So Kent Hovind Wants to Debate Me
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 окт 2024
- ALERT TO GERMAN AUDIENCE AND MOBILE DEVICE USERS:
You might not be able to access this video because copyright. Yeah I know f*ck RUclips. You might want to try either a PC or a third party platform.
THE ACTUAL DESCRIPTION:
Yeah yeah I know, some of you don’t want me debating Hovind. You think that by giving him attention, I’ll be giving him the means to restart his BS-peddling career.
I don’t think that that’ll happen, and to be honest, I doubt that this debate will even take place. It doesn’t matter how good you are at Gish Gallopping- if you come to a physics debate without a basic understanding of sixth grade maths/physics, you’ve already lost. And even he must realize this, so under the pretense of me being "vulgar, mean, just a kid," etc, he'll probably back out and that'll be the end of it. This video is mainly to learn ya some basics about stellar astronomy (plus a thorough review of sixth grade maths.)
Anyway, for those of you who don’t know, Kent Hovind is an infamous young-earth creationist who made a career out of convincing people that he’s a scientist and that his professional investigations have led him to conclude that the universe is 6,000 years old, that evolution is a lie, and that dinosaurs were on Noah’s Ark. No, I’m not shitting you. This is what he believes, and he made a decent amount of money by peddling these beliefs to the super-religious masses... until his totally-not-illegal tax practices caught up with him and earned him a 10-year prison sentence, which he just recently finished serving. Now he spends his days on this new thing called RUclips, uploading a new video every day and delighting his audience with his insights about why vaccines cause autism, how to make homemade cures to cancer, and why the evil government does bad stuff. And by “bad stuff,” he’s not talking about the usual unscrupulous bullshit involving corporate nepotism and rigged elections, he’s talking about f*cking virgin sacrifices in the Oval Office.
His video:
• Video
The video of mine that he was responding to:
• Helping Hovind to Unde...
Rochester Supernova Database:
www.rochesteras...
Special Thanks to ESA and NASA for several of the animations
Songs used:
“Monkeys Spinning Monkeys,” “Scheming Weasel,” and “Shores of Avalon,” by Kevin Macleod
“Tense” by Clint Mansel
“Penumbra” and “The Edge of Forever” by Stellardrone
“Stamper’s Grief” by Jeff Beal
Patreons:
PER VIDEO (recommended)
www.patreon.co...
PER MONTH:
www.patreon.co...
SECOND CHANNEL:
/ @crocoduckvlogs4104
TWITTER:
/ kingcrocoduck
"Half my brain tied behind my back...." How do you 'tie' a vacuum?
+chrisose Duct tape.
That may be one of physicists most difficult question to address.
You use a Gordian knot. For Creationist like Kent, a simple over hand is probably sufficiently intractable.
That may explain everything: half of Kent's brain IS tied behind his back, all the time.
Half of zero is still zero.
He loves to insult people's intelligence; and yet he has so little himself.
I havent been able to debate an atheist only because they revert to insulting soon off
@@TheHalusis did you even listen to hovind, almost every other word was an insult.
Oh, I don't want you to not debate Hovind. Instead I'd rather it be formatted as a series of video exchanges or Open Letters rather than a person-to-person debate. The primary reason for that is that it prevents Hovind from using his usual debate tactics, and allows both parties to research what their opposition claims and counter it.
In other words, a format that favours fact over charisma.
Definitely this. I never get involved in typical debates because the other guy can spew out a bunch of crap that I don't time have to challenge, and the other guy comes out looking like he proved something. It's a lot easier and faster to throw out lies than to present well-sourced facts.
I much prefer video responses or internet forum discussions for holding debates. They prevent someone from employing many traditional con artist tactics like the gish gallop.
Hovind likes money not debate cant teach old dog new tricks
I like Kent. He's a man of conviction...for tax evasion :)
structuring
8
Master tutor-awesome!
not to mention that he's also been convicted for beating his wife.
It was with interest and enthusiasm that I tuned in to this video, but I almost spewed my coffee (literally) when you made mention of my recent comment and encouraged your viewers to check out my own channel. What a happy surprise.
Gratefully,
- Ozy
Ozy where are you now?
"Half my brain tied around my back just to make it fair."
Holy crap, could Hovind get any more pompous?
What you call pompous , I call idiotic
So to the people saying "have a debate!" or "don't have a debate!" or "keep it online!" I hope you realize that it's not up to me at this point. I mean feel free to debate about it, but it's out of my hands.
Like I said in the end, the ball's in Hovind's court. Do I think he'll follow through? I doubt it. But if I'm wrong then no big deal, you're worrying over nothing. Seriously, just kick back and enjoy the smackdown. I'll be preparing the third quantum video these next few weeks so sit tight, and be sure to drop a like, comment, subscription, share, haiku, riddle, limerick, and interpretive dance.
Lol!!!! Hovind calling u out in science is like a sumo challenging a professional fencer to a dual. He got chopped up. U leave that old man alone u lil bully! Lol!
If he does respond, it will be with absurd caveats. Even if you accept his demands, he'll make more demands until it's untenable for you to accept. Then he will blame it all on you, the "unreasonable" atheist, for not excepting a few "reasonable" requests.
To top it off, you won't be dealing with Hovind himself. You'll be dealing with some obsequious toady whose obnoxiousness will set you even more on edge.
Hovin has had no shortage of people who want to debate. It's him who always backs out when they won't except his ridiculous demands. Then he smugly acts like it was them that backed down and his sycophants eat it up.
Stephen k. well since he's the one challenging me, I think I'm the one who gets to set the terms
Gamergeek78 Yeah the object would be redshifted into oblivion- part of what it means for something to leave our local cosmic horizon. That horizon is defined by the distance at which objects recede at the speed of light- everything beyond that point is receding faster than the speed of light, and everything receding faster than the speed of light is beyond that point. And is therefore not visible to us
+King Crocoduck keep an eye on his first mate the Drunken Peasants tried to have Kent on their show and his second kept changing the rules that were set up and even went as far as wanting to change the location of where the debate would go on despite DP being just the host for the debate
"I'll debate him with half my brain tied behind my back."
