"Evolution is a religion and as we all know, religions are full of crap and are stupid ... wait ... yes, religions are full of crap and are stupid! So take that evolution!" I do love when they first turn something that doesn't need a god into a religion and then shit on religion. Makes perfect sense considering _their_ position. 🤡🌍
While I don’t like Kent, I think this is disingenuous. Kent isn’t stupid, he’s just a liar. He’ll say whatever can push his message, even if it’s not internally consistent with his other arguments. I believe he’s trying to drag evolution to the same level of creationism, or say it’s believed in blind faith unlike Christianity and more akin to other religions.
I do understand your point, but it can still be a decent argument. If you can make a case for evolution to follow similar logic as religion does (taking stuff on faith and not just on empirical evidence and deduction), you can at least make the case that creationism is as valid as evolution and either position can be taken on faith. It's still not where Hovind wants to be, but it's better than allowing a situation in one postion is empirically true (or very very very very likely) and the other relies on faith.
@Louie Berg a scientific method & consensus peer review have nothing to do with faith. Modern Evolutionary theory is incredibly well supported. Nothing in creationism is. Kent has no accredited degree & is simply an abusive conman.. Forrest is highly educated on the topic.
It's okay if the magical being took the dirt and breathed life into it.... Except, of course, it's the Kabbalah-types, nor others, and, of course, that's not legit...?
And Kent on the other hand was not even prepared to discuss basic Paleontology with Conspiracy Catz, a (now former) Middle School teacher that only taught basic biology and science.
Forrest is not biologist , he is a failed biology teacher , Their is a big difference , one teaches a curriculum based on the science and the other writes science from observations.
Wow, Kent’s friend (or sex slave, trying to figure it out) Matt actually had good advice for Kent regarding not bothering with Forrest Valkai! Forrest Valkai is one of the smartest of all those who defend science, specifically evolutionary biology and has never been stumped; he debunks creationists’ arguments every time. The live Atheist show he does here and there with a cohost (I think it’s “The Atheist Experience”), Christian callers always have some sort of “gotcha” for the hosts but Forrest always has a very logical answer. He’s my favorite of all the scientists who debunk creationism and always has an answer at the top of his head regarding evolution; even “I don’t know”. Remember those words creationists. They are what separate humility and arrogance.
@Dragonmoon98 Saying "I don't know" with God on their side equals blasphemy. I don't know becomes God did it and they can never defer to anything else.
@@Dragonmoon98 A lot. It happens all the time. Skeptics aren't afraid to say they don't know something while (most) religions require shoving god into any unknown rather than looking for actual answers...
He's wrong about practically everything else, but he's right about that. I know I'm not the only one who instinctively trusts people less, the more religious they are. Preachers and professional apologists are the least trustworthy of all (with rare exceptions). And at the peak of that mountain of dishonesty is Kent Hovind.
@Censored Opinions It hinges on his belief that other people can't detect such duplicity. He can say anything. He assumes you aren't following what he's saying, but that you will agree simply because he's up there talking as if he was always right. All he wants is to hear his followers say _"Amen, brother!"_
Forrest definitely doesn't "need" anyone to defend him from whackjob Kenny, but he's also probably the single nicest atheist science communicator who absolutely doesn't deserve any of this bullshit, so thank you for stepping up for him, favourite floating circle 😊
@@Romanticoutlaw Boy? Children believe in Fairy Tales, not everyone is an overgrown child. Some put aside childish Fantasy and become adults and LEARN.
It’s funny how Kent wants to say look where the money comes from about scientists, but the last time I checked it was way more lucrative to be a televangelist than a scientist.
I watched kent religiously when I was a teen. In fact he is the one that led me to becoming a Christian through his seminars. Now that I'm not a Christian anymore I can't believe I ever fell for his arguments.
Yikes. The fact that he manages to recruit gullible and/or uneducated folk with his willfully ignorant and flagrantly deceptive bullshit is depressing. Though, I'm certainly glad you learned to think critically and managed to climb your way out of that hole of deceit they call religion (creationism, in particular). Kent is definitely one of the most despicable individuals conceivable.
