A Challenge For Mr. Kent Hovind
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 02. 2020
- While most of my viewers avoided my recent "debate" with Kent Hovind because their brains could not withstand the number of facepalms that would result from listening to the excrement pouring out of his mouth for more than thirty seconds, some of you managed to get through it. Surprise, surprise, he wants to have another go at it. But he will not dictate the format such that he can just spew his script of lies. Kent, if you want to interact with me again, it'll be according to the format outlined in this video. Sweet dreams, Hoss.
Original debate: • Professor Dave Destroy...
Watch my other debunks: bit.ly/ProfDaveDebunk
EMAIL► ProfessorDaveExplains@gmail.com
PATREON► / professordaveexplains
Check out "Is This Wi-Fi Organic?", my book on disarming pseudoscience!
Amazon: amzn.to/2HtNpVH
Bookshop: bit.ly/39cKADM
Barnes and Noble: bit.ly/3pUjmrn
Book Depository: bit.ly/3aOVDlT
Professor Dave, please stop insulting pigs by comparing Kent Hovind to them.
LMAO
lol
Ikr, pigs have more scientific knowladge and are more trustworthy then kent.
Yeah pigs are actually surprisingly intelligent, more than dogs
pigs would need enough intelligence to at least teach their young
The debate in the nutshell
Dave: “Kent you’re dodging the subject”
Kent: “I am not, also was your grandpa a rock?”
Dave: “what?”
Kent: “if your grandpa wasn’t a rock how could a pig grow wings?”
Dave: “wtf does that have to do with anything?”
Kent: *hammers a spongebob toy* “look that’s you”
I hate how accurate this is!
Oh my god. Kent just does the wookie defense.
Sigma mind set
Beyond accurate
I found it completely annoying that every time he said imagination he had to grab the SpongeBob toy and say it again. It seemed like he was just trying to waste time.
Kent- "I'm not aware of any scientific inaccuracies in the bible"
Dave- "I actually have some examples"
Kent- "That's not the point"
There are no inaccuracies.
@@canabiss8297 ok buddy
@@canabiss8297 First page literally says the world was made in 7 days. Boom!
@@canabiss8297 First book if the bible states that the time gap between the first light and humans is 7 days.
We have detected light that is so far away that in order for this light to get to us it would have had to travel for billions of years. Humans only exist for a couple hundred thousand years. Theres an innacuracy for you
@@canabiss8297 lol
“Kent, what’s a kind?”
Kent: “You came from a rock!”
“But didn’t God make Adam from rock/dirt”?
Kent: “Son, this book will judge you one day.”
So you know the Bible?
@@dorimckee9512 why not?
@@dorimckee9512 is that some type of gotcha or something?
@@First_LastName why have you not grown wings if your dad was a tulip?
@@dorimckee9512 It's a pretty easy book to "know" (as per my best guess of what exactly you're implying by asking such a poorly defined question), it has a finite amount of words in it and many people have read them all. Most people who identify with the Christian faith, I've noticed, have not. So it would seem "knowing" the bible is almost exclusive to atheists or other nonreligious folk, which stands to reason since nobody with the faintest hint of intellectual honesty could walk away from it thinking it anything more than utter fiction in a vaguely historical setting.
"I dare you to find one scientific error in the Bible"
"Ok"
"Wait no"
4:20 Question 1.
Bible: Earth is 6000 years and 6 days of age.
Science: Earth is 4 500 000 000 years of age.
From this we've got a mathematically system to compare bible against science. What will be the solution?
6 000 y + 6 d = 4 500 000 000 y
Solutions:
d = 749 999 000 y
y = 1/749 999 000 d
The first solution tells us how many years there was in a day at average for the first six days of earth's existence. Earth must have been rotating really slow at the beginning. Bible and Science agree at this point of slow rotation.
***
4:36 Second Question 1.
This is a simple matter of arithmetic. There's no need for Pi to calculate a Real numerical solution.
NB. The definition of _roundabout_ is not limited to circular pathways.
5 + 5 + 10 + 10 = 30
QED
I will answer the other questions when (read: if) Dave has found any error in my math.
Until then, get ready for more humiliation of Dave Agenda.
@@CZcams_Stole_My_Handle_Too I can't find a source for the slow rotation can I have a link (genuine question)
@@CZcams_Stole_My_Handle_Too Earth has been slowing down since it formed. So the starting point of your 'math' failed already.
@@AtheistBelgium Earth is slowing down due to gravitation from the moon which wasn't present at the time earth was born. My math stands firm and well.
@@CZcams_Stole_My_Handle_Too And at what time would you pinpoint the birth of the moon?
Its so weird going from watching this guy teach me chemistry to watching him argue with a man child. 😂😂😂
yeah
@@kevinangel7289 well any sane person would get angry with a disingenuous and manipulative pos like Kent. Not to even mention how he refered to Dave as "son" during the debate as if him being an old man somehow makes him more valid
@@kevinangel7289 You ever seen any videos from Kent? The guy just calls other people stupid and doesnt give any evidence for the huge claims he makes. Kent is a guy that doesnt know how to have a civil argument, much less one with research and facts.
It’s hilarious, I love it
@@SmashToBits a kid drowned at his lake and he didnt care one bit. Absolute monster
"Life came from a rock" - Fabulous Display of knowledge by Mr Kent
And Kent believes people came from dust. Lmao
Not technically a living creature, but there was a thing called Stromatolite and those things are rocks formed from living creatures
@@Serhii_Diemientieievso like a fossil
The irony
@@LemonYerg no. Fossils form after creature died. Stromatolites are formed by alive creatures, Cyanobacterias. They are ancestors of all living things
the irony of kent's "one topic at a time" rule is that changing topics is his only defense mechanism when he gets exposed on a topic. he'd be ruined if he actually adhered to that rule. (lol i paused and posted this as soon as i saw the rule...apparently dave immediately points out the same thing)
"Do you not know how miosis works?"
"Look, rabits run!"
Comedy gold... I wish it was just comedy
dave changed the subject from genetics to meiosis. not kent. he was trying to answer about genetics
I disagree with it being comedy gold, on the grounds that it is in no way based in truth. The fatuous statement, "rabbits run, coupled with a moronic question, "so why haven't any rabbits evolved wings?" Is not even a plausible look over there. The other & deeply disturbing thing is that retarded hate filled rhetoric & dogma, is a large part of what the root cause of our suicidal focus on destruction of the environment. The one & only life support system available.
@@luketucker5835 am I correct in assuming you believe in
Glorious
Omnipotent
Divinity
?
Luke Tucker Dave went from genetics to the process by which genetics transfer between cells, Kent then went from Mitosis to Physiology, a much different and unrelated topic to the original
As if there are no predators in the sky. A slow moving "winged rabbit" would be easier for a bird of prey to catch.
Kent : "The Bible is all the evidence I need to prove that Evolution is wrong"
Dave: "Can we talk about the Bible then"
Kent: "No, this debate is about evidence for Evolution..."
Yup, Kent is the Master Debater.
@@az8theist977 Brilliant 😁
@@az8theist977 Has a lot of practice MassDebating probably. (With apologies to Harry Enfield's 'Norbert Smith:A Life)
i wonder if Kunt Hovind can say "hypocrite"?
Which it really wasn't, the topic for debate was Evolution vs Creationism. So Dave had any right to crap over that bible. But Dave was to nice and didn't.
Kent indeed dodged that topic, off the bible, like the plague. Couldn't say it better then Dave himself, that Kent acted like the greased up pig Kent is xD.