Half of zero is still zero, Hovind. Instead could you find half a brain, and then use that?
This is where Kent quickly claims to be short on funds.
+CoolHardLogic I wonder if he'd still claim the same in his tax returns.
I would LOVE to see this debate. SO MUCH!
Dear King Crocoduck: Not surprisingly you are willing to debate Kent Hovind, and probably believe you would "win". This is most probably because you believe it would be fair to use logic, physics, mathematics and other well known and documented scientific facts and would not include ANY fallacies.Shame on you, how dishonest. I propose you debate be held after having several hard blows to your head, having been sleep deprived for 2 -3 weeks and consuming several gallons of grain alcohol. With the playing field now leveled, you will lose my friend. Kent Hovind's logic and biblical creation will be easy to see and understand at this point.
👍👍👍
kent hovind isnt a physicist. ill debate any of you
Brian Wilson, exactly
@@TheHalusis
Neither is he a qualified teacher. He is nothing more than a fast-talking bullshitter who is out to make money by exploiting the gullible.
@@myleslawless6594 I havent had one rational conversation with anyone regarding ANY of this shit! All i hear/read is complete BS from both sides
“In short Mr. Hovind, what you’ve just exhibited is what I like to call ‘fractal wrongness’. What you’ve said is not just wrong. It’s wrong in every possible way, from every angle, at every level of magnification. There are no circumstances under which what you said is correct. There is no context in which what you said isn’t wrong. You have reached the pinnacle of what it means to be mistaken, and once you did that you went ahead and set new precedents for wrongness. ‘Half your brain tied behind your back.’? Give me a break!”
-King Crocoduck (4/18/16)
This is why you're one of my favorite RUclipsrs. Long live the King.
Okay okay let skip all this science bullshit, do you believe we came from evolution,
Truth Seeker sorry homez no one wants to read all your atheist propaganda
@Truth Seeker what do you save me from?? I know my God saves me from hellfire ! Eternal death!
I love Jesus, Jesus is not a forcefull God, Why do you have problems that we believe in god!!
Truth Seeker here’s a video you should watch ruclips.net/video/lktmmd7YnD8/видео.html
Surprise surprise. Hovind listens to rush limbaugh (with half his brain tied behind his back of course...)
+F!@#Guilt hahahaha ;)
+F!@#Guilt - LMFAO!!!!
+F!@#Guilt He has a brain?
Rio Larsen Well, yes, but it only has one function. His frontal lobe controls his mouth and, that's about it.
+F!@#Guilt Thats an insult to people with half a brain!.. (seriously, I watched a video where a girl had half her brain removed and she seemed to function better than Hovind)
I gave up religion in college. College thought me how to think critically.
What did you major in?
If religion has a mass appeal why is there mass sinning? and mass ignorance, greed and lust etc, beats me, please said the priest.
Even a creationist says " evidence and explanations presented in King crocoducks videos are extremely hard to refute" You know you are on a good channel. They call you KİNG for a reason.
By "Debate" Hovind means "Invite you to my church where I will ignore the topic of the debate, evade questions without appearing to do so, smirk when the moderator only moderates my opponent, and then claim victory after having said absolutely nothing that is true." Hovind has *ZERO* interest in an actual debate: he has never debated anyone in his life.
+Desertphile But he has a book.
+Desertphile He'd call you predicting what he's going to be doing divine revelation, you can't win m8.
+Anase Skyrider - It's completely wrong to feel ashamed for simply believing or not believing the same stuff because humans should respect humans for their actions...not their beliefs. But when people are vulnerable they have to hide their real feelings. Thankfully the Internet is exposing their nonsense.
Desertphile you are special
Desertphile I haven't seen him lose a debate yet. Kent said he would debate quack quack so it's pretty fkn simple DEBATE HIM.
Half his brain tied behind his back? Well, I looked behind his back and there was nothing there, so I believed him.
The *only reason* that *atheistards exist* is because they *haven't* checked out *Johnny Dark Speak* and the *Neurophone time experiments* the *Dark Speech Revelations!* There is *not a single person in the world* especially not *King Crocoduck* who can *even take half a step* towards *David Eager* of *Out of Darkness, Into the Light,* where he *breaks down* and *deconstructs* the *Illuminati propaganda* known as *"ATHEISM."* Yea, it's true; *not a single evolutionist* nor *atheist* would *DARE* challenge *David Eager* of *Out of Darkness, Into the Light* on *TALKSHOE* to a *LIVE DEBATE;* they would be *quickly dismantled* and *would want the audio buried as quickly as they will bury their heads in the sand* at *realizing* the *power* of *Yah (God) Almighty.* Prove me wrong ;33 *3∆3*
Baloney !
LOL case in point folks. Look how the roaches scatter in fear at the *CHALLENGE PROPOSITION* offered against *David Eager*
Atheistards are very fragile creatures with no backbone to support their illogical assertions that God is not real, furthermore they also lack a *Deeply Conspiratorial Mindset* so they truly fail to see the level of *Scientific Propaganda* they wade in daily. They don’t even know the first thing about how to detect and analyze Illuminati Propaganda; they don’t think about this because in truth, atheistards don’t know *HOW* to think ! A *LIVE* debate with. *David Eager* host of Talkshoe call *”OUT OF DARKNESS, INTO THE LIGHT”* would sufficiently prove this but all that has ever been proven is that atheistsards are *too afraid to get on LIVE with David in the first place!* Instinctively they must realize they would be getting into something they would *NOT* like to show their best friends or FB Page ETC it’d be so embarrassing for the atheistard, but not for the Christians :33
my uncle Fred is terrified of spiders. There is no way he will talk to them. He will never find god.
50% comments insulting Kent
25% comments about a debate
10% comments supporting Kent
15% various comments and charts
But all responses of crocoduck to theist: "stop ragequiting halfway in my videos"
Everything evolves . continents, animals, airplanes, phones .
