent the arguments, use non scientific colloquial terms, deny the evidence, make unwarranted assertions, use insults, etc etc.
Not to mention the fact we use it to make and design things we use everyday.
Science does not recognise a difference. Evolution is evolution. The time frame over which a process happens doesn't make it a different process. You won't find the term "microevolution" in credible scientific literature, except where it may be used in some sort of colloquial sense.
Also, Creationists who use the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution" will definitely not accept your assertion that speciation is "macro-evolution". They will say something like, "that new species of Vinegar Fly is still a Vinegar Fly".
You should not debate known liars/bad faith actors. I've seen a few of Kent's debates, and he never changes his script no matter how many times it's been refuted. You would just be wasting your time and giving him more respect than he deserves.
That is the point of the terms of agreement, before the debate ever occurs. It will force Kent off of his script.
I know. My point is that because Kent has proven himself to be a bad faith actor, debating him at all would be giving him an air or respectability he doesn’t deserve. Paul can do much better than him.
@@religionisevil8850 even though Kent is clearly a bad faith actor and Paulogia's efforts would never change Kent's mind, it might change the mind of viewers. That's why these videos have value - if they ever reach the intended audience.
For an actual fun one to watch, i recommend Kent's debate with Dapper Dino on "Are Birds Dinosaurs".
Kent noticeably struggles to break away from his canned responses about evolution because the debate is not technically about evolution.
As a delightful bonus, "Dr" Dino proves for all to see that he can't actually give a definition of what a dinosaur is lol
@@religionisevil8850 Paul just *did* so much better with(out) Kent.
Albeit I would insist that Kent must not use the word or concept of “kind” at all unless he defines it in writing before the debate and sticks to that definition to the letter.
While Ken consistently fails to prove the validity of creation, he is the walking embodiment, thus perfect proof, of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Ken has had these things explained to him so many times, it's hard to believe he's D-K.
It's more ignoring what he does know in order to maintain his positions. Typical apologist
Maybe we should rename the current explanation of the Dunning-Kruger effect to "Kent Hovind Wisdom". Then we can use the Dunning Kruger effect for what it actually said instead of the populair explanation it currently has. But in a second thought, he (Kent) would probably like that too much being the narcists he is.
@@gabberkooij
I like that idea! Hovind Wisdom. **chef's kiss**
How many narcs would like have "willful denseness" or "sounding stupid on purpose" associated with their name. 😂
@@babsbylow6869 Kent would. Everybody already calls him those things directly and he wears them like a badge of honour. He would call his work and answers "Hovind Wisdom" all the time in his vids to describe someone who see through the evolution "BS" doing everything to twist the meaning to his liking, just like he does with the actual evidence for evolution.
I'm only halfway through the video, but I get the distinct impression this entire video is just the longest, most Canadian way of saying "Fuck you, Kent" imaginable. 😂
These, @Paulogia, are the three points that puts the cherry on the cake. During my 8-year immersion into a fundamentalist evangelical church that prescribed to the most literal interpretations of the faith, I had never once heard of these kinds counterarguments being referred to. If I had known these arguments sooner... If only.
From my 30+ years immersion in Fundamentalist Evangelical Christianity, my experience was that the average parishioner (myself included) made no effort at all to investigate the truth of any of the claims being made from the pulpit. And of course, any sort of questioning of anything the Pastor said was strongly discouraged. The simple reality is (sadly) that the vast majority of people on the planet (be they religious or not) have very little interest in objective truth. People "believe" what they want to believe and if they could be bothered, will search for "evidence" supporting their pre-ordained position. Hundreds of Millions of people "believe" things that are demonstrably false.
1:50
Yup. I've heard Kent complain that people dislike his videos before even watching them. Normally I would say that this is intellectually dishonest. But Hovind is an exception. Why? Because I *literally* already know what he's going to say before the video starts, and I know I'm not going to like it.
Clips of Kent show up in so many atheist youtubers video's i feel like i have watched them entirely at this stage.
I hope he doesn't come looking for payment.
@@AlphaBeta-cf5wf Nah, he is not prepared for that.
@@AlphaBeta-cf5wf He claims that Creaky Blinder owes him a steak dinner because he's made videos about him..
The great irony of his debate "requirements" is that Kent himself has violated them in every single debate. Especially regarding the "1 topic at a time" one. He can't go 30 seconds without gish galloping all over the stage.