As someone who considers himself a Christian, the Bible was not meant to be a science book. The Old Testament, for example, is full of anecdotes, metaphors, and old Jewish laws. People can find spiritual enlightenment through the Bible, but they can't take everything it says literally. That's how you get extreme science deniers like this guy.
Also, I like your videos, man. Especially the ones debunking flat earth.
Funny enough, even the Ultra orthodox among us Jewish people do not take the tanakh to be literal in any sense. Even we understand that the stories are not biographical and instead fall somewhere between mythical and exaggerated history.
Oh nice
I am in exactly the same boat. I 100% agree with this comment. Bible literalists are too hung up on the fact that the Bible is the word of God. Yes, it is, but it was passed through humans and therefore any version of the Bible we have is inherently flawed. There is imperfection in the chain of custody. Furthermore, the Bible was written FOR everyone, but it was written TO a people over 2000 years ago. If the Bible was a science textbook or even contained any non-metaphor, actual descriptions of processes in biology or the universe in general, nobody of that time would have understood it and it would have been thrown out as some boring nonsense.
Man I dont even really want to comment here. I am slightly compelled to though. I feel its a waste, and I don't want to be caught up in a texting style debate. I dont have time to go back and forth. A few suggestions for the Jew and Christian . The Bible has been holding its own longer than any other book. Its historacity is most reliable compared to other ancient writings. It is the most attacked book and still comes out fortified after each attack. Perhaps spend more time in reading the 66 books with objectivity. Most won't. Perhaps it will be easier for you to digest John Lennox from Oxford U. Or William Lane Craig. Or Jeff Durbin, James White. Although I don't see any problems with the parts of the debate with Kent that I did watch. Consider there is more to what Kent is not saying. The , "your grandfather is a rock" comment is a loaded comment. He is just not doing the work for others. Its kind of a challenge for others to unpack that comment. He also does that to save time. Same with not defining kinds. The whole slave servant comments are not read in proper context and I have heard way better arguments against the bible then these ones being made. I believe science and the Bible are both written by the same designer and to separate them would be foolishness. Statements made about orthodox Jews does not include all. I know some that believe that there is not just meaning in the words but in the spaces in between the words. I don't know that to be true but a God like our God...ehh sure, why not. Why wouldn't he be able to do such.
Tornado and car example is a simplistic example to show how accidents dont create things. The odds are beyond miraculous for life to be an accident. See John Lennox Oxford mathematician who has debated Richard Dawkins at least twice. Even his trailer park university can be defended. There was a time far before Christian universities like Yale, Harvard, Princeton etc where there was no such thing as accredited. Did Galileo go to an accredited university? Truth is truth. That doesn't make Kent a liar. Also a liar can still tell the truth. Satan never lied to Jesus when he tempted Him. He used truth but is know as the father of lies. Accredited is a new thing in light of our time as a nation let alone the world. Fighting against tax tyranny and being arrested doesn't mean that you weren't correct in your actions. Many people get arrested and convicted for there convictions.
See the scientist who were labeled witches or the Christians who were arrested for not praying the orthodox prayers prescribed by the state in England ?
@@ricolobo5202 Are you seriously defending Kent Hovind's blatant strawman arguments because they "save time"? You say you really didn't want to comment here, with that kind of logic... maybe don't...
After being forced to watch this guy in sunday school this brings me so much happiness! Great video
Given the fact that it's already common knowledge that he's a con-man, WHY would they force you to watch him in Sundays? Isn't there a commandment about false witness (Lying)?
@@entropy8634 this was back in the early 2000s before a lot of that was common knowledge. That and my sunday school teacher probably wasn't interested in hearing anything bad about the guy. Hope this explains your question adequately.
@@entropy8634 you can't use their own arguments against them... Don't you know that's unfair? ^,^
Wow. I, having been told about Evolution and how it works (and by that I mean, yes the theory on the origin of species) in the 80ies in sunday school at the age of 8 or so - and how the bible's tale of creation isn't to be understood as a scientific thing but a tale that teaches us about our responsibility for the preservation of nature - just... I don't have words for this. Surely it must be sin (and a big one!) to teach children lies like the biblical creation account is to be taken literally. Wtf.
@@elektra121 The love of money/vanity i guess is more powerful than fear of burning in hell for Hovind. He truly is cold
His response:
“Well you see Dave let me use small words, worms don’t suddenly become tigers”
Wormgers would be cool yet terrifying
"You see Dave, allow me to use miniature words, miniscule insects such as the modern worm, henceforth do not spontaneously become gargantuan animals, such as tigers."
He responded? XD
due to the lack of a comma, my brain interpreted reading this as him saying to someone else "dave was willing to let me use small words to say, worms don't suddenly become tigers"
@@LeeroyPorkins they exist in mythology tatzelworms
You don't need a debate, I can give his answers right here:
1) "Your'e not understanding" *hit spongebob with hammer.
2) "Your'e not understanding" *hit spongebob with hammer.
3) "Your'e not understanding" *hit spongebob with hammer.
4) "Your'e not understanding" *hit spongebob with hammer.
5) "Your'e not understanding" *hit spongebob with hammer.
That was very engaging, fake Kent, I appreciate the debate.
*gunshot*
What a legendary argument you used.
It’s you’re
POOR SPONGEBOB!!! *sobs* I mean, he's a sponge, so I doubt he'll suffer from any physical trauma. BUT THE EMOTIONAL TRAUMA AND TURMOIL THAT LITTLE YELLOW CUBE WITH HOLES MUST HAVE BEEN GOING THROUGH!!! OH, AND HE TOOK IT WITH A SMILE LIKE A CHAMP!!! *dramatically falls onto a fainting couch*
*proceeds to list some very inappropriate and insulting things about athiests and describe violent acts and games, sometimes for children directed towards athiests*
* describes having taught science for 15 years and owning a science center. Inviting you to visit it. *
* continues to insult his opponent *
In that one debate:
Kent: evolution is wrong and your evidence is false
Dave: proves how they’re not false
Kent: makes flawed analogy
Dave: says it’s a flawed analogy
Kent: changes topic
At some point...
Dave: tries to prove why creationism is wrong
Kent: tHaTs NoT ThE ToPIc
Oh and that “one topic at a time” thing is stupid, as different scientific studies are interconnected in many ways, so it’s trying to go “one topic at a time” in a scientific debate just doesn’t work, not to mention that even if it’s on topic, if Kent doesn’t like it, he’ll just claim it’s off topic and say something about a dog not being an airplane and horses not being bicycles or something stupid like that.
No one like this comment! We are on the funny number!
@@imaginationave3687 lmao
You were legendary in that argument m8, I felt your pain so much. Had a similar argument with flat earther and it is horrible.
They are so damn annoying. I had to explain Foucaults pendulum and the coriolis effect a dozen times before they gave up blindly denying everything I said.
It can be good sport pretending to be even more looney than them. I told an Icke head that the lizards had been infiltrated by other aliens who in turn had been infiltrated...you get the picture. It was fun watching them trying to argue against it!!
@@amylou7991 I did a similar thing in response to a comment left by a religious nut. They said something along the lines of "evolution is a tool used by the devil to bring people away from god", and I said in response "the abrahamic faith systems are a deception created by Loki to bring people away from the Aesir".
@@jarlsterra I like the cut of your jib!!
"But is your grandpa a rock?" - Expert Analysis by Kent Hovind
@Tom Niles hahaha, that's a good one
Wasn't Adam created out of clay? And what is clay? It's finely crushed ROCK.
Nosoup4u ouch, idk how hovind can hold up to that one
In biblical times, father could mean any father up the line, the point is we have no proof of where life started or how it started---which means you have to have faith that it wasn’t a god and it just came from nothing.