@@stylis666 if they didn't stop all their followers from reading their holy book for thousands of years until it was so ingrained there is no way religion would survive, absolutely.
@@zogar8526 Dang, I have almost as hard a time understanding your comment as I have understanding my own, reading it back now. What I wanted to say is that if a lack of self awareness wasn't as common as it is, the access to knowledge would've ended religion a long time ago. But I think you have a good point as well in saying that because it was already an ingrained part of culture before access to knowledge grew and I think that the culture and how it evolved is helping in perpetuating the problems because anti intellectualism is still super normalized in most if not all countries. People in general are more likely to want to listen to straight forward and clear language, even if it's not supported with evidence than they are to listen to evidence, because the latter is boring and the straight shooters often present simple black and white solutions to fears and frustrations people have. I think we'd already make great steps if people saw the irony when they are scared into voting for and parroting fear mongers like that and then complain that "the left" is causing a divide and trying to manipulate people into supporting some agenda. If people realized that all of our brains are hardwired to always face toward danger, they'd be able to realize how that is utilized/abused by religions and extremists alike to grab their attention and sell them "a cure". And that _maybe_ it's a good idea to spend some time actually understanding what is being discussed or straw manned instead of letting people feed our frustrations and fears even more. More fear and frustration gives the illusion of control while distracting from ways to understand what we're dealing with, while more information gives us actual control on how we look at things and deal with them.
For those of you who have never watched Forrest Valkai, MAKE SURE TO GO WATCH HIM! He’s amazing, and actually takes the time to explain how science works as he debunks Young Earth Creationists. I’ve probably learned more about science from him than any of my previous science classes combined.
@Mike Hawk Are we talking about the same person? Forrest is an evolutionary biologist and educator (he goes out to schools to teach them about science), and explains science in a very detailed way. Kent meanwhile, has repeatedly lied about his teachings and degrees, and his arguments are just “no, no, and no”. They are nothing alike. Also, ‘Lost-in-the-Forrest”? Amazing name-calling and totally valid argument.
@Mike Hawk Are you suggesting that teaching science is the same as preaching? You're aware that a lot of people became atheist because they learned about science and realized it made much more sense, right? There's a difference between trying to convince someone to believe in something, and teaching them facts so they can decide for themselves. Kent Hovind wants us to join his cult of mindless zombies, while Forrest wants us to learn about science. I fail to see any similarities.
@Mike Hawk why exactly do you think Forrest doesn't know what he is talking about? He is an evolutionary biologist and an educator. What is your expertise to call him out? What is that he gets wrong? Can you give some examples? Or better yet, take one of his videos and make one of your own end explain how he is wrong and present the evidence to back up your position.
Don't forget that one 13-year old kid who was visiting DAL that Kent bodyslammed, who ex-wife Mary Tocco recalls watching "in horror as [Kent] attacked this young boy like he went insane."
Forrest neither dodged a sledgehammer nor was wacked hard. He gracefully side stepped a strike with a feather and then unleashed one of those maglev super seed trains from Japan of science.
@6:27 I love this bit... He absolutely calls out creationists for trying to find anything that even remotely supports their pre-supposed conclusions. He hits the nail square on the head, and the best Kent can do in response is "No, you do that!"... No, Kent, you're the one doing that. Your rant right there is pure projection. Everyone's been telling you for years that this is what you do because you quite clearly do it and deep down you're well aware of it. Deflecting that criticism directly back at us is astonishingly pathetic...
You give him too much credit. He's too stupid to be self aware in any capacity. Maybe I'm wrong and he's not, in that case then he's just pure evil* for knowingly spreading lies and misinformation. But I'm pretty sure it's just that he's stupid. * evil as defined by our collective morals of "don't intentionally mislead for your own profit" not the religious Evil.
Depends on the temperature of the noodle. One right out of the water can cause some damage. (I in absolutely no way agree with Kent Hovind, in fact I hope there’s briefly a hell for him to go to).