The only thing that doesn't evolve are creationists ..
+godlessHelp Creationists do evolve, so do their stupid ideas. That's why is ironic.
Amen. I can't wait to see what everything else randomly mutates into.
Danil
You'll see noting with your eyes closed.
Clearly you all are living with y'all eyes closed. Can't you see that 'everything' in this world is created? Tell me how has evolution contributed to the achievement of mankind? It is a stumbling block to science. If you all are following evolution to the T (everything came into the world by itself over billions of years ago) then if I brought to you a cellphone, book, a watch and a car and said that these evolved over billions of years ago would you believe me? You all should!
Luis
" It is a stumbling block to science."
Give me 3 examples.
TheDrDino@gmail.com
In case there's any confusion
pbs.twimg.com/media/CgUZcRGUAAANoxV.jpg:large
Kent a few months ago actually told me that two claims I brought to his attention he could not go back I time to fix, but recognized that his claims are becoming debunked. Fiona Robertson and General Han Solo both debated him recently and Kent literally has nothing new.
+King Crocoduck I think his defense might be inflation, expansion of the universe. The stars and galaxies were not traveling at the speed of light, space is expanding between them, just as it is now.
beayn how's that a defense, if the space is expanding faster than the speed of light between these distant objects, then they're outside of each other's cosmic horizons and can't be seen
King Crocoduck
Oh I know, I just think he's going to use that as a defense and come up with some lame way of pretending it's possible.
'Bawk bawk bawk bawk...'
To which I'd like to add: 'THINK MCFLY!!!'
1:14
"can't find opponents"
Hey, Kent, I don't know if you recall, but remember when the Drunken Peasants openly challenged you to a debate but you refused to debate them unless you got to set the rules and set the place and set the time and set the platform and set the topic and set the moderator and even set the fucking syntax like you were some Thought Policeman from George Orwell's prediction of the future? Remember how you were afraid to do the debate if it meant that you had to relinquish even a modicam of power over the outcome? But yeah, sure, atheists are too scared to debate you
Inmate 06452-017: "Light year is a distance, not a time."
Normal people: "ROFL!"
That 6th grader vs 4th grader burn, oh man, how did I miss you Crocoduck.
The King's in town, we need a crown!
Hovind is trying really hard.
I like how Hovind is claiming that he's having people send him viruses. lol.
Um, Kent. It might have something to do with your web browsing habits.
+MrOttopants
_"I like how Hovind is claiming that he's having people send him viruses. lol. "_
Well there was that one time I sent him a gift box of rabid squirrels.
Dear Prophet of Truth King Crokoduck, this has gone on long enough. Make an example of this bunglar, the council demands it.
+GeoStreber Please tell me that the "council" has a good name to go with that story.
I was quoting a character from the video game Halo 2 with this.
The *only reason* that *atheistards exist* is because they *haven't* checked out *Johnny Dark Speak* and the *Neurophone time experiments* the *Dark Speech Revelations!* There is *not a single person in the world* especially not *King Crocoduck* who can *even take half a step* towards *David Eager* of *Out of Darkness, Into the Light,* where he *breaks down* and *deconstructs* the *Illuminati propaganda* known as *"ATHEISM."* Yea, it's true; *not a single evolutionist* nor *atheist* would *DARE* challenge *David Eager* of *Out of Darkness, Into the Light* on *TALKSHOE* to a *LIVE DEBATE;* they would be *quickly dismantled* and *would want the audio buried as quickly as they will bury their heads in the sand* at *realizing* the *power* of *Yah (God) Almighty.* Prove me wrong ;33 *3∆3*
Lol (15:02), but don't hold your breath. Kent has squirmed out of several debates so far.
His current demands are:
1. It must be at a physical venue, not online.
2. It must be about evolutionism, not Christianity.
3. He must be given 50% of the speaking time.
4. He must be allowed to sell copies on his website for profit.
5. You must be a sufficiently famous evolutionist.
He's used the fifth condition as a trump card whenever someone has agreed to the first four; and the second condition as a way of avoiding debate with other Christians who've challenge his 'unusual' theological views.
Theologian James White once issued an open challenge for Kent to phone into his radio show after Kent started throwing around accusations that James was a liar, but Kent was sadly "too busy" with phoning into dozens of _other_ radio shows that didn't want to bring that up.
In response to acceptances by Thunderf00t the Drunken Peasants, Kent cited the first condition as an excuse to call the debates off; but even if they had agreed to hold it at a physical venue, it's likely that Kent would have continued to add ever-more elaborate conditions until his opponents eventually gave up and dropped out.
In his Q&A videos, people have been presenting Kent with arguments and evidence that he's never encountered before and I think it's rattled him a bit. So despite the bravado, I don't think his debate challenges are in good faith. He wants to focus his efforts on kids and believers; only after he's taken their money and free labour to build his crappy theme park will he sincerely start pining after a debate.
Worth pointing out for anyone stumbling on this comment before finding out, KC and Mister Not-Doctor Hovind have had their debates, and Kent performs his usual tactics of being a fucking dipshit to try to convince his idiot followers that he's at the top of his game when in reality KC had to remind him that E=mc^2 is commutative and mc^2=E also.
Kent favourite technique is the Gish Gallop where he throws so much bullshit at his opponent they get lost trying to debunk all of it... To someone ignorant of debate technique that can look like a win.
Oh don't even get me started on the E=mc^2...
A chemical reaction he thought, dear fucking god.