@@01aharley
"the point is we have no proof of where life started or how it started"
This is false, and you should really learn better. Although none of the assorted hypotheses of abiogenesis has yet met the criteria to be elevated to the status of scientific theory, there is abundant evidence that complex organic molecules can form spontaneously and on their own. I'm not just talking about experiments such as the Miller-Urey experiment; we've found complex organic compounds in meteorites too, namely carbonacious chondrites.
Also, did you know that scientists have managed to assemble simple microbes in the lab? Not evidence of abiogenesis per se, but it should serve to destroy the creationist talking point that is "life can't come from non-life."
So no, no "faith" is necessary. The idea that life originated on its own from non-living material is a position that can be held with an astounding level of statistical confidence and evidentiary support. Meanwhile there is no proof of either deities or magic, so you cannot objectively argue that a deity was involved or even necessary in the formation of the first life forms. You are projecting the flaws of your own position and then try to castigate your interlocutors on it. This is despicably dishonest, and you should be embarrassed with yourself.
Hold on....
"Do you know of any inaccuracies in the bible"
"Yeah I've got a few passages..."
"Hang on that's not the point of this discussion!"
Swine is not a good comparison. Pigs can be trained to solve puzzles and complete tasks. Hovind is more of a Zebra. Looks like a hard working intelligent animal but is actually a beast that throws a fit and kicks dirt when he doesn't get his way.
Hovind is a fly, he's annoying, dumb, and very fast.
(hovind fast as in he changes points very fast
No way is he a Zebra. Zebra males will kick pregnant females so that they can reproduce with them and pass on their genes, which isn't something you expect from a guy who says "evolution causes abortion". I'd say Kent's more of a mosquito, he makes a living pestering good people and pumping bad nonsense into them, when his only good defence is dodging his opponents' attacks
Kent's response to this is pathetic. He barely responded to it and even cut some of the parts out of your video. How did his viewers not even catch that?
They don't have the intellectual integrity to watch my content.
I wonder what would happen if someone made a video directed at Hovind (or Powell for that matter) that included a time stamp in the corner.
You think any of their minions would catch on if they see the timer in the corner arbitrarily jump around whenever a dishonest cut happens?
As his ex-wives said “they’re hypnotized”
@@cobalt4045 they definitely wouldn’t. It would cut from dave’s vid to Kent’s yelling about worms not growing legs and hitting SpongeBob with a hammer and by the time it cut back to Dave’s vid, their 7th grade level brains wouldn’t pay attention to a time stamp.
“Hoy know where to find me “. Mic drop lol. I want to shake Ken jjaja pick him up and shake him hahahaha
Lmao
"Do you know how myosis works?🧐"
"Why don't rabbits have wings?🤡"
It's meiosis
The funniest part was:
"why whales have toes?"
"we defined them to be mammals"
I can imagine whales freaking out: "oh shit, we're mammals now! Hurry guys, we need to grow toes!"
😂😂😂
Every body gangsta until your classefied as manmal.
@@ky-ql2eg Telling someone they anger issues does not invalidate their clams
@@danenewland6978Original comment deleted because sometimes I’m an asshole. ✌️
@@ky-ql2eg ✌️
Bruh, if an animal (such as a rabbit) evolves to say, fly away from a predator, it isn't called a rabbit anymore...
Then, it would be easier for eagles to catch them. I’d say that they are much safer on the ground.
Either it would have to become bipedal and form a membranous wing to start flying, or move to trees and slowly evolve gliding wings. Neither is plausible according to evolution, so asking someone who believes in evolution to tell you why rabbits don't have wings makes no sense. If they evolved wings, that would actually show some sort of divine or supernatural evolution, not evolution.
@@scptime1188 That's not entirely true. Look at some of the gliding mammals like sugar gliders, they are still quadrupedal yet are at a stage that could continue towards true flight just like bats did. Intermediary organisms do exist between what you would consider a normal animal and one with specialised physiology such as wings. Rabbits probably won't ever develop flight because they get away from their predators by being supremely agile (because of their "super evolved" hind legs) and hiding in burrows, proto-wings would be too much of a hindrance to their survival in the form they currently have.
@@scptime1188 a better example of wing evolution is flying fish who depend on their gliding ability to escape from predators which cannot follow them into the air. The flying fish that can glide more efficiently have a better survival rate so next generations have that better efficiency starting from barely gliding to now being actually pretty good at it, natural selection takes a long time to change a normal fish into a flying fish.
@@deathbforgot i wish a rabbit would evolve to flying with its ears :D
It's difficult to teach someone something, but even more difficult to help them unlearn something.
Kent: Do you know of a specific scientific error in the Bible?
Dave: I have some passages I'd like to share. Is that okay?
Kent: No.
I wonder how often you visit this video
Dave- why no-
Kent- no is no and ima change subject real quick right now to get away from this hideous question...
Dave- okay
Kent: I'm not aware of any scientific errors in that book, do you know of any specific scientific errors?
Dave: I've got some passages I'd like to share with you, is that ok?.
Kent: Well, first of all is the purpose of this debate tonight to show that the bible is wrong?
YOU LITERALLY JUST ASKED WTF
Yeah this kinda re-ruined Kent. Dave was about to make Kent aware of scientific errors in the Bible, or at least give Kent Ho-swine a chance to explain the error, but no no no, let's avoid that.
Of course Kent isn't aware of any scientific errors. He would have to understand science enough to spot them in the first place.
Well that's the way he operates in discussions, isn't it?
"Tell me where the bible is wrong"
"Well actually I have a few passages here..."
"YOU'RE DERAILING THE DISCUSSION! ARE YOU SO SCARED THAT YOU NEED TO DERAIL THE DISCUSSION? STAY ON TOPIC, SON!!!1!!11ONeeLEVenTY!"
And his believers are sadly gobbling up this bullshit :(.
lol, they even think he "crushed" his opponents' talking points.
@Stan Lee Who knows, Kent didn't let him answer after he himself asked :P
Kent: "This here book is my proof of Evolution."
Dave: "Let's examine your proof."
Kent: "We're here to talk about Evolution, not this book."
Brennan Harvey but also didn’t have a problem quoting the bits he prepared apparently there’s no counter-evidence to Holy Science
Kent: "Captain Ahab, because Moby Dick"
Anyone with a brain: "So?"
**crickets**
Quote comments like this don't usually amuse me, but this one... LOL!
Fairy tale = unscientific Bible compiled in 1611.
slow says he guy that literally believes a 2000 year old fairytale.
Kent: "I'm not aware of any scientific inaccuracies in the bible"
The Bible: Claims that Noah died 350 years after the flood, at the age of 950.
you should look at the "family tree" of noah and go back to adam and eve... according to the bibble they all turned around a 1000years old, and if you calculate the years according to when the "flood" happend, 3/4 of them where still alive.. so noah and "god" killed them all in the "flood" what a great person :) and the part where he send out a bird to check for land and it never came back... so did that species died out because there was onley one left? gotta love the (think of how hovind says it) imagination of the person who wrote the bible..
@@tribal132 "did that species died out because there was onley one left?" It could of had eggs before leaving the ark.
@@jessehollenbeck4607 ok thats a fair point. But what did the animals eat? I mean you had carnivores, herbivores, omnivores.. and as far as i can find they where at least 150 days on that boat.. where was al the food.. and how did he keep it fresh? If he really took a pair of each animal in the world ther would have been over 4millions animals there plus 5 monts of food.. now thats a very big boat…
@@tribal132 It is believed that there were 8,000 "kinds" of animals (16,000 animals total) on the ark, not 4 million. The carnivores may have been able to eat fish. I'm not sure how the rest of the food could have been stored.