@@katashworth41 Oh yeah... Definitely.. I eat cup noodles and I always add a pinch of chicken flavor powder and tabasco. A hot noodle has swung salty and spicy water at my eye before and it isn't a nice experience. 😂
@@iAtheist4Life This is where I’m glad I’m bad with spice, I’m never going to rub my eyes after cutting a chilli. My partner might, but he knows what not to do.
One big issue with creationism is that even if you could disprove evolution, you would have to take it a step further and explain why god created things like vestigial structures, or parasites, or a really hostile universe…
@@DinosaurianDude is it now? I've never played chess with a pigeon, so i wouldn't know. but, i do play chess. hahaha 🤣. touchè. seriously though, you're right. it's a good analogy. take care out there.
@@clif26 Once Kent stops his “you believe you came from a rock” craptastic strawman, I might be persuaded to not immediately laugh uproariously at your demand and see if you have any arguments of non-negative value … Until then the shoe seems to fit you perfectly.
@@advorak8529 i dont know man. its just redundant to read the same analogies over again. that was my point. obviously you looked to much into it. but , whatever.
The funny thing is, Kent showed so many "textbook" examples of homologous structures in his video, I felt he did more to further the evolutionary argument than his own beliefs, especially given his complete lack of evidence for the "designer" hypothesis.
@@DonXardas Catz even made a song, now with his giveaway of channels to McToon and Mr Sensible, I can't find more than a copy of the song without Catz funny animation. Search for "Dr Hovind Is Not Prepared for That." Edit found it at "Mr Baldy Sensible Catz" as video "Teaching Kent Hovind about Isochron Dating" at around 8:20
I fully believe he knows but he's a very wealthy man and that wealth depends on him continuing to spout the crap his religious book says, so he will continue with the grift.
Kent could best be described as a "conman for god". He always wants to "debate evolution" and yet he has never once debated anything resembling evolution
Oh he has. Just that his definition of evolution includes almost everything that has nothing to do with evolution. Cosmology and abiogenesis being the main topics.
@@lidbass It's always peculiar to hear/watch him talk or debate or whatever else, is always a strange experience. It's like someone would ask me about hard water filters and I would start by explaining the discovery of metallurgy, and even then I think my example might have more sense than his explanations.
I CAN'T BELIEVE just how many times he said something that was more true of himself than Forrest. The biggest was trying to say "Well it's in the book so it must be true" as a way to discredit the idea when that is the FOUNDATION of hus religion
@@ChibiCuna There's nothing to teach. "God did it" ain't exactly a riveting lesson. And that's ignoring the fact that evolution, even if unproven, is still the better model according to Occam's Razor since God hasn't been proven and the natural mechanics and components that are prerequisites for evolution have.
Kent failed miserably, he’s got a serious god delusion. Excellent work SkepTick, your work is important for the progress of humanity. Don’t stop, irrational apologists are everywhere; it’s astounding the amount of fictional garbage humans on this world believe, the brain-rot is ubiquitous. For humanity to make progress these delusions must be exposed. 👍🏽 tons of work to do! Thank you SkepTick!
I would love to see Forrest debate him, though from this video i doubt this guy could be respectful and not resort to just name calling and repeating 'you're wrong!' without offering an actual evidence. But i love hearing Forrest being clear and undeterred and i always learn something new from him😊
Yup, one of my current favourite things is listening to Forrest on call-in shows, him getting literally any question and listening to him just completely nerd out for 20 minutes, while his co-host sits there in appreciation. I could never be as passionate about anything as much as Forrest is about bioanthropology
I've come to learn it's actually pointless to argue with a creationist. In one of my lectures I listened to from wondrium, one lecture talked about the misconceptions about science, which evolved from philosophy and was called natural philosophy. Creationism is basically anti science. They don't wanna learn. They don't wanna understand. They've already made up their mind that everything they don't agree with is wrong.
I have no interest in trying to convince the interlocutor but rather those in the audience who are not being confronted and doubling-down from fight-or-flight cognitive dissonance. The curious and open-minded audience can safely observe the Creationist interlocutor having his intellectual ass handed to them.