Looking, one can approximate using a taylor serieg(ignoring potential)
E=mc^2+.5mv^.5 when v
The *only reason* that *atheistards exist* is because they *haven't* checked out *Johnny Dark Speak* and the *Neurophone time experiments* the *Dark Speech Revelations!* There is *not a single person in the world* especially not *King Crocoduck* who can *even take half a step* towards *David Eager* of *Out of Darkness, Into the Light,* where he *breaks down* and *deconstructs* the *Illuminati propaganda* known as *"ATHEISM."* Yea, it's true; *not a single evolutionist* nor *atheist* would *DARE* challenge *David Eager* of *Out of Darkness, Into the Light* on *TALKSHOE* to a *LIVE DEBATE;* they would be *quickly dismantled* and *would want the audio buried as quickly as they will bury their heads in the sand* at *realizing* the *power* of *Yah (God) Almighty.* Prove me wrong ;33 *3∆3*
@@sarahbell180 Chemical reactions don't convert mass into energy though, the energy that is either released or absorbed during the reaction is chemical energy, which is a form of potential energy.
When he says 'debate', he's just expecting a payday. He totally expects you to 'hire' him to come out and repeat the same gibberish hes peddled for years.
Like you said in the end, only debate him if he puts up all the expenses. ($50 says he wont do it)
Clark Kent changes into evil supervillain Kent Hovind, when he's not moonlighting as Superman.
if Kent ties half his brain behind his back - what will be left for him to use?
Better yet - does he even have half a brain to tie behind anything?
weeell considering there have beeen examples of people whos brains look theyve been pureed from the inside out and still hold a conversation, Id say quite a bit.
No, Kent is a halfwit... Not a half brain
half?
Kent can do it with half the brain tied behind his back!
He never use it anyway.
Fractal Wrongness. I need to remember that one.
Ironic that Kent sees people who believe that the Earth is flat because the Bible says so as silly but doesn't realize that people who say that the Earth is less than 6000 years old because the Bible says so are just as silly.
Aron Featherf00t which Bible verse reads that the Earth is flat?
Rob Boggess
"It is he that sitteth upon the *circle* of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers …." Isaiah 40:22.
Some Christians argue that a 3D circle would be a sphere. Some however argue that a circle is by definition 2D therefore flat. Hope that helps.
Isaiah 40:22. And if you think it's just using 'circle' as a metaphor for oblate spheroid, then I suggest you go to the library and check out a copy of Strong's Concordance. If the author of Isaiah thought the earth was something like a sphere, he'd have used דּוּר which means ball or sphere. But instead he used חוּג which means flat circle, sometimes with an arguable implication of a domed or vaulted circle, which is what your fellow Christian creationists the flat earthers like to latch onto.
I can't believe it. 6 years on, and Kent hasn't been arrested again. Or replied to this, or requested a debate as outlined.
We debated 3 times
@@KingCrocoduck I feel out of the loop. Thanks youtube
It boils down to simply this (just like maths and physics) Smart rational open minded people support science, gullible twisted thinking yet sometimes well meaning folk support nonfactual nonsense. Hovind is good at what he does. Like the bibles, he gives you what you want to hear and thats the hook! reality and tested facts are not fun and life is too short.
Hovind doesnt even know how to read his Bible. There is no such thing in the creation myth as *"he stretched out"* anything.
That is the classical over the top: anything-i-read-i-can-change tactics. Wishful thinking, plain and simple.
The creation myth at the first chapters of Genesis is recognized by *any expert in Hebrew you want* as an expression of their world-views mixed with the mythologies of other cultures.
It uses elements from other myths exactly to change their perspective and affirm the supremacy of their god over the others.
So for them the creation of the world (earth) is the same as the universe. For them the world was like a snow-globe with the stars and the sun on the glass (firmament), all made for the earth and not far away (there is no indication in the text pointing to stars and sun being far away IN SPACE, they are in the sky that *belongs to earth*). There is no way around that world-view.
Even with that much said it does not mean it invalidates any religion, but it can *NEVER be interpreted imposing our current world-views*, because doing so it is not a correct interpretation (goes against good hermeneutics). When you interpret a text you can't impose the text NEEDS to mean something (that is the definition of distorting the words of someone else), you need to search what it MEANT for the people who first read it.
One word of advice for Hovind and creationists: if you really respect the text of the BIBLE as being sacred, *stop DISTORTING its meaning just because you are afraid of what is saying*. Read it to understand what it was meant to not what you want to and you will learn much more from it. It would be much more honest to the text and to young-earth-creationists to just admit they don't know how to interpret in the light of the current scientific knowledge (no one needs to have all the answers). But asking for HONESTY from some ppl is just impossible.
FLAWDAWADA727 That is completely different text of the Bible. And is even more poetic than Genesis, which have some elements that were considered a real explanation of origins, not just poems.
If you dont understand that first you have to maintain your interpretations in the text you are reading, and not interpret it first by using something from another author in another context, *you also dont know how to read your Bible*.
I suggest you first follow simple rules of interpretation. Try reading a book like "Do you understand what you read" (from GORDON D. FEE - DOUGLAS STUART). Dont know the exact title in english, but it is a very good book to begin if you dont have training.
I really suggest that, Im not being sarcastic. Because that is a very common error when interpreting an ancient text, or any text at all.
Edit:*(I can explain some simple rules that are not being used in your example, and his if you want, but I wont waste time if you really are not interested in learning interpretation, in that case just read the book I mentioned or another that deals with hermeneutics and exegesis)*
FLAWDAWADA727 Also to be clear on something. When I say *you (probably) dont know how to read your Bible*, Im not trying to insult you.
Most people dont know how to read the Bible because it is an ancient text and because usual texts from our culture and environment do not need the same care and treatment needed for us to be able to understand them quite well (because we know the context and most texts are directed to a public similar to us).
And also *Im not saying you need a PhD to understand the message of god, or the message of the gospel*, which by its nature needs to be simple in order for common ppl to understand.
But to understand *details like he is trying to do (and using Apologetics correctly) training and effort is needed*.
Oh for heaven's sake.... to "stretch a curtain " does not mean to expand the curtain. It means to drape or suspend the curtain over supports to provide a sort of... tent-like structure that you might dwell in. Oh, and a circle is not a sphere.
Thanks for the interesting thread, great read.
+FLAWDAWADA727
"as our world views is based on the historical fact of the creation account."