We can almost call it Hovind hopping
I just finished biology on Khan Acadamy, and even I can't get an A+ on the tests despite over 100 hours of study, and a rediculous number of attempts on retaking the tests. Kent probably can't fully learn the subject. I only have normal intellegence, but I'm not vehemently opposed to the material. He doesn't want to learn real biology.
When he says "truth doesn't change" he basically denies the whole concept of science, and scientific history. What people consider to be "the truth" has been changing for centuries, and will continue to change for the rest of time.
Just because YOUR truth doesn't change doesn't mean that out in reality, we see things differently.
The truth hasn't changed. You just proved you shouldn't trust in men. Trust in God! Jesus loves you!
Minor nitpick: the truth of a matter itself doesn't change. Our understanding of it does.
Well said. I appreciated your boundaries in the beginning, and I agree that it's not worth your time or energy to "debate" a convicted felon who will not respect clear and concise parameters of the discussion. Your actions and words prove that you have more professional integrity than "Dr. Dino."
The Telltale Atheist explained
in one of his newer videos something that really touched me:
That more Atheists need to Run for Office.
Not only did he not just state it but make great Arguments,
but he even provided Ways to learn how to run for Office.
@@loturzelrestaurant Great point!
@@loturzelrestaurant
I think that'll happen on a cold day in Hell. Being a Christian I apologize for showing vile cynicism and bitterness but if I recall there are measures in place that prevent atheists from running for office.
And while having an atheist politician would be effective in leeching money and votes from hard working atheist and theist Americans, it might balloon into something beyond our government's control.
And they can't have that, as there has to be a routine that in no way endangers the politicians. And what you've seen thus far with these pointless debates is as good as it's going to get.
One point as counterpart to his no cursing rule: "No derision of the other person, no spongebob, no hammer, no derision and strawmanning of the other position. "You believe you come from a rock" flies out anyhow when abiogenesis (and chemical and cosmological "evolution" is excluded).
It is so funny when Kent comes with his rock, as he believes Adam was made of dust, and Eva was made of calcium (Adam's rib), where we say we are made primarily of carbohydrates, carbohydrates made by plants from CO2 and H2O.
You should (and could) really do a complete debate, doing your points and inserting Kent's answers that he will invariably give.
What would also be nice is to nail him down on HIS OWN model. That is always a lot of fun, and fun to see them how they will run away "that has nothing to do with how animals spread", like flat earthers totally concentrate on disproving the globe (and fail), and refuse to say ANYthing concrete about their own flat earth model.
So, there is the GBE, the Great Bottleneck Event, called Flood. Apart from reducing the human genetic base on 4 families (the Noahs and the three wives of his sons), and how they could spread in 4000 years:
- how did plants survive the year underwater?
- No insects survive a vear in water. They drown, as their trachae fill with water. So were the insects all on the Ark and part of the kind count?
- as dinosaurs are postulated to have been on the Ark (so that the kids have something cool in "The Ark Encounter"), several kinds are lost to house those.
- what about e.g. worms, snails, all what is on and in the earth, are they also part of the Ark crew and then spread out crawling and digging?
- how many kinds were there? Kent should have at least halfway a list of the kinds that were on the Ark.
- are insects and worms part of the kind list, Kent has to come from 8000 to millions of species within 4000 years. If he excludes certain genuses, he must explain how they survived the Flood (eggs would be the easiest, even for the dinosaurs, but he will NEVER think of that). ALL kinds have spread out from ONE SINGLE spot, reached EVERY corner of the earth, have speciated, and all the original and intermediate forms have lost zero trace on their marches.
- the Flood makes it unavoidable that Genesis requires a super-duper-hyper-ultra-evolution. From each kind, a series of drastically different species must have emerged, that then moved to separate places. Or a base kind spread out all over the world, that then "on location" changed its shape and way of life spontaneously into a drastically different form.
Concentrating on the Flood, Kent's primary source of income, would be such a hilarious dumpster fire...
It is always clear with Hovind, when he has no response to a point. He: 1) strawmans it with a bad metaphor, 2) attacks the metaphor (not the point), 3) calls it stupid.
Whenever you see this Hovid-3-step, it's Hovind getting desperate.
When all else fails deploy distraction tactic, refute a claim the opponent did not make that infers a ad homoneins attack and while they try and untangle the nonsense interrupt them until they get emotionally flustered and swear, declare victory
@@UlshaRS shit on the board and strut around..
You don't "debate" Kent Hovind, you just listen, and laugh, because Kent can never admit he's wrong, ever.