@@richardmcquade8267 Exactly. It's not about the dishonest creationist one is debating, they are either already lost to the idiocy that is creationism or they know it is all bullshit, but they get payed enough, so they don't care that they are ruining peoples life with that bullshit ... It's about the people listening to them, it's about the people reading those comments ... and it's about the children, that are indoctrinated into those cults ... It's about the people one does not talk to, but who are still there and are watching ... if only one realises what a piece of shit most creation apologists are, that's a win, as it may lead to one less person suffering from this misinformation ...
The point of a debate rarely is to convince the person you're debating, but to convince the audience. Kent is too far gone, but some of the audience watching the debate may be sitting on the fence and a good debate may make them leave the cult of creationism.
The point is always to try to inform an audience. The thing with someone so incredibly dishonest, arrogant, abusive, wilfully ignorant and stupid as Hovind is to always remember that antagonising you is a deliberate aim. They relentlessly try to provoke a harsh response with bullshit and then abuse, against which they can then cast themselves as the poor little righteous holy victim. You can clearly see it here. It's probably under-appreciated that these kinds of people operate by trying to set up psychodramas with three basic roles: Oppressor/Tyrant (pure projection onto someone with knowledge who doesn't submit to them), Righteous Victim/Martyr (them), and Saviour/Rescuer (usually their invisible imaginary Grand Overlord who supposedly promises to put a big bitch-smiting down on Oppressor).
Kent is trying to introduce us to real science, like Gods and Faires and Unicorns and Demigods and Wizards and Giants and Magic. Truly the pinnacle of scientific thought, or the setup for my next d&d campaign
I'm sorry to tell you but in a d&d campaign has more logic and reason than in Kents videos, imagine a session if people act like him: DM: "you are in a tavern..." player 1: "NO, THAT'S DUMB, we start at the the 'start' square" DM: "we are not playing monopoly, that a all other game" player 1: "YOUR GAME IS DUMB AND YOU TELL PEOPLE LEIS..." player 2: "I cast fire ball and kills player 1" DM: "thank you"
@@חפרקריסטל Sadly killing player 1 does not make them vanish from the room ... so Kent is still there, whining about it, he is just unable to participate in the game anymre ... >.
"If it's homologuous, or if it's different, it's both evidence for Evolution" yes Kent, because you voluntary misrepresents science. Evolution was precisely proposed BECAUSE we made all those observations. The fact that it can accurately represents everything in nature is a GOOD THING!
question because the transphobe who made this video refused to answer it but: is what kent said true about the similar structures having different genetics at play? If so, doesn't that pretty much entirely debunk the idea and theory of evolution? How can similar structures be indicative of evolution, if their genetics have no similarities?
@@Otome_chan311 Similar structures will arise from natural selection. The way the genes expresses those similarities can be vastly different, it does not matter. What is debunking evolution in that? See, different genes expressing similar structure can perfectly be explained using evolution. And about that transphobe comment... are you OK?
@@Otome_chan311No, what works in nature simply works. Eyes have evolved multiple times in multiple species. Wings have evolved multiple times in multiple species. It's just about external stimuli, change the stimuli and you will change evolution. Let's say the oceans warm up by 3 degrees world wide, that change would kill off those that couldn't handle it. The ones that survived would go on to pass their genetics forward, genetics that allows for higher temperature resilience.
That convicted criminal hasn't said anything worthwhile in decades. No matter what nonsense that guy spews forth, you can find clips of people debunking every single point he makes. Multiple of them. And even though he has been prooven wrong countless times, he still uses the same talking points.
@@jasonibbs If you like to laugh, his sovereign citizen shtick in court before he was put in federal prison is worthwhile. Not because it is correct... but because it is hilarious how incorrect it is.
Oh man... My first thought was "Oh, I would Love to see Forrest respond to this" but after watching it I'm a bit dismayed, because there's really nothing to respond to. Just 15 minutes of Kent going "Nuh uh, yur stoopid". I'm starting to think we saw so little of Forrest here because Kent realized just how good he is at his job at explaining things.