How is any creation account "historical fact?"
So Kent thinks that ALL stars were around the earth and were then "stretched" out into their positions? So how many stars does that make it within close distance to earth? How many bazillion? mmmm.. I wonder how the earth managed to survive the heat energy from a bazillion stars crammed into close proximity to a single planet.
EPIC FAIL!
+Enigmatical Jedi The 3 meter thick water dome above the Earth that could block out all manners of radiation. Duh.
Magic.
Hillel Finder Wow really?
I never realized that 3 meters of water was enough to stop the combined nuclear force of a billion billion billion sun's.
Go figure
Enigmatical Jedi Yup! Under normal "real life" physics this shouldn't be possible, but under new and improved *"Creationist physics (TM)"* you can make any feat possible just by preaching that it happened to the scientifically illiterate!
Under *"Creationist physics (TM)"*, there have been such accomplishments as: Light moving faster than the speed of light without changing all the other laws of "normal physics", doing away with the force of gravity, every star/ black hole/ supernova being within 6,000 light-years from earth at the same time, lack of evidence that atheism is "accurate and correct", more animals fitting onto a boat than there is space for on that boat, wood that is stronger than steel, evolution accelerated to ludicrous levels but only within undefined "limits", heavy breathing igniting nasal cavities to allow an individual to breath fire, subterranean water colliding with the moon to cause it's craters after being forced up by shifting plate tectonics, accelerated radioactive decay, all life being immune to starvation and nuclear fallout, plants being immune to drowning, a three meter thick water dome above and around the earth that blocked all manners of solar radiation except visible light, extended lifespans due to lack of said radiation, water that can run uphill, life from rocks, 50+ foot tall humans and pigs, causing atheists/ sceptics/ scientists to die from laughter, and so much more!
Call now to buy *"Creationist physics (TM)"* for the low, low price of your critical thinking skills! If you call in the next five minutes, you'll get one pair of *"Bible blinders (TM)"* absolutely free!
(Side effects may include drowsiness, lack of rationality, scientific illiteracy, not understanding the meanings of certain words, losing arguments to scientists, logical inconsistencies, annoying preaching, and an inability to debate atheists or sceptics. You should not use *"Creationist physics (TM)"* while driving, operating heavy machinery, or talking to people who understand how the universe works. Please see your preacher or visit "Answers in Genesis" if you experience any of these symptoms.)
Ask your preacher if *"Creationist physics (TM)"* is right for you!
+Hillel Finder
You are glorious!
This might come as a shock to some people, but Kent Hovind seems to have difficulty understanding the relationship between rate and time. He says that the first stars receded from Adam and Eve at, say, 90% of the speed of light (which he arguendo supposes is constant). Proposing this example runs counter to his beliefs, for he's wanting to argue that the universe is younger rather than older.
The lower the recession speed, the older the universe is because slower things take longer to get as far as faster things. In particular, if something is traveling at 90% of the speed of light and you see it when it is exactly 1 light year away, it must be at least 11% older than it would be if it were traveling at the speed of light.
Kent would need to argue that all of the stars (except our local one) were receding from Adam and Eve faster than the speed of light. Thus, we shouldn't see any of these stars at this stage of the game.
+The Justicar Ha, nicely spotted. I hadn't noticed that.
The *only reason* that *atheistards exist* is because they *haven't* checked out *Johnny Dark Speak* and the *Neurophone time experiments* the *Dark Speech Revelations!* There is *not a single person in the world* especially not *King Crocoduck* who can *even take half a step* towards *David Eager* of *Out of Darkness, Into the Light,* where he *breaks down* and *deconstructs* the *Illuminati propaganda* known as *"ATHEISM."* Yea, it's true; *not a single evolutionist* nor *atheist* would *DARE* challenge *David Eager* of *Out of Darkness, Into the Light* on *TALKSHOE* to a *LIVE DEBATE;* they would be *quickly dismantled* and *would want the audio buried as quickly as they will bury their heads in the sand* at *realizing* the *power* of *Yah (God) Almighty.* Prove me wrong ;33 *3∆3*
You've been a great inspiration for me and my desire to become a Physicist. I cannot thank you enough for helping light a spark in me.
Wow! Hovind getting distance vs time right is amazing. Especially after already seeing he got it wrong tens of times in the debate that followed.
I wonder if he has any tattoos from prison. ha
Kent Hovind is desperate for attention at this point. That being said I wouldn't mind watching you wipe the floor with him.
I think you said that the wrong way round .
The *only reason* that *atheistards exist* is because they *haven't* checked out *Johnny Dark Speak* and the *Neurophone time experiments* the *Dark Speech Revelations!* There is *not a single person in the world* especially not *King Crocoduck* who can *even take half a step* towards *David Eager* of *Out of Darkness, Into the Light,* where he *breaks down* and *deconstructs* the *Illuminati propaganda* known as *"ATHEISM."* Yea, it's true; *not a single evolutionist* nor *atheist* would *DARE* challenge *David Eager* of *Out of Darkness, Into the Light* on *TALKSHOE* to a *LIVE DEBATE;* they would be *quickly dismantled* and *would want the audio buried as quickly as they will bury their heads in the sand* at *realizing* the *power* of *Yah (God) Almighty.* Prove me wrong ;33 *3∆3*
The Rational Channel Which would only happen in your dreams so keep dreaming?
@@fortruthnoterror7796 True, Hovind is too coward to do the debate.
I like your vids and don't disagree with anything you said, but I am also disappointed in this video. It looks as though I may be the only one, but I felt compelled to write something.
My first sigh came after discovering your condescending nature toward Hovind. He may have started it with the half of brain comment, but that's a Donald Trump reason for childish behavior. Had hoped you would take the high road. Again, not that you're wrong, just didn't need to be done. And you come across as a kid being easily goaded into petty insults.
I also feel it's a mistake to accept Hovind's challenge to debate for many reasons. For those that have watched many debates, especially those that involve scientists vs charismatic creationists, the scientist almost never "wins", even though the facts are on his side.