@@jessehollenbeck4607 so did noah and his sons fish all day every day to feed at least 2000 animals... but not all carnivores eat fish. but there are more then 8000 "kinds" or species of animals in the world...
Kent evaded your arguments like he evaded taxes
Lol
I love how hostile, yet somehow respectful Dave is here. Constantly calling him "Grandpa" and "old timer" is a *great* parallel to how Kovind continuously referred to Dave as "son" in their debate. Just hysterical to me.
Dave even called him “pop.” Lol.
@@TheOtherCiphbruh better than poop
@@Helena-me6mp No Poop works because Kent is ( expletive deleted) excrement.
He does that in all of his debates, calling them "son". I don't know what he thinks it proves. As if him being old means he's right?
I don't know. From a Christian's point of view (which I am), he seemed very disrespectful.
You got too emotional with Kent and he's experienced enough to know he had you. Nothing will piss him off more than you being calm.
Facts. I remember during that debate multiple times when Kent was telling Dave to "calm down". It's hard not to get angry at someone who profits off of misleading others but thats the only way to beat him at his own game, so to speak.
@@fayyllfayyll It's why Aron Ra was far more effective against Kunt...
Personally I think Kent is a good debater and a charismatic liar, his actual evidence is non existent and he cannot explain plesiosaurs being extinct by any means and would say the Loch Ness monster is real.
that's why Sci Man Dan would be a good buffer/moderator since he tends to stay cool and fairly monotone with a healthy bit of sarcasm. Plus Kent thinks he's beaten Dan repeatedly already.
yeah I know but it's just so furiating when someone you're debating acts like Kent.
not answering questions, leading things elsewhere, misrepresenting the other's statement, misrepresenting the subject.
it's like cheating at a game, with the other saying he's playing according to the rulebook when clearly he isn't.
annoying as fuck
Greetings Professor Dave
I have a question regarding a different conspiracy. First I would like to thank you for the delightful classical physics series which enabled me to catch up and even gain an advantage at school.
Have you ever talked about the Moon landing conspiracy and the ways it can be debunked (like the laser-retroreflector experiment)? I understand that for an educated person this takes but a few minutes of reading, but you have a special talent for putting the ignorant in their place.
I wish you all the best for 2022.
I would suggest you don't, it will take you an enormous amount of time just so some illiterate comes up and says some more stupid pseudoscience that you couldn't even think about, now if you study astronomy or astrophysics you could do it because anything thrown at you can be debunked, but if you are not you would only lose valuable time in the process, here is a bit of my experience with a flat earther, (he was talking about polaris not moving and I commented on the thread talking about distances and bringing Australia as to tell him you can't see Polaris from there and then bringing a video of the Galloper Offshore Wind Farm and saying please bring me the base of the wind mill with zoom, and guess what he said, he said I saw polaris with my eyes along the lines of him not believing in photos or videos, at that moment I knew I wasted quite a bit of time debunking an illiterate idiot).
People who debate the moon landing are often in the same camps as Flat Earthers; there is no changing their mind. It's not about being stupid or how much they think they know. It's their identity. They don't just believe flat earth, they are flat earthers. Hovin doesn't just believe the bible, he's a young-earth creationist surrounded by his own. It does help (him) that people like hovin make money by doing this either.
While Dave hast talked Abt moonlanding, I can redirect you to
"Adam ruins everything: the moon landing"
Long story short, to fake the moonlanding during the time of the landing would have been so much more expensive than actually doing it.
For example there where only red layers at a time, so you would need millions of lazers that haven't been invented yet.
+They prod mirrors to the moon, that everyone can see/use (big bang theory did an episode of that)
So you would need to fake a landing, with non exaisting technology, while also bringing mirrors there
No chance Kent touches this. He’s not prepared for that
Not like he was prepared for the first one ...
Oof i have that song stuck in my head again, i hate you xD
TheCasualPlayer sharing is caring. It shouldn’t be just me stuck with it in my head
Meow meow meow meow
Jacob Ward kent will have anther go if he thinks it will improve his income or spread his reach in some way , prof might get two or three face to face before ken realised he has had his face mashed into the back of his head , but he will still be able to dismantle him in this format .
Kent "I'm not prepared for that" Hovind
We should replace the "e" in Kent with a "u"
I just watched that video!
YT: Carolyn Hamlett DUMBS, Human Hybrids, Aliens/Fallen Beings, Ascended Masters
Hello there general Kenobi.
@@noco3126
What?! Kunt is actually written with an "e"?! Never noticed that!
Words can't describe how happy it would make me if SciManDan was the mediator. I've been watching his videos for a long time now and wouldn't have gotten to your videos without him.
Professor Dave, what is the status of the next debate with Kent?
I enjoyed the debate so much !!! I am waiting for the next one. Pretty please !!!
My favorite part was when Kent was like, “How come rabbits don’t instantly grow wings” or “Does amoeba turn into a dog.”
Dave has just explained how evolution works and Kent never even listened and still squealed and whined
@Patrick C You're being extremely generous.
@@nenmaster5218 reporting harmless ideas isnt really my thing, if Kent started ripping limbs off dogs to “prove evolution is false” then maybe I’d report
@@oerlikon20mm29 damn, you sound like a defender of spirit "science", deepak or any other woo peddler. it seems you don't know shit if you call this stuff "ideas", let alone "harmless".
@@spybird5870 it is harmless, how is saying “evolution fake” gonna harm anyone
Question 3:
Dave: "Define the word "kind" as you use it."
Kent: "Define the word "define" for me first so I have some time to get you off-topic again and so I can then find a loophole and swerve around stating something so that you think I really am crazy which I#m not because I'm making money off gullible people here. Can you rephrase the question?"
Underrated comment
Kent could give Bill "That depends upon what the definition of 'is' is." Clinton a run for his money.
@@MultiSteveBSay what you will about him, at least Bill's good at it. Kent is a joke.
Kind = Species. Was that really so hard, Kent?
kent is not smart enough to do this
Words cant encapsulate the absolute destruction of this man. Listening to your debate with him had me in literal physical pain I don't know how but it did. It was like watching a man argue with a brick wall for two hours. Every time you directly addressed something he immediately shifts. Thank you for what you do dave. I'm going to be a patron.
I laughed so damn hard when you mentioned at the end he got his "degree" from Patriot Bible University: a degree mill that's basically a shack in a parking lot. That was too funny.
Nothing makes me happier than finding out professor Dave has debated Kent.
Nothing??
YT: Carolyn Hamlett - DUMBS, Human Hybrids, Aliens/Fallen Beings, Ascended Masters
I feel sorry for anyone who has tried to have a rational discussion withIn mate # 06452-017. His rationale is that the whole world revolves around him and that stupid book of fables.
IVAN IVONOVICH Besides the Parables, what in the Bible would you consider a fable?
And got destroyed haha
Just do what Aron Ra did and start referring to him by his prison number 😂😂
Inmate #06452017?
DO IT!!
Adhominme attack isnt legit. Just because he went to prison doesnt make him wrong. Just like because the guy who prosecuted kent hovind hanging himself a few months later for getting caught for soliciting sex with a five year old doesnt make him a bad prosecutor. You see what i did ther?
poo pants I agree with you, but mentioning it does legitimize the event which he claims is unjust and would cause more people to investigate the event further
Referring to his duly earned prison ID is not an Ad Homenim attack.
He was convicted of 40 counts of literal fraud, and has been perpetuating a fraud for literally decades, and its totally valid criticism.