Yep. He's the dumbest man on the planet, throwing a tantrum and screaming that he's the smartest.
Having 300 debates and not once changing your view is insane. I've watched enough of Kent Hovind's stuff to know all of his arguments stand on trying to poke holes in scientific facts, much like a flat earther.
Agreed.
"More respectable organizations like Answers in Genesis .." Ahaha .. I know, I know .. but still that sounds hilarious anyway. Just like Kent calling people cowards .. any time he gets a debate challenge from someone he knows is well equipped and familiar with his usual nonsense, he runs away hurling desperate insults as he goes.
Off topic, but "If we evolved from apes why are there still apes" may be such a bad argument that AiG says don't use it, but it's still good enough for a US Senate candidate.
Granted, he was a college dropout, and I doubt he had any biology at the Univ of Georgia, but a lot of people think he should be part of running the country.
That backhanded compliment to AIG has got to sting.
So far the best "argument" Kent has ever provided is "I'm not being dishonest, you're being dishonest".
The way Kent describes macro evolution and micro evolution. It's like taking a small bottle, filling it with water and pouring it into a bigger bottle. Now, at this point Kent would say, that "it is impossible to believe that repeating this process would fill the bottle. Son, that is stupid. It is your imagination, son. Come down to the Dinosaur Adventure Land, we'll whack some sense into you".
I'm still waiting for someone to believe hard enough to make my coffee maker pot explode and then tell me who believed hard enough. That is legitimately the only proof I need for god.
It's like saying that by continually putting one foot in front of the other you can walk to the bathroom, but you can't use that method of moving to walk to the store.
@@fred_derf Well, DUH! A store is a COMPLETELY different Kind from a bathroom.
Ngl reading that in his voice is inevitable lol
With a talent for tolerating tedium, I am frequently called up by friends for tasks that they don't have the patience to do. What you describe is something that informs my patience. The task appears infinite and therefore can't be accomplished. I am one who can fill the big bottle with plural doses from the little bottle.
Kent does not understand science, but he actually came up with a testable hypothesis regarding the evolution of the eye. Cephalopods (like octopus) have a different retina from humans and other land vertebrates. Biologists argue this is because vertebrates have more recent common ancestor and evolved eyes independently from cephalopods. Kent says they are designed differently because cephalopods "live in the water." The test is to examine the eyes of fish. Common ancestry argues for human-like retinas. Kent's idea argues for cephalopod-like design. So, which is it?
The answer does not support Kent's hypothesis. :)
Excellent point
Paulogia just leveled up again
The 'common designer' argument is ridiculous when the designer is an omnipotent, omniscient being. Humans reuse "code" (design) because we're limited, we're not omniscient or omnipotent. Commonality of design is a hallmark of limited resources.
Friends don't let friends debate Kent Hovind. Just say no.
In my opinion, the rulez for diskussions should be: If one uses an argument, that is a lie or fault, the discussion is lost. This wold prevent the bullshit overflow and the disusser has to be cautious about the points he/she makes.
Paul you have to be the most patient person I've ever seen, It's too bad Kent abhors cursing because that's the only thing he makes me want to do, what a "guy." (Insert your preferred expletive here)
I know this goes without saying, but I'm pretty sure Kent doesn't like swearing purely because in his christian views, it give him a moral high ground if he doesn't do it and condemns those who do it.
Only thing I'd want to say to him, is "Get bent Kent!".
I notice Kent plays up the number of debates he's participated in, rather than the number he has won.
Kent regarding Tiktaalick: "You can't prove it had any offspring."
Sigh. I only wish we could prove the same regarding Kent.
But no, he had a son Eric who continues the Creationism-Kent con, tax free.
LOL. I remember that "debate" between Hovind and Catz ... "I'm not prepared for that"
Just ask Hovind to define a Kind ....
Quote from Mark Twain: Never argue with stupid people, they will only drag you down to there level and beat you up with experience
There’s also a saying, never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty but the pig enjoys it.
Years ago, on the non sequitur show, kent had a debate with a scientist who has a PhD in genetics. He was told about e.r.vs . He is a un repent liar.
Yeah, don't lower yourself to a "debate" with the @#&%@^. Not even if _that_ matter is resolved, it's just one of many ways he's an immoral monster.
- Apart from that, he demands equal time and one topic at a time, but won't hold himself to that agreement, and demanding no swearing is just a childish nonsense demand to make sure people will not "debate" him or he has excuses to run away.