1. You will not change anyone's mind either way.
2. Hovind is smart. He does not have the knowledge of physics that you do. But he has way more knowledge when it comes to manipulating an audience. I realize no one wants to give him credit for anything here. But if you don't respect his ability to command an audience, he will bury you. You won't be buried in facts or reasonable arguments, but a load of BS placed in an attractive box with a beautiful bow. And people eat that sh#t up.
He will not debate on a topic that involves strict scientific facts. Whatever the topic you agree on will be enough for him to digress to tangents where he can make memorable points. He will not debate the true science behind it. And sticking strictly to science is the only arena in which you will have a chance. He will surprise you with things you don't have immediate answers for. He will twist your words and ideas. He will charm the audience.
He will come out of this no less influential. He will simply have one more video for his flock to watch and at which to marvel. And there is a chance you will be embarrassed. Not because you don't have the science right, but because no one will remember any of the science, and you won't be prepared to rebut some of his creationist pseudo-scientific points. I respect you for accepting the challenge, but there is no "winning" a debate like this, no matter how well you present the facts. I hope you figure out a way to make this not happen.
I love how YEC "use science" to disprove science.
I think it was PBS Space Time who said that light doesn't travel at a magical speed but rather travels at the speed of causality. That would make it pretty wacky to alter the speed of light then.
Seems to me your your guessing the distances and not measuring distance as kent was talking about, you need to know the true power and energy of a star to make use of the li9ght being emmited. And Kent asked you to set up the fixture, he really does not have time for common online chit chat, find a university and organise something. Bwuuuk bwuuuk bwuuuk
Watch my video to the end instead of rage quitting halfway through. THEN leave your comment, not before.
I watched it til the end
Then why are you suggesting that we don't know the absolute brightness of the superovae I referred to, and why did you imply that I didn't have something prepared for him at a university should he choose to follow through
Well I sure hope you have arranged with a university a hall to debate in and potential dates. Absolute brightness... size and power of a star millions of miles away is unknown coz your not there. You can't measure the size of the star or the distance. Just can guess by brightness and how bright a star is effected by how close it is, seems to be a rubbery measure
JesusSuperLight Chris no, absolute brightness is the brightness that the nova would be if it were 10 pc away. We've measured it before for that distance and found consistently that type 1a novae have a standard absolute brightness of -19.3
Debating creationist is akin to debating flat earthers,...a waste of time..you can not win a debate when someone beliefs are based on faith while ignoring scientific and archeological evidence etc...however there may be a God in the form of aliens.. lol
+King Crocoduck when will you have the third quantum video up? I understand that you are very busy, but I am just curious to get an eta on the next video.
Yup, a primarily mobile user - had to go to the laptop for this one. Thanks for the heads up in the description!
i know very little to nothing about this topic, do you think there is any circumstance known or unknown that could slow the speed of light? like light hitting a particular angle of a black hole, thanks :)
Kent, you don't get it, a Light Year tells you two things.
1. How far light has traveled in a year - ~6 x 10+12 miles
2. It also tells you that you are looking into the past, since you are looking at the light that left an object 1 year ago you are looking at light that is 1 year old. not in the present or future but the past, even looking at the sun - better use a filter - you are still looking at light that is 8.5 minutes old.
3. Now when you are looking at stars that are 13 x 10+9 light years away, you are looking at light that left the star/galaxy 13 x 10+9 years ago, Now if I can understand that, I have a simple BS degree in Biology - from 1978 - you should with your PhD in Education, why can't you Kent, it is simple.
King, can you explain what you meant when you said that the Casimir Effect/Force brings matter into and out of existence?
6:17, that's what you can expect from anything Hovind might try to pass of as a debate.
I've never heard a convincing resolution from creationists for the starlight problem. Even the latest attempt in the anisotropic synchrony convention is just so full of holes it hurts, chief among them being what you also mentioned in this video - if the speed of light isn't constant, the strengths of electricity and magnetism shouldn't be constant either. It's like they're trying to snap a core thread in the beautiful tapestry of physics and then just close their eyes to the fact that whole thing comes undone and falls apart.
@King Crocoduck, will you please do the debate live and stream it here?
Debate Kent Hovind on the best ways to commit financial fraud and not get caught.
Creation Science is an oxymoron.
hey KC good to have you back, i was wondering IF you have heard OR read the 7 million dollar math questions from the CLAY institute of mathematics IF so what you think of them and the people that will in the end solve them?
Oh joy. Just when you think stupidity can go no further Hovind proves us wrong. Hail to King Crocoduck from Adelaide, South Australia
I really hope this happens. It'd be so awesome to even have it streamed so that everyone could watch it live.
Glad to see you back posting again KC!
Wouldn't our IFR dilate time as necessary and the photons would have arrived on schedule, to the exact contrary to Hovind's "model" :)
After centuries of increasingly precise measurements, in 1975 the speed of light was known to be 299792458 m/s (186,282 mi /s) with a measurement uncertainty of 4 parts per billion. In 1983, the metre was redefined in the International System of Units (SI) as the distance travelled by light in vacuum in 1/299792458 of a second. As a result, the numerical value of c in metres per second is now fixed exactly by the definition of the metre.[6],,, and of course The speed of light in vacuum is usually denoted by a lowercase c, for "constant" or the Latin celeritas (meaning "swiftness, celerity"). Historically, the symbol V was used as an alternative symbol for the speed of light, introduced by James Clerk Maxwell in 1865. In 1856, Wilhelm Eduard Weber and Rudolf Kohlrausch had used c for a different constant later shown to equal √2 times the speed of light in vacuum. In 1894, Paul Drude redefined c with its modern meaning. Einstein used V in his original German-language papers on special relativity in 1905, but in 1907 he switched to c, which by then had become the standard symbol for the speed of light.[7][8]
Sometimes c is used for the speed of waves in any material medium, and c0 for the speed of light in vacuum.[9] This subscripted notation, which is endorsed in official SI literature,[6] has the same form as other related constants: namely, μ0 for the vacuum permeability or magnetic constant, ε0 for the vacuum permittivity or electric constant, and Z0 for the impedance of free space. This article uses c exclusively for the speed of light in vacuum.