And today we learned that Kent doesn’t know what the words vestigial, homologous, and analogous even mean. Bit tricky to disprove things when you don’t know what they are. Well ok, that was a lie. We didn’t learn that today. We’ve known that for as long as he has been talking about evolution. And by talking I mean strawmanning. If Forrest got whacked by anything it was a soggy strand of spaghetti that disintegrated on impact.
It's easier to argue against words like "vestigial, homologous and analogous" when you use YOUR definition rather than the meaning used in science. It's like using the common meaning of theory rather than the scientific meaning of a Theory.
@@joshuataber9848 True, but that is a more wide-spread issue. Sex and gender are very commonly used words, and commonly used interchangeably even though they shouldn't be. Even sources that aren't (at least not technically) religious get that wrong very publicly, so it's understandable that people who don't look into it more can get it wrong. Not that I'm defending Kent here - he's been corrected enough times that he knows he's wrong. Vestigial, analogous, and homologous are far less common words. Harder to get wrong because if you are actually using them, especially in a biological/evolutionary context you've probably been doing some studying on the topic and don't really have an excuse to get their definitions as wrong as he does. The basics of them are not exactly complicated, and he doesn't even get that right.
Kent is a greedy foolish fool. I cannot stand this silly man. Forrest is the opposite, smart and actually has evidence for his science. Thanks The SkepTick your videos are amazing and I thank you.
@@justinlindfors8512 the wise man has not seen, yet believed. and a fool is someone who does *not* readily believe extraordinary claims on insufficient evidence i.e. "says in his heart there is no god". those are the equally biblical definitions kent picks and chooses when he takes the bible literally. and of course, there's clearly not a single contradiction in the bible even though what you wrote probably is in there, too.
I think this is just feeding the trolls. This clown repeats the same inaccuracies that he's been corrected on multiple times. I'm pretty sure he doesn't care about making points to people who are scientifically literate, he just wants to reinforce the cultists who already follow him and maybe ensnare a few vulnerable minds along the way
So true. It's not about converting people it's about retaining the non critical thinkers that support his cult. I'm glad Christianity had lost more members over the past 10 years than any other time in history. And creationists wonder why people are leaving the church. Because their bigoted views.
Its the vulnerable minds I'm concerned about. Those who are in are grown up enough to walk away, but choose not to. Its the young teenage viewer that is at a philosophical existential crossroads (as I was) who are most susceptible to this kind of chicanery.
I really don’t think Kent cares all too much about the typical core tenants of Christianity given how readily he brushes off other Christian authorities, more qualified than him, should they call him out. He refuses to study his own holy book, beyond reading the KJV, yet insists that he knows it. Being able to recite a line from an outdated translation doesn’t equal understanding. Kent will use the parts of Christianity that he likes in order to reinforce his inflated self importance as well as his persecution complex. The same reason he clings to his conspiracy theories.
Kent is of course not an honest actor but this still needs to be done. It’s not for hovinds sake but the victims of his grift and so Charlatans like this don’t go unchecked.
You stood up for Forrest. One of the most wholesome, loving, and amazing beings I’ve seen speak for atheists. A super smart biologist too. You have earned a new subscriber mysterious circle in the sky. Should I start a cult for you? We could make it funny! Or we could make some money. You tell me what you’d rather like 😂🖤
Kent has been doing this for years... noticed that he challenge a debate for "one topic", that's how he controls the narrative because when you bring up something else (even when it's extremely relevant), he will dismiss the line of questioning due to "not being related to the topic". The guy's a piece of work...
It is also how he deflects all critique of his own position, as he just states that bible answers everything and "I haven't seen anything wrong in it, so it is true", but If you try to have any conversation about that, it is not the point of the discussion, even though he bases all of his arguments on it.
@@jujuplayboy It's hilarious when people he debates actually try to pin him down on one topic. He tries to dodge around them like he's playing frogger.
the duckodile keeps on getting funnier and funnier. the fact he thinks thats what evolution is means he truly doesnt care if its true or not. but i think thats pretty clear even without it
Forest actually said he would debate Powell. But the boy backed out when one of the stipulations of releasing the debate unedited on both channels was brought up. Shows that matt knows he can't win and that he is knowingly deceiving his audience.