Ad Homenim would be something like this, "Kent is lying because he has a stupid face", not "Kent has a stupid face, AND is lying." and don't get me wrong, he does have a stupid face and does lie constantly,
Me googling latin phrases so I understand the debate better: wow I spelled "ad nauseam" totally wrong, but I've still done more research than "Dr." Kent has
I like how you're still responding to comments under many of your videos even years later, shows great dedication.
He... is?
@@snoote533 ye
@@doyale2
O cool
He'll either ignore this, or just talk about how calling him Grandpa is an "ad hominem attack" and not even address the questions
Big Dumpling Wow u sad sorry greasy pig it does not say that in Leviticus 25 please stop twisting the passage and besides that was the Old Testament. Numbers is referring to something completely different read the multiple chapters before it to get the context of the passage, and again this is the Old Testament which we don’t live by!!! Kent has done more debates and has forgotten more things than u personally think you know. The level of the water was lower in the oceans due to the icecaps that could of potentially formed due too the flood, which would connect all the continents together then the animals could cross. (Bacon) “a kind of, something belonging to the class of; something like to;” www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Kind
Why u so uneducated? Why on earth would we believe in something that has no proof of ever happening, or maybe you can change my mind and show me something that evolves into something entirely different than itself!!!! And tell me where you obtain your knowledge from right and wrong, looks so far you’ve only obtained one part!!!! Lol like u claim it is “Science” Well is it science if we can’t observe it?
Oh wait there’s a Bible and a says God created it the Bible has predicted prophecies already. Wait I can also obtain morals from it, which you pulled out of your behind!!
Whats the point of living life if there is nothing after death what is your purpose of this debate if u are just gonna die and that will be the end of it? Or are you trying to deceive people because you want to live a life without consequences in the end! So sad hopefully u become less retarded by the end of your life 🙏
If you are willing to ignore the OT then that means you're ignoring the creation myth, Adam and Eve, and all that other crap that's already been disproved.
Make up your mind.
@@SerenityTunz Wow, every single thing you said is wrong. Amazing.
@@SerenityTunz how about dropping the and homs and providing evidence outside of the bible. Besides, if you God is so perfect why would he fuck his own mum, die for the sins he created and hide out in a cave for a few days? Talking goats, burning trees? And you suggest that evolution is weird?
ben pavlyshyn wait, so you’re saying that the inerrant word of god needed a rework and was written poorly enough that it requires “context” in order to make sense? Do you realise that the problems you’re talking about are exactly the same problems in other texts that you dismiss? Do you find it strange that you would reject other religions? On what grounds?
I love that you called him pops, grandpa, etc! It drove me crazy that he kept calling you "son" in your debate. Great video, man!!
God didn't write the bible, men did.
Kent Hovind actually believes that trigonometry can’t be used to measure the distance between stars.
I’m not kidding.
It's amusing how Kent says you should focus on 'one topic at a time' yet he's famous for Gish-galloping every time he debates
Yes. He demand his interlocutors to follow rules that he's unable and unwilling to follow.
Gish-galloping - what a lovely turn of phrase, i never heard before
@@stuzaza Gish Gallop is a Fallacy of Argumentation.
"The term was coined by Eugenie Scott and named after the creationist Duane Gish, who used the technique frequently against proponents of evolution."
Usually this goes along with the statement "If you can't beat ALL my arguments, then I win." A Typical Theist move as Theists almost always if NOT always use Fallacies of Argumentation when debating or arguing for their theism.
stuzaza
"The Gish gallop is a technique used during debating that focuses on overwhelming an opponent with as many arguments as possible, without regard for accuracy or strength of the arguments"
. . .
"During a Gish gallop, a debater confronts an opponent with a rapid series of many specious arguments, half-truths, and misrepresentations in a short space of time, which makes it impossible for the opponent to refute all of them within the format of a formal debate.[3][4] In practice, each point raised by the "Gish galloper" takes considerably more time to refute or fact-check than it did to state in the first place.[5] The technique wastes an opponent's time and may cast doubt on the opponent's debating ability for an audience unfamiliar with the technique, especially if no independent fact-checking is involved[6] or if the audience has limited knowledge of the topics."
Source: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
@@KainaX122 Thank you for the info
Let's just take a moment to appreciate that even though this video is over a year old Dave is still responding to comments
If you're reading this Dave you rock
Agreed
@@kevinangel7289 Dude stfu you don't know what you're talking about. Also did you know even if Donald Trump thought of it it would STILL BE TRUE! Even if Darwin was a freemason he was STILL RIGHT about evolution.
@@kevinangel7289 from what I heard, Dave was mad at Kent’s complete neglect of scientific facts, propensity to lie about his qualifications as a doctor, habits of changing the subject when he’s up against the wall, repetitive irrelevant analogies, and the use of a book that literally tells you to own slaves as a reliable scientific source.
Dave didn’t care about whether or not Kent actually believed in a god, nor did he discredit any such belief. Kent however did discredit Dave’s non belief by saying he was gonna be judged according to the book.
I think Dave has a right to be mad.
@@kevinangel7289 Funny how most of Darwin’s family is mentioned to be in freemasonry, but no record ever shows Darwin being a Freemason himself. Your god does not exist, it’s a harsh truth, not freemason propaganda.
@@kevinangel7289 I can't imagine being this broken.
Trying to prove the bible using the bible is like trying to prove Batman using a comic book.
I mean technically proving batman's existence as a character can use the comic book to prove that
@@SilverKnightGoAnimate As a made up character, yes.
This is true, but, the difference is, we know who created Batman and everything about why Batman was created....all the way down to learning about everything to do with Batman's creator.
It's the time gap, the years between, the centuries ago, that makes it difficult to understand the exact reasoning behind why the Scriptures were written how the were. We are left with depictions given by those who preach what themselves have interpreted. And it's the interpretations in which either makes the most sense, or is believed by a large majority in which is take as true.
God exists, and its the scientists jobs to figure out how.
@@prostreetimports God doesn't exist, but if he does, it's definitely not the scientists who have to prove it.
@@ellerymerrilycelery everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
"You're wrong because the Bible says so!"
"Okay, what does the Bible say?"
"The purpose of this debate isn't to argue about the Bible! How dare you!"
There was a strange fellow named Kent.
Whose member was horribly bent.
To save himself trouble,
he folded it double,
And instead of coming, he went !
LMAO this is so dumb but so hilarious
Excellent limerick!
Beautiful! Also guys, don't ruin my 69th like pls :( Although you should, it's a work of art
There once was a villain most feared
Tied a girl to the train tracks and leered
He tied her up wrong ways
Not cross ways but long ways
And a 40 car train disappeared.
Yea you pick sciman Dan who also makes fun of flat earth people.you really call that an objective third party? That's just ganginjg up on the guy.
i showed all kent "biology" arguments to my 4 lectors and all of them said that he has roughly 9th grade knowledge in biology.
Kent would get an F in 9th grade biology.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 yep that is true
@@harrybailey425 shut up
When i was in 6th grade we were learning about evolution in my catholic school. I learned more about science then God in my catholic school. All they said was that God exists outside the universe
@@ProfessorDaveExplains i would think an f in 8th grade would be accurate as well
Calling him a pig is rude!,
Pigs make good pets sometimes! And are actually good for society!
I love how Dave says, "Hi Kent." You can almost hear the U.
..😆😁😝..
Let me guess: "You believe Volkswagens evolved from Microsoft Word! Show me a dog that ever produced a laptop. Where's your science now Dave?"
Are you high?
@@fukpoeslaw3613 lol
@LobsterPuncher Ha! Yeah, I think you've just pre-released the abridged version of any likely retort.
Kent been out here speaking who these people crawling out the ground.
Wow!
In 24 words you proved just how stupid you are.
Tell you what Bubba Joe Jim Bob. Stop brushing your tooth and climb back in bed, your cousin is there waiting for you.