- He will never agree on using actual definitions, as his entire schtick relies on lying about everything, especially definitions.
- It's no use trying to have email contact about it either, as the clown us functionally illiterate.
- He can't demonstrate he understands evolution as he doesn't understand any science, on purpose. He'll insist that the person using the actual science is using the strawman, because whatever he blurts out is supposed to be "real" science.
- He will not ever agree on using current school books, as again he needs to lie about everything.
- He would definitely not allow you to agree to a creator god creating the first life, as that would undermine his lies that abiogenesis is evolution, instead he'd declare victory right away as you've denounced his ridiculous strawman of evolution by assuming a creator god.
Great work as usual. I agree completely, obviously, that shared insertions of transposable elements is really only explained by common ancestry. I think however the real power in this observation is that the topologies we observe from comparisons of insertions are virtually the same as those patterns of relatedness we see from totally different comparisons such as morphology or protein coding genes. If each type of data produced on average totally different trees then that result couldn’t be easily explained by common ancestry. If you look across many different lines of evidence we don’t in fact see that. Instead we see remarkable consistency among independent lines of evidence. There are inconsistencies but they are comparatively rare and within limits. They aren’t the sort of random differences we would expect to see with creation. It’s not as if an ERV produces the topology of a chimp and human being more related to each other than either is to a macaque and the primates more related to each other than any is to a mouse but protein coding genes place humans next to sea urchins and humans and sea urchins aligned with sturgeon and only distantly related to chimps. The trees we produce from different lines of evidence are on average very congruent. That only makes sense with shared ancestry.
Kent's viewership numbers are evolving over time towards extinction.
Gottem!🤭
Pretty sure you should receive some humanitarian award for spending that much time watching Hoven’s videos in order to obtain the materials you so seamlessly used in this excellent video. 🤣 Well done, good Sir. Appreciate your work.
or a sanity check
@@Paulogia after each bite of Hoven material you have to endure, one must cleanse the mental pallet with Star Wars goodness. 👍
You know, as silly as it sounds to say "evidences", I can appreciate that it's a shorter way of saying "pieces of evidence".
In this case I think Paul meant "lines of evidence."
it's an archaic plural form; fell out of common use at least decades ago
There is one thing I really REALLY want from Hovind debate. I want him to present a fully coherent theory. I have seen a lot of his videos where he is happy to poke at something but cannot or will not go in to how he thinks everything happened and fits together. Like his idea of craters on the moon by the collapse of the firmament. It has to be more than just a "the bible" explanation since i think it would be hard to get real explanation from it.
I would never debate Hovind until he provided a precise and rigorous definition of 'kind'.
"Dogs are all dog-kind, fish are all fish-kind, there, I defined it!"
-Kent
@@Hailfire08 I said "precise and rigorous".
Hovind has never once participated in a debate. He simply waits for his opponent to stop speaking and then starts preaching from his 30 year old slideshow. That's it, Kent does not even know what a debate IS.
24:57
Actually, 2020 was not the first time Kent had ever talked about ERV's in a video, nor was it the first time Kent had heard of it/seen someone use it as one of the evidences of evolutionism.
th-cam.com/video/Fnn8UIkZOPY/w-d-xo.html
Using the word “evidences” should count as an automatic forfeit
Dr josh Bowen doing his Hovind impersonation for the win! 💪 He does hovind exact! 🤣👍
Aron Ra also does a good Kent Hovind. And did it in the same video that Paulogia voiced Ray Comfort.
@@bdf2718 Thanks i got to check that out! 👍
@@Omerta-33-EE Prophet of Zod _The Floodgates of Heaven._
@@bdf2718 Thanks!
I find it interesting how he debates a science article. Here’s a man who basically is an armchair jack of all trades, as he would describe himself, thinking that he knows more based off of a 2000 year old book, then the scientific method which biblical scholars didn’t even have nor knew it existed.
23:29 - I think a missing key point here is that the same viruses occur in the same locations. The matching locations are what really hammer home the conclusion that this is the result of copying.
Paulogia, Mr. Hovind will never accept these terms. Some years back he challenged me to a debate on the second law of thermodynamics and I accepted. I set up a basic format of an academic discussion:
- Topic clearly defined prior to the debate
- Proponents' position clearly defined prior to the debate
- Sources supporting the proponents position made public 7 days before the debate, enabling both sides and the audience to study and evaluate prior to the debate
- Equal time for introduction, presentation and refutation, all rounded up with Q&A
It was all rather standard, but Mr Hovind vanished. Some months later I went to his channel and reminded him about the debate. I got no notifications, so a couple of days later I went back to see if he had replied. There was nothing, but I saw a new video titled something like; "Comments on the comments". I watched it and he actually read my comment and said something like; "I don't have time for debates like these, as I work 18 hours a day here at DAL..." and then went on to another comment. That is also the day I got blocked from his channel.