Forrest could debate Kent while asleep. I love how Kent claims to believe everything in the bible is completely true, but says flat earthers are dumb, even though in the bible it literally says the earth is flat.
The problem is Kent will whine and throw a tantrum when the other person makes valid and good points by saying they're going outside the scope of the debate or do strawman arguments but when he gets called on his bs throws another tantrum that the other person is being mean, unfair, etc
Being eternally punished for trying to ingest from the Tree of Knowledge that was deliberately placed in the center of the yard by the responsible parent makes one wonder. 'Raise up a child 'What to think' rather than 'How to think' and when they are older they not easily depart from it.' Proverbs 22:6, (paraphrased) is nowadays known as religious indoctrination/ childhood brainwashing.
He said he got his “strong forehand smash” from all those years of playing tennis. He said this during a seminar where he admitted to beating his kid because he wanted him to fear him.
@@MrMild-sv7is that... is him confessing to child abuse, a FELONY. Kent should be sentenced to 6 years, fined 6000$, and discredited by everybody as a source
@@TheSkepTick He said it first, didn't want to steal his Wind, But I agree, 💯%...Your a Riot...! And, pain to my rib cage, get me Laughing, way to Hard..
10:40 - "just because they're vestigial, they can still have some use" The very definition of a vestigial structure is one that has a diminished or altered / adapted function. The whale's hip bones no longer function as an anchor point for the hind limbs, but have found a new use during coupling. The whale's hip bones are thus vestigial structures.
@@חפרקריסטל i mean, how stupid can one be to make, and distribute videos wherein he admits to it, for decades and think somehow the government, duly elected by the people, wouldn't come and take what is owed.
Forest was talking about analogous structures, but somehow Kent thought they're talking about homologous structures. Those are two completely different things. To confuse one for the other is to not know the difference.
@@TheSkepTick anytime! That was a pretty good David Attenborough impression lol... I wonder what Forrest must think of his whacking... I kinda want him to show his Darkside and obliterate him once and for all... send him back to the shadows whence he came... lmao
@@rs72098Well Kent isn't a scientist like many in his wheelhouse. So that's why it's a pejorative, they are simply too ignorant or complicit in the lie to even argue a cogent point.
The irony is that science didn't EVEN start with a blank slate. It started with the assumption that the Biblical creation story and global flood were true. Evidence accumulated to the point that scientists realized, oh, no, the earth is much older than that, not all layers were deposited in a single event, and the earth has never experienced a global flood. So they had to correct the science. Whereas creationists just kept lying and begging the question, even though they were the ones who got to start with the (incorrect) assumption of truth.
How DARE he come after Forrest! He is such a clever, enthusiastic, compassionate creator. He's an amazing teacher and he is so fun to listen to! And what is up with the stupid wee dig at the start? So what if you hadn't heard of him, Kent? Forrest is a gift. Kent is a punishment.
Really? I think kent is a gift... kinda... Cos, you see, its because of kent and his fellow creatards that religious people leaving religion en masse. They cant seem to take his crap anymore. Even my own aunt who scolded me for being an atheist is calling kent a dungheap. Imagine that...
Kent Hovind’s claims are based upon assumed conclusions that are not supported by evidence. Kent needs to prove that god exists, and prove that god created everything by magic. Yet Kent is trying to claim that Forrest’s analyses are assumed conclusions that are not based upon evidence. Kent is trying to defend an unfounded religious belief, by claiming that contradictory analyses are based upon an unfounded religious belief? I note how Kent quickly jumps into conspiracy theory mode, by asserting that Forrest Valkai is basing his assertions on what his funders want him to assert. Forrest Valkai is a very good chap, and I’d wager that Forrest is sick of creationists claiming that he believes that he came from a rock...or that animals magically ‘turn’ into something else.