When Kent speaks... this is what I hear: "Cheese Doritos make great ladders for avocados driving golf balls with teeth, hooray lizard poop and rocks for cars make divinity true."
OMG! That's what I hear too!! 😂😂😂
Omg... Why did i hear his voice when i was reading this.... 😅😅😂😂
that... that line of text gave me a physical stroke
@@JordyHistorian But pretty accurate as to the salad of words used by kenty-boy... ? right?
@@elcarpe9186 yea, after watching more of the vid i dont know if im having a stroke or if kent is
“And that’s it, GRANDPA”
I can’t fathom how he can read that with a straight face. Hats off!
Thanks!
I feel like "define the word kind" is going to become a meme on this channel
On his 3rd pharmacology video he starts out by saying "let's take some drugs"
Or a rallying cry
Pulls out gun "what's a kind, Kent?"
can you define the word kind please
@@rhysofsneezingdragon1758 I'm not prepared for that
I actually went on to see Hovind's response video to this. Here, I'll save you some time: he only answers a third of Prof's first question, specifically the second quote from the three (Leviticus 25:44) is the only one he mentions, and he defends it by showing another quote that says slavery is bad. No mentions of other quotes and/or other questions Professor Dave asked whatsoever. Just about 30 minutes of explaining one unrelated quote from the Bible, followed by several minutes of gloating about how he "successfully whacked an atheist".
Thanks so much for summary, I couldn't force myself to listen to the reply from Kent, my brain already hurts too much from the original "debate"
Yeah, pretty much what you'd imagine.
Kent. Has. Nothing.
Doesn't that do nothing but prove that the bible is inconsistent and therefore not a good source?
The quote he probably used is from timothy 1 which talks about slave trader won't inherit the kingdom of God but the word actually means man stealer
Yup.
His challenge, as a CONVICTED FELON, is to become HONEST. ( impossible for a GRIFTER con-man)
I'm a Christian myself and many of friends are atheist, actually they are my best friends and I accept them as they accept me.
Not all of us are like Kent Hovind.
Yeah I am an atheist but I dislike it when people are ragging on other people’s beliefs for no reason like your average Reddit user, all though in this case it’s justified (kent hovint) since he makes his money off of lies and he is a fellon
Yup we all understand that
The question 'why haven't rabbits evolved wings' completely sums up how poorly creationists understand evolution. Some are simply disingenuous, but I think the majority just simply fail to grasp the basic tenets of evolution. If I were to talk to Mr Hovind about this question I would start by asking him if rabbits exist. When he replies in the affirmative I would then ask him if that were sufficient evidence that rabbits are capable of surviving, despite predation and other threats to their survival. When he again replies in the affirmative I would ask him 'then why would they need wings?'
Creationists seem to think that evolution demands constant adaptation towards the best possible survival strategies in some kind of zero sum game, where in the end only one creature exists and it combines all the best survival strategies. This is a strawman. Rabbits just need to be good enough to survive in sufficient numbers to keep surviving. Not all of them have to survive. They don't need to fly because flying is simply overkill. They are ground based creatures, because their ancestors were ground based creatures, and they evolved strategies around being ground based, such as speed, agility, eyes on the side of their head, camouflaged fur, rapid breeding, etc. Why on earth would they need to develop wings, and why would anyone imagine that they should, or think that their lack of wings proves evolution wrong?
Only someone who completely fails to conceptually grasp evolution would think this is a gotcha question.
I think you are giving creationists too much credit. I am of the opinion that they think "evolution = pokemon".
I am constantly mystified how creationists try to debunk evolution, but they are perfectly OK with the idea that 7,000 ‘kinds’ can evolve into millions of species in the span of 4,000 years.
but if they don't survive then they don't get wings. evolution is stupid and requires circular reasoning and little to no true science to survive... real science.
@@luketucker5835 I think you are a bit confused. Just because you do not understand a thing does not mean it is stupid. Please explain to me why you think rabbits not having wings debunks evolution.
@@andrewwheeler1257 Probably thinking of taxonomic ranks. If so, then evolutionists and creationists, or at least the ones I'm familiar with, believe the same thing but disagree on 1) from where and the initial state, and 2) how long.
years ago, when i was in a youth group, i stayed at kent hovinds camp for about a week, was made to work in the kitchen all week while the boys worked on “the projects” and i was scared to use the bathrooms because they were so nasty. thanks parents ❤️
edit: also to be clear i believe nothing he said to me especially after he implied autism is caused by vaccines 😐
You have my sympathy.
oh he's one of those fucks who says autisms are caused by vaccines?
as an autistic man myself. that alone will get you on my shit list.
i wouldnt call myself an athiest, i still believe in god. but neither am i a christian as i really hate being associated with our "friend" kent.
seriously instead of preaching about your magical cloud fairy why not do what that cloud fairy says and help your fellow man instead of bashing everyone on the head with what your version of the book says?
You made it out.
I'm sincerely happy for you.
@@supersmashbro596 I would divide christians and creationists into seperate kind of groups. Yes some or idk how many christians believe in creation or rather share a few views with creationists but not all, while creationists all believe that, although even there seem to be different believes (e.g. some believe in plate tectonics, some not). I mean creationists may be christians considering that I assume they follow Jesus but to me those still are seperate groups.
As I'm not an expert I may be wrong, that's just my opinion.
Update: ok they're christians but I, personally, still would divide them in the sense of like catholic and evangelic is divided.
i used to be christian until i was about 12,
when i was like 8, the moment i heard the story of creation i knew it was cap, because so many things can't be explained by it, such as the dinosaurs, or the incest necessary for keeping the human race alive, and many more, but i still believed that god was influencing the big bang and all that other stuff, until i thought about what his motive for such a thing would be, why are we the only planet (that we know of) that has life? why not more life?
Christian here. Thank you for absolutely demolishing this pathetic excuse of a conman.
Here's a question... Why does Kent keep breaking tax laws?
1st Law of Creationism?
The guy openly said evolution existed multiple times in the debate. For example, early on he said that kinds could 'differentiate'. What else could differentiate mean?
the french language comes from latin.
kent: "nobody has ever seen a latin-speaking mother give birth to a french-speaking child".
I was taught Latin was just a written language, not spoken
@@josephno1347 It very much was (is) a spoken language, particularly among Roman Catholic priests currently, and around the Roman Empire in its hayday.
@@josephno1347 I guess, whoever said that meant to say that it is no longer spoken, which is true for most people. After decades of consuming entertainment and news almost exclusively in english, with few exceptions my dreams remain in my native german. Living today, no people, by which i mean country or culture, dream latin or speak it as fluently as one expects from native speakers, aside from clergy and academics.
good analogy
@@paolovallejo5500 piss poor language isn't genetic, but all apologist meander
Debating with Kent is like playing chess with a Pigeon. He'll knock the pieces around and shit all over the board and claim he's won
Please stop insulting pigeons, they are usually a bit smarter than that :-):-)
This is literally the most accurate description I've heard.
@@dragongirl7978 Not even that, he'll ignore the chess board entirely, and shit all over his opponent's car.
That analogy also works for the formation of DNA, something was knocking all the proteins arround many times till form a perfect DNA and once is done the thunders and eartquakes and lightnings have enough luky to form another one 🤣🤣🤣🤣 and by it self keep knocking more stuff and pop a living creature, just by luky 🤣🤣🤣 bunch of ignorants
Yeah pigeons are pretty smart. Have you seen pigeon ping pong
I knew getting called “son” repeatedly was getting to you. It was bothering ME!