Since 1983, the metre has been defined in the International System of Units (SI) as the distance light travels in vacuum in 1⁄299792458 of a second. This definition fixes the speed of light in vacuum at exactly 299792458 m/s.[10][11][12] As a dimensional physical constant, the numerical value of c is different for different unit systems.[Note 3] In branches of physics in which c appears often, such as in relativity, it is common to use systems of natural units of measurement or the geometrized unit system where c = 1.[14][15] Using these units, c does not appear explicitly because multiplication or division by 1 does not affect the result.,,, THINK THERE IS a possibility of fluctuation as well a possibility of non vacuum or and space bending time as well as the measurement of the metre ,,, so there a possible variation ,,, to me thats a fail because of this
Creationists: "Science isn't science, Creationism is science!"
King Crocoduck if i could take a few moments of your time to discuss further on these topics at hand, that would be greatly appreciated. I'd love to learn more about light years and such, quantum physics and so on, i am going to college for these things. anything you can shed light on to further my knowledge and to further aid my stand against religion that would be great. they have shoved their side down our throats so i'd love to start returning the favor. i would love to change someones mind on their beliefs through factual evidence (not that it'll likely happen). i love getting into debates as it was my hobby during highschool and now long after. if you are too busy, i understand. if not, then please respond and we can discuss over facebook or whatever means of communication is more comfortable.
You just made my day with this: "fractal wrongness"
I would seriously pay good money to see a debate between you two
"Brain tied behind his back"? I think he's mixing metaphors a bit there. He did the exact same quote when regarding Thunderf00t's videos as well.
sounds like the unified theory for light duality may have to be on level with having creationists and physicists find a unified perspective. There's perhaps a chance neither is correct or either could be utilizing the 'magical' properties in both. there's a lot more similarities often missed when people focus on the few differences. Both paths have the potential to have been altered by their own version of observation, so both their 'lights' have quite possibly potentially darkened their effectiveness.
I know that you don't actually intend these videos to be *primarily* educational, more refutational if that's a word, but I wanted to let you know that I learn a crapload by watching these. For some reason it is just a lot more entertaining and effective for my brain to learn these concepts in the "backwards" pedagogy of debate, ie, top-down instead of bottom-up. Beginning with a false statement then pointing out why it is wrong and what is known has been a really effective way for me to soak up a lot of this science. So, thank you for the... unintentional education! :)
Dr. Dunno should've taken astronomy 102 where they talk about the cosmic ladder (how we measure distances across the cosmos).
Two quick questions: First, you're at UCSB?! I used to work there, miss it terribly. Loved that campus.
Second, what would the Hovindian expansion rate do to the red shifting of light? Wouldn't everything be pretty much invisible? (I'm not sure if you covered that when saying we wouldn't be able to see certain things...)
+Grumpy Santa
Ya, I thought about that too, but I'm sure God could just fill in the missing wave oscillations as he expanded the universe. He, after all, is God. All answers are simple when you just get to make up everything.
How do you make and edit this videos of yours ?
King Crocoduck, can I just say how happy it makes me to see your videos showing up in my subscription fees again!
They are amazing and I can't wait to see what videos you have next!
Hello again King. I wanted to give a quick follow-up. As an engineer I'll often come up with an idea to solve a technical problem or a new way to do something. I then setup a test. I then try to prove it. I also setup a method to prove myself wrong. In industry we have to do this as lives are sometimes at risk. So on a daily basis I follow the scientific method. With each failure I learn. But you do realize I'm a application scientist. I enjoy theoretical physics but always keep in mind the difference between theoretical and reality. And I will mention I've spent 21 years in the service. And traveled extensively. And worked with the Navel air engineering center on several advanced projects. This experience has shown me the differences between theoretical and actual applications. In other words "this has to work!". So I respectfully request examples that I can study. P
Paul Allison Examples? Examples of what, I didn't catch that
Oh I so hope the debate happens. As much as I loved the Bill Nye v. Ham debate, I think this could be ten times better to watch.
I posted this in your other video about the speed of light, but I'll post it again here because I'm still having trouble finding information on this:
I don't know if you've ever heard this one, but I've recently dealt with a creationist who tried to argue that the reason that we can see objects that are more than 6,000 light years away is because light approaching us travels much faster (for some fucking reason). I had trouble understanding his justification for this, I don't know if he was trying to suggest that relativity allows time to slow down for us enough for distant starlight to reach us or if he was trying to suggest that this must be the case because we can't measure the "one-way" speed of light (due to the fact that we can't synchronize clocks at both the source and the detector if they're in two separate locations).
I don't know much about the former, but for the latter, would the information that you give starting at 13:57 [here, I'm referring to the video "Helping Hovind to Understand the Speed of Light"] also allow us reasonably assume that the speed of light is constant in all directions (even if we ignore Ockham's Razor)? Thanks.
Love this love this love this
UCSB? I knew I recognized your voice KC! I think we only spoke a few times in the psr, though. You we're in all of my quantum classes and the silly architectural history class this summer lol. It's crazy because I was watching your channel for fun before I even went to UCSB... Anyways, congrats my dude for graduating 2016! Keep up the awesome job with this channel and I'll keep watching!
*"IT'S HALF FROG, HALF DUCK! IT'S A FUCK!"*
excellant work KC, this is the only way to deal with creationist videos. Kent will try to drag you into a religious discussion great to see you just keep to the science.
Croc plz keep us updated as to Kents response (like if he agrees to do it) I'd like to know when so I can attend but if not, would you upload the debate to your channel?