Sooo... long story short, he knows he'll get his ass kicked by you?
@@hakureikura9052
Thermodynamics is my field of science, in combination with quantum mechanics, so I guess that I would know more than Mr Hovind does in this field. His claim was that the second law of thermodynamics disproves the evolutionary theory, but without substantiating his claim.
In our discussions leading up to the challenge, he did not even know that the law is defined in the second equation of thermodynamics, so I guess it would have been easy to expose his ignorance. Unfortunately, he decided to run instead...
@@Frups12345678 yea, i noticed, whenever hovind is confronted with an expert on the field, he'd either run away or talk about things the expert is not an expert in. Like, if you had an informal debate with him, i bet you anything he'll talk about every thing but thermodynamics. He might even bombard you with questions for genetics or geologists, but will never discuss the law of thermodynamics with you. That's how much of a bullshtter he is.
@@hakureikura9052
He is a bit of a one trick pony 😀
I doubt that Kent has the courage to accept your conditions. But on the off chance he does I would suggest that you don't just have him agree to scientific definitions but that Kent also has to specify *his* definitions for his creationist concepts of "kind" and "information" (perhaps some others) and that he has to stick to those definitions. This is to avoid Kent trying to twist his own creationist lingo to weasel his way out of making concessions.
I doubt any creationist will ever commit to a working definition of "kind".
Are lions and tigers the same "kind"?
Are house cats and lions the same "kind"?
Are foxes and dogs the same "kind"?
Are hyenas and dogs the same "kind"?
Are rabbits and hares the same "kind"?
Are rabbits and mice the same "kind"?
If there is not a clear, simple, consistent means of determining the answers to these question, then "kind" is a worthless concept.
It is intellectually dishonest to use any term that you are unwilling to define.
@@UTU49 I completely agree, and that's precisely my point.
If Kent refuses to provide a detailed description his own definition of a "kind" then it indicates he knows that he's being dishonest. If on the other hand Kent really does believe what he's saying (which I *highly* doubt he does) then by getting him to define a "kind" in advance it will make it easier to show that he's wrong while limiting his ability to weasel out of it.
This was a most satisfying debate with Kent Hovind without Kent Hovind.
Well thought out, well made, Paul.
we went on strike at our catholic high school because they wanted to sack our science teacher for teaching evolution and taught us to question everything.
Explaining why Kent Hovind is not capable of debating anything because of his methods is probably the most useful thing to do about him, just before ignoring him again and let him "whack an atheist" ad repetitam in his sorry corner of TH-cam.
Thank you, Paulogia.
The clip of Kent telling us what things are related to other things was actually hilarious.
You should check out the new docu-series "The Weakness of Kent Hovind".
I think there are only 2 parts released currently, with more to come!
I've been chatting with the creator. Good series.
😊 I just re-watched that Nova episode this morning! My ears must have been burning!
Had a busy week; I waited for the weekend to watch this because it’s Paulogia and deserves my fullest attention! Eager and full of anticipation!!
While I seriously can't see the actual debate happening, Kent will have to make some kind of reply even just to maintain what little credibility he has left
This was a great video, Paul! Well done. It is also about the closest that I think you should ever get to debating Kent Hovind. Especially given the fact that, in all likelihood,. As you pointed out, he rarely uses new information when he can reuse his old material; therefore this video is likely to look more or less exactly the way any actual debate that you had with him would look. (Albeit with much less in the way of condescension, sarcasm, and antagonism from him.)
I wholeheartedly agree with you that no one should ever debate Kent Hovind without him first agreeing to your stipulations. I likewise agree with you, in that I doubt that he ever would agree to such stipulation; and even if he did, that he wouldn't adhere to them. But I would go even further.
I would personally recommend against anyone ever agreeing to debate Kent Hovind, for a variety of reasons.
1) He is a known and proven liar.
2) Despite being repeatedly corrected, and asked not to, he continues to intentionally spread misinformation about a variety of topics.
3) His behavior in the majority of the TH-cam videos in which he appears is both verbally antagonistic, if not outright emotionally abusive.