Professor Dave, I just want to personally thank you for all your insightful and extremely informative and educational videos! I watched the debate you had with Kent at length and I commend you in maintaining your composure! I seriously don't think I could have maintained mine very long! Also, don't forget to mention "Dr. Dino's" arrest in July 2021 and conviction in Sept. 2021 (after he disclosed to all his followers the arrest was without merit) for domestic violence. I commend you in your commitment in exposing charlatans like this! Well done sir! Keep up the great work!
Professor Dave, I can give you, in advance, Kent’s answer as to what constitutes a “kind”. Kent: “You must not have heard me son. A flea is more complicated than the space shuttle. A single flea!! Ask any farmer when they plant corn if hampsters grow on the stalks. Dogs will always produce dogs! .....Actually, let’s save that for another debate. I’m not prepared for that.”
Dr Hovind? Is that you?!?
you forgot "you're missing the point"
Tsunayoshi Sawada That would be too much stupid for one post. I have a Hovind stupidity threshold.
Well, of course. I think he is probably well aware coming up with any formal definition opens him up to very direct criticism he is totally incapable of countering. He is stupid, but not quite that stupid. Although I think it unlikely, he may even be aware any definition of "kind" which produces a broad enough umbrella to make it possible to fit the entire number of "kinds" on an ark would require a completely unprecedented rate of speciation, while a reasonably narrow definition of "kind" would produce far, far more animals than could fit on an ark, let alone be fed for a year.
Tyler West Bwa hahahahahahaha That’s fantastic ha ha ha ha
"That's right, pops!" excellent response of him calling his opponents son if he is backed up into a corner where he cannot escape from.
Throw in an "okay, boomer" for variety
@FLERFS Are Idiots Good example boomer
This whole video is basically just an "ok boomer" to old fundamentalists who dont understand any science
Isn't this "son" thing just a normal speech mannerism of Ken? Ich guess he uses the word in everyday conversation too ...
@@willigangbang1659
I'm a "boomer" and I approve of Professor Daves message in this video!
When he calls you son, reply yes Daddy. Please!!!!!
The scary thing is the questions we ask we still dont know no matter which way you go!!
Kent Hovind right now: "I am not prepared for that."
Did you see conspiracy catz’s video? I’m not prepared for that
@@Maarten927 i think he already anwsered that, he doesnt believe ij a creator, whats your point?
@@Maarten927 and you're a dumbass,just like kent,for saying that,coz:
1) he sais that coz he wants to dodge questions and change subjects...you just think,saying that,somehow makes you sound smart and can say"gotcha!"to ppl like marcus nielsen...wich it doesnt and actually makes you look like a idiot,the same way it made kent lol
2)asking someone that,in these type of debates,is not only useless,coz he's obvioslly atheist otherwise that debate wouldnt have been in the 1st place,but also is not relevant to the debate in any way ppfff...
so before you insert"...because I'm scared of what people would think of me.",just like you insert god in your life,consider that he doesnt need to answer that and its a waste of time,coz has no relevance with the debate and everybody knows he's athiest. you dumb believers always assume and insert things,without takeing a sec to thing about it,before inserting it lol. that makes you very lame and laughable ppfff...
@@Maarten927 in a follow up video Dave stated he is an atheist but that had no relevance to the debate
@@Maarten927 if only YOU would pay just a little more attention. I'm sure they already told ya. Have a great day!
I'm surprised kent has never said "DAAVE do you think woman are cakes DAAAVE because god gave them milk and eggs DAAAAAVE "
*platypus omelette intensifies*
That's a quiche
Y
@@harrybailey425 what ?
😂😂 yoo this made me laugh so hard
I think it’s cool that you still respond to comments 1 year later.
thanks so much for both helping me in science, and entertaining me in science class once all of work is done.
Kent Hovind is challenged every day by Kent Hovind.
Yeah, mentally challenged.
You’re like the penguinz0 of the science community. And I absolutely love it.
He really does look like Charlie.
Clone's Clone
@@cha0trix493 Prof. Keanu jesus christ
That’s a really good comparison. If Charlie was an intellectual he would definitely make this content
It would be cool if they collab and completely destroy all those hoaxers at one
I'm a bit late but I remember Kent asking if you'd apologize for talking about taxes if his case was overturned. You should have agreed only on the condition he releases a formal and public apology to the people of the United States if the case was not overturned.
The level of education and personal intellect seen in Dave is very refreshing. Not enough people seem to realize that creationism is an absolutely idiotic belief that has no scientific backing to it. Thank you Dave, for using your brain.
@@EternaL1fe Maybe you prefer to believe that humanity was created from dust. And just maybe you shouldn't place so much faith in your bible.
@@EternaL1fe Well, if you prefer your bible to reality, how about you explain to me how come we have billions of species of various types on the planet, but only a tiny number were taken aboard your ark. While you're at it, maybe you can explain how the whole planet was covered in hundreds of feet of water - rainfall? Where did it all come from to form those clouds? And if you'd like evaporation as a reason that all that water subsided, perhaps you can explain why the oceans didn't evaporate. Or do you prefer to use your god as a reason for everything that defies rational explanation?
@@EternaL1fe You're right when you say there are things that many people don't understand. Lots of things. Like evolution.
"You see, any time you're allowed to speak for some span of time, you set a world record for lies per second."
Duane Gish would be proud...
@@lesblase3667 and yet, all the evidence points to biodiversity being the product of genetics and selection pressures. But the entire field of biology is a conspiracy, I suppose. Because science never changes in the face of evidence(. I suppose it is only science that conflicts with your religious belief if wrong and conspiracy? Still waiting on a theory if creation with predictive and explanatory power that rigorously defines "kind".
@@munstrumridcully You utterly set yourself up for failure by saying that instead of "prove it"
@@whist1221 It's not like the ID types ever prove it. I just find it very telling that only the fields that directly contradict their theology are conspiracies
@@munstrumridcully I get it, but it seems like you're just putting yourself on the defensive by not calling out the baseless claim of "Huehue, whether you like it or not it's true!" It makes things thirty times more incoherent in my view.
Quite right. It’s about time these anti-science word-salad merchants were pinned down and their dishonesty made plain.
@@willigangbang1659 What are you talking about? Dave is incredibly personable, watch one of his Ask Professor Dave videos. He comes off as assertive in these debate/debunk videos, definitely more than what would be polite socially, but I feel it's justified.
@@willigangbang1659 So it was Dave's fault that Kent wouldn't answer any questions?
@@willigangbang1659 What was that gish crap?
1) no, kent didn't answer questions, not smart ones nor weak ones as you claim. Dave asked questions for clarification and Kent answered none of them. Did kent answer what he meant by "kind"? No.
Kent claims the bible has never been scientifically disproved in any way. Dave asks a question about that, or starts to, and kent doesn't want to discuss it.
Hmmm. Now why would kent claim this but not clarify? I know exactly why a con man like him does that. I'll give you a hint: it's the same reason why someone comes to a discussion board and makes a claim then says they won't respond to anyone.
Next, kent went off topic repeatedly. The bible is off topic.
I disregarded the rest of your comment cause it didn't make sense to me. I'll reread it and see if I can spot point.
@@willigangbang1659 Nope. I don't get your point and it was nonsensical and not true. You understand as much about evolution as kent.
@@willigangbang1659 dave, "DEFINE THE WORD KIND, KENT!!"
Kent, "You are missing the point, Dave, you believe we all came from a rock, how stup1d do you need to be to believe that?"
Thats how hovind anwsers questions.
.. 6:24- 6:57 .. this is my favorite part about this video ... please Kent tell us what "a kind" means 🙏 ...
He's a Gaslighter, you're just wasting your time.
true that!