I have to agree with Hovind on the speed of light not being constant though. Kent's mind is still in medieval times. The only way that is possible is if he is in medieval times and the time around him is slowed down and it took hundreds of years for the light and sound coming from him to reach us. That does leave me with a problem to explain how he can answer questions from the future, assuming that we call his medieval blabber answers, for research purposes. Edit and I have no explanation for that shirt either. Maybe he is stuck in the eighties? More research is needed.
12:51
VICTORY
15:00
Lol, that chicken shit at the end is hilarious.
Question: if the supernova were 6TLY away, would we have felt any of the blast?
Oh, and new subscriber here.
What do you mean that? Do you mean shockwave or something like that? No.
However the radiation from the supernova would have damaged Earth's ozone layer in the atmosphere.
Hey man, I think an important point to discuss first with folks like him is the accuracy of the writings he bases his belief on. Through translation, as Linguistics dictate, there is always a loss in the the idea being conveyed. He uses the word 'stretch' often in the excerpts you show. However, another translator could easily have chosen the word 'extend" which would completely change the tone. Today, we can work to understand the *intention* by speaking to people from the other culture. We have other means of communication (i.e. gestures) to transmit an idea. However, the modern bibles are translated form *ancient* Greek or Hebrew. We do not have this option in linguistics to communicate with the people to find out 'intention of meaning.'
Mr Hovind uses the word 'stretch' often in the excerpts you listed. I can have an endless debate with my French friends, for example, on the equivalent sense in French (and French and English have extremely similar vocabulary!). From a linguistics stand point, whatever is translated today from ancient texts must be taken with a grain of salt. You MUST have other supporting evidence from other fields of study to confirm what is said. We accept that Jesus was a real man not solely because its said in the bible, but its mentioned in other areas (like in Roman records). I accept that the Pyramids of Egypte actually exist not because Egyptians says so, but archaelogists, historians, miltary commanders, artists, etc. have confirmed this is the case.
This is a fundamental problem with people like Mr Hovind that needs to be addressed first prior to debating modern science. Take a look at the video below. These men are discussing problmes translating the bible **from** English to other languages. They are aboslutely correct in what they are saying, in terms of linguistics. What is comically ironic, is that the fail to take into account all the same problmes when translating **to** English.
ruclips.net/video/9JwmT4VmllI/видео.html
Kent Hovind does not debate. He talks about debates. He talks about having debates.
But that is the extent of it.
He knows he would get his a** handed to him in a real debate because he little talking points would hold no weight
It's 186,000 miles per second. This is the speed of light and it is indeed a universal constant.
How do you measure distances in space?
1. by parallax
2. by measurig the brightness of standard stellar events of known brightness
3. you can measure the distance to the moon with a laser.
Before you can refute these you must first google to understand them.
With all due respect King Croc, I can't stand Kent neither, and I totally share the same fillings for him, as you. But debating that dishonest piece of shit, is a losing proposition, he will never accept that he is a complete MORON, and the only thing that you will accomplish, is giving him the attention that he is craving to have, and his followers either will agree with him regardless, or will make him a martyr. Anyway, if you decide to do it anywise, I will see it. I will not wish you good luck, because you do no need it, you will destroy him even on a self-induced coma.
I live in Canada and I would fly down to see this debate happen.
There should be some anti bullshit machine gun rules, like only 3 arguments before the opponent can talk.
13:49
How ironic of Kent, this coming from the person that had arranged to debate someone (Most likely PhD Jean-François Gariépy) on the Drunken Peasants while putting forward some clearly unfair stipulations, WHICH THEY AGREED TO, then decided to quit when the already agreed upon stipulations weren't "good"(draconian) enough.
We use si units? Engineers uses both. It should be the responsibility of any US engineer to be able to convert from one to another. Unless you are saying that you are too lazy to do conversions, or you are saying that engineers are better than physicists. Granted, 80% of physic majors become engineers or some other field due to an over saturation of the physics majors. Building a world is far better than theorizing/researching of one.
Anyways, keep up the good work.
+shane bacawaka by "we," I was referring to scientists.
That moment when your 9 year old brother has more mathematical intelligence then a supposed science teacher.....
I've had this conversation with a creationist I work with.
He is adamant that since you can't take a yard stick and physically measure the distance to a star that we can't possibly KNOW that the stars are more than 6,000 light years away.
If people can not understand something as simple as the speed of light and distance than they're fucked. A lost cause...
I definitely think you should do it. We should never be afraid to defend our position, especially when we have facts and evidence on our side.
Other (in)famous Kents of history:
Kent Brockman, newscaster for the town of Springfield
Clark Kent, Superman in disguise
I kent seem to find any other than these fictional ones.
Oh my fucking god that 6th grade bit was so funny and condescending. I died
If you are going to debate him - and I have expressed my doubts as to the wisdom of this before - please make the terms of the debate very specific and very clear. The best option would be to frame the debate in terms of requiring him to 'prove' creation. Then it becomes a matter of pointing out the idiocy of his "ice comet", "hydroplate" and other absurities.
Framing it in terms of defending the standard model of the big bang and biological evolution would allow him to drag in all the disproven nonsense that he has uttered about these subjects previously. The debate format simply does not allow sufficient time to explain each issue in the detail required.
My idea for the debate topic would be the age of the universe. That's what we've been arguing about, and it falls neatly within my field.
King Crocoduck Well, you pretty well have a slam dunk in refuting the 6,000 year old earth, since Hubble has now been used to measure parallax out to 7,500 light years.
+King Crocoduck well you are alredy winning just by making him say your name! lol
+Condor Boss Unfortunately, Kent's interest isn't to prove creation so he probably wouldn't accept those conditions. His whole angle is that evolution isn't "proved," but that it's a misguided interpretation of the available evidence. Therefore, he claims it shouldn't be taught in public schools-- or at least that it should concede equal time to other "theories" like creation. This whole angle shifts the burden to the evolutionist, which is why to an untrained audience, he is, sadly, a very successful debater.
arkay238 I agree. Which is why I oppose debating Hovind at all.
However, if King Crocoduck insists on debating him, the terms of the debate must be framed so that Hovind cannot go off his gish gallop.