4) He has proven time and again that he will not engage in a good-faith discussion or debate with anyone who does not already agree with his religious ideologies and presuppositions. (“No fossil can count as evidence for change of anything.” is NOT the statement of someone who is engaging in a good-faith debate about anything related to biology, paleontology, or evolution.)
Such an individual should never be given a platform to spread his lies, misinformation, and vitriol. This is especially true when there is clearly no chance that he would ever be willing to concede defeat, no matter how egregiously wrong he is proven to be. (I don't recall Kent Hovind ever actually conceding any point, nor admitting that he was wrong or mistaken, ever, in any of the many, many hours of videos I have seen him in. Perhaps he has, and I have just missed it.) If a person is categorically unwilling to ever admit defeat, or even acknowledge the possibility that his opponent might be correct, then they are not engaging in a true debate at all: they are simply using a debate format in order to spread their message. That isn't a debate: its propaganda masquerading as a debate.
Even if he had admitted to being wrong at the time, he would still stick to his script, unaltered, the very next time he spoke about the topic.
A debate calls for understanding the opposing position in order to argue against it.
I have yet to see evidence of Kent even describing evolution accurately, let alone understanding it.
Brillant, Paul, thanks a lot!
Bravo! The presentation on ERVs was perfect. I enjoyed it a lot. It was an honor to see You use some material that I’ve used. (Used much better, in Your case) From a sincere fan of Your work.
One of the funny things about Ken is that he accepts micro-evolution but rejects the macro w/o realizing that the latter is a natural and inevitable result of the former.
The other is that in his model macro-evolution happens ridiculously fast kinda like his post flood plate tectonics which would literally boil off the seas.
Then there's his choice in shirts...
^__^
His choice in shirts makes me mad because I went to Hawaii and got that red/orange/yellow print Hawaiian shirt, and I love it. I'm not happy sharing it with a person like Kent! It's mine, darn it, and I got it in a way that's more genuine than he's ever been in his entire life!
That's not unique to Kent and that's not even a joke because quite a number of Creationists believe that. They simply reject "macroevolution" because "we have never observed it". Convenient since that sort of evolution takes a lot more time than humans have been around.
@@corvuscorax7451 I know, right?
I used to like to rock a colorful Hawaiian shirt but Kent's adoption of same has soured me on them.
It's not fair! >.<
It's not like I needed another reason to be annoyed by Kent.
@@corvuscorax7451 I now call those shirts "Hovind shirts."
34 minutes in, the "cars are alike" argument. My Subaru had a window switch fail. I replaced it myself. I went to the Subaru dealer and bought a Subaru switch from Subaru in a Subaru box with a Subaru part number on it.
The switch inside was stamped "Nissan".
My car has been ERV'd. Proof my car was designed by a semi-intelligent designer.
Do I have a point? Not sure. Do I know what that point is? Absolutely not. Kent is using the Chewbacca Defense. If metric exists, then God must exist!
The more fundamental issue with "debating" Kent is that, no matter the topic under discussion, he always brings it back to YEC vs science. Look at pretty much any Kent v Emma video - she acknowledges that she is not the right person to talk about evolution vs creation, but no matter what point she raises, he attacks his strawman version of evolution.
Given all of his schoolboy/playground ad hominem attacks, he doesn't actually deserve any reasoned discourse...
Kent would never agree to this. He can't debate without his strawman.
Yeah, but he is also a liar. So he would agree to the terms of the debate and then just ignore them.
3:34 - "You are a chicken"
Nobody... NOBODY calls me chicken!
Following a recent snippet from a Kent debate, it I feel it's also necessary to add one further stipulation; "Neither debater may ask probing personal questions about the other person's genitals, provide unsolicited information about their own genitals, or brag about how much sex they've had."
You might want to define the term "scientific evidence". It is a scientific debate so scientific evidence should be the standard. Wikipedia has a very good definition and it is the essentially the same as several science based sites.
i like to take the gutsick gibbon rule of thumb. if they cant pronounce orangutan correctly then you dont have to listen to that person of human evolution anymore
With all the artifact hunting in this episode, I wouldn't be surprised to see your avatar in a fedora and wielding a whip next week!
You’re right. Kent doesn’t argue the topic at hand. When he’s talking about ERVs, he says, “Does that prove that no one wrote the book?” No Kent, it doesn’t. But the topic is Evolution and ERVs are great evidence for the topic, EVOLUTION. lol so even if there is a “designer,” it means that designer used Evolution as a mechanism for diversity of life on Earth.