If the goal was to convince Kent then you're right. If the goal is to shed light on this idiocracy then there is purpose and I commend Dave for his efforts. There are also occasionally people that follow this nonsense that are convicted by the actual evidence and the fallacy of the opposing arguments.
Wasting Professor Dave's time? No, not at all. People like Kent "Dust Man" Hovind need to be resisted in every possible way to stop preying on desperate people who will believe anything, to find peace in their lives, including him. How could anyone live on such a razor's edge and be at peace? Lawsuits, criminal activity, prison, tax fraud, multiple marriages, family break down -- this is not a representation of a decent, law abiding, moral citizen of America. This is not someone qualified to teach others, on ANY level. Look up his qualifications. He has none. None. This is what excellent people like Professor Dave is exposing. Hovinds followers should not be criticized, they should be encouraged to ask any questions they may have. Many are sitting on the fence now, thanks to dedicated efforts of Professor Dave and other prominent, highly educated, honest, law-abiding, decent citizens, and need to know that it's ok to question. It's ok to ask. It's ok to disagree. It's ok to challenge. It's ok to change your mind. It's ok to reject. It's ok to resist. It's ok to say "I don't know."
It's good to learn the truth.
@@campfireaddict6417 thank god kent does not have kids he can
pollute
@@diaahanna8882 what about his son Eric Hovind? His mind is polluted beyond reason
"Stop it! He's already dead!"
Actually, issue the same challenge to his son, Eric. I'm sure Eric is a far nicer chap. He once said that if there wasn't a god, he'd be killing and committing all sorts of crimes (that YT would probably object to me even typing).
Even if he's already dead we should keep on kicking the corpse so no other joker would think that it's safe to start peddling the same bullshit again.
Typical argument. "If there was no god, there would be no morality".
I'm wondering how Jesus managed to not being eaten alive by the amoral monsters that descended from Adam & Eve.
"He once said that if there wasn't a god, he'd be killing and committing all sorts of crimes"
I suspect he meant that if he believed there was not, with a high degree of assurance, then apprehension of the consequences of assured judgment would be absent and he/you/I would do whatever we think we can get away with.
Not sure if you are joking but I'm pretty sure he's not dead.
@jklimtsc It's a Simpson's reference.
Dave you are a badass
Destroying fools with facts and logic
"World Record for lies per second."
I will be borrowing that phrase thank you
I used to be one of his disciples. There's no chance in Hell, that he's going to answer any of those questions honestly.
how did you "unbrainwash" yourself and leave?
@@wavseeker Rachel Oates, Viced Rhino, Aron Ra and most importantly Paulogia. Have to confess I watched them at first only to yell at them and try to debunk them. 😊
@@LadyNicola Congrats on deprogramming yourself. I just wish more would do the same. The world would be a better place.
@@LadyNicola well im proud of you :)
Well done for getting out.
Professor Dave, first, you are AWESOME! Thank you for demolishing that con artist in your debate. I appreciate it more than you know....growing up my religious father beat me over the head with Kent hovinds seminars. He made me watch all the tapes and brainwashed me. He took me to hovinds “dinosaur land” in Pensacola, where I actually shook that bastards hand. I was so brainwashed, that as a child my father made me travel to different churches regurgitating hovinds bullshit to youth groups. Finally I grew up, did six years in the marine corps, and then got my degree in microbiology. I’m no where near the expert that you are Dave, but what I would give to debate that con artist myself. I’m unashamed to say now I am an atheist and not brainwashed by hovinds CULT, because that’s what it is.
P.s. your science videos helped me pass all my finals, thanks bud lol
One more thing, as I said I’m disgusted I had to shake Kent hovinds hand under duress; that being said, professor dave, I would be honored, honored, to one day shake you hand
Steven Kogelschatz
You and me both, mate
@@michaelayeni177 God doesn't exist.
Michael Ayeni
Of shaking Hovind’s hand?
Or Professor Dave’s?
Michael Ayeni if you or anyone else would give me an iota of evidence that god exist I would gladly be open minded about it. But so far all the evidence and what we can actually observe tells a different story. If you want to believe a book that was written and organized by a committee organized by emperor Constantine then that’s on you. What makes your religion right? Why not Islam? Why not Judaism? Why not the religions that other civilizations believe that more than likely thrive throughout the universe? Did god send Jesus to all the other galaxies too? We see in laboratories amino acids forming spontaneously and bi-lipid membrane layers forming spontaneously. What’s your explanation for that? If your god is real why didn’t Jesus inform us that there was a whole continent on the other side of the planet inhabited by native Americans? Why didn’t he tell people the earth was a globe and not flat? You’re telling me that on the entire earth and in the entire universe that the minuscule nation of Israel are right and everyone else is wrong? Here’s a thought, debate me live, although I doubt you will. Hide behind your book that says some thing (professor Dave 2020)
Dave is the best... I love the way you confront him head on. no bull crap... no sugarcoating. Just clear cut explaining yourself. and you're so good at this dave that you give him no choice but to find his way out of the corner you've provided
Dave this is the great thing about being so smart. At the end of it all you get your answer.
So after watching your debate with him, I had to go check out his other debates .... he is a one trick pony and has no idea what he’s talking about , a master at grandstanding , and avoidance. Very condescending as well. I don’t understand his position on one premise at a time in a debate that covers so much ground it’s almost impossible .
Pablo Gallardo I did the same thing, Dave is right, he just recycles the same thing over and over. I mean a dog produces a dog comment.
His position on one premise at a time is because he's a master of the gish gallop, and knows very well how effective it can be in a live debate style event. He's trying to limit the scope of weapons that can be brought against him by preventing Prof Dave from doing the same thing to him that he loves to do to others.
He does only have a handful of arguments that he repeats constantly, dishonestly since he's been called out on each one repeatedly at this point. Dogs only produce dog kind (never cleanly defines what a kind is), Evolutionists believe we come from rocks (Actually that's creationists, since the bible teaches Adam was made from dust, which would only have had inorganic materials in it, since death wasn't a thing yet, so no decomposition of organic material into soil), Engages in ad hominem attacks and then acts like that somehow invalidates the arguments being put forth.
heresjohnno yeah Dave was trying to make him debunk himself and he actually did haha.
The made made metaphors were just a downright joke. Totally irrelevant. How Dave keeps his cool while sponge bob is being hit is noble lol
I've actually met a creationist who, when I asked him why he believed such outright tripe, responded "have you ever heard of Dr. Kent Hovind?"
When I was sure he wasn't joking, I was never more disappointed in my life.
Anglomachian Did you ask him if he’d heard of rational argument?
@@firebladetenn6633 I'll be honest, I could barely respond after that. The sheer unreality of it was overwhelming.
Anglomachian yeah...I know the feeling...Living in the south, I’ve met a young earth creationist or two, and they are...impossible to debate with, since they aren’t debating to discuss rationality. They believe rationality to be against God’s word, their words, not mine. They cannot be convinced, and start from a point where evidence is irrelevant. It’s quite amazing to watch sometimes how little sense people can make, and how the less sense they make, the more conviction they have.
It's just a child game to be "right".
Like the solar system is created in week and coincidentally is in a state that makes it look like it has been formed in 4.5 billion years according to observable physical laws.
This is just denial of reason for being too ignorant to get it.
My answer would be, "No, but I've heard of MISTER Kent Hovind."
8:22
“And that’s it grandpa”- best line ever
Hovind is just another double speak appologist. Expert at word salad and lies.
Professor Dave and SciManDan! Please let this happen!!!
Yes please...the overwhelming logic would probably make Kents head explode...and I am not an advocate of violence....but that would make my day...
It alreaedy has
and it's amazing