As he's stated multiple times, Kent's "strongest" argument is that [his interpretation of] the Bible says that the entire universe was created in six literal days. We all know there are _many_ flaws in his belief from a scientific perspective. Even _Kent himself_ knows this, as we can see by his need to lie, repeatedly, to support his claims. But here's what I think is the biggest problem with his arguments: He's trying to make religious faith fit within a scientific model. Contrary to the common Christian persecution complex, science isn't trying to disprove God. Science deals _exclusively_ with the natural world and God, _by definition,_ is supernatural and therefore has nothing to do with science at all. Trying to apply scientific concepts to what is ostensibly a supernatural being is like trying to grade meats by the size of the trees they grow on--it's completely nonsensical. Worst of all is that, when religious beliefs are shown to be impossible by current scientific understanding, believers tend to fall back on their deity being capable of anything, including suspending the laws of nature at will. And if that's the case, why argue about what's possible at all? So, why the obsession with pretending their religious faith can make sense from a scientific perspective? In my opinion, the primary reason, possibly the _only_ reason for this extremely dishonest argument is so that they can pretend their faith should be taught in public school science classes. It isn't science and Kent knows it. He might be painfully stupid, but he's a liar, first and foremost.
I think it cause they have no faith and are scared behyond words of being wrong. That all the good deed will go unrewarded. All the evil they see will go unpunished. And something they spent building their lives around is wrong. So isntead of having faith the wanted to be told their right. Told their correct and will get what they want. They get to play and feal like the the hero fighting against the odd without any real danger to themselves. Kent love this cause with the info from that documentary about him Kent want to be seen as a great man. But he has nothing to offer. So he goes for the crowd that want to be told yes and I return Kent gets a bunch of yes men to use as he see fits.
You are absolutely right! I think these idiots are so up in arms because evolution simply does not fit into their 6000 year narrative. Nor does other sciences like geology and cosmology. And in order to keep their religious status quo they have to fight against science. They can't lose the grip on their followers. If their followers started believing in evolution and other sciences they might start to question the obserd claims in the Bible. And they can't have that now can they? And now that genetics has come along and proven evolution, again, they are scrambling to discredit that. I simply can not wait for someone to discover life somewhere else in the universe outside of the earth. Once that discovery is made these apologist idiots will have a lot of 'splainin to do! Why can't they be smart sky daddy preachers? Why can't they just say God created evolution? And why can't they just revise the Bible to include the billions and billions of years required to have the universe we have? Why couldn't God have poofed the universe into existence 13 billion years ago? If they did that they probably wouldn't be losing as many people that their religion is losing. You can only have reality slap you in the face so many times before you have to change your belief system, when the old system does not correlate to what you see in front of you. And as science figures more and more of our natural world out, apologists will have to just work harder and harder to keep their flock!
"Even Kent himself knows this" Kent once was dumb enough to discuss with Aron Ra. Kent stood no chance, because Aron Ra knows how to deal with people like Mr. Inmate. At a certain point in the discussion, Kent admitted that he is wrong. Just to go on with the same BS afterwards once the discussion was over. Since then, Kent never again mentioned Aron Ra and I guess he passed this knowledge over to his sidekick Mr. Peelboy Powell. Not sure however where to find the discussion, probably somewhere in the depths of Aron Ra's youtube channel.
Dunking on reactionaries is always right. And defending great teachers like Forrest is also good. Glad you're stepping in, because he's a great teacher and I have learned so much from him and thus deserves some praise.
Man, it must have been hard to say "Says the man with unaccredited credentials." If you look in a dictionary and look for the word irony, Kent's picture would be there.
As a scientist, I am acutely aware of how scientific knowledge deep within several extremely technical fields has important limits. Every sentence Hovind utters demonstrate how stupidity fueled by narcissistic arrogance, sadly, does not. Hovind and his kind (poke intended - what's more, unlike these people, I can exactly define what I mean by it) make a lot of noise about their supposed supreme morality; yet believing that one is entitled to coerce other people into submission to a dogma consisting of a mix of incoherent nonsense and demonstrably false assertions is about the most immoral position it is possible to hold.
I can unfortunately imagine the hell of having Kent as your bio teacher. He’s so mean. He talks down to people and calls them “boy”. I can just picture him talking like that to students in front of the whole class.
I would like to add that the science presentations that I've found the most boring were creationist. Even fell asleep in the theater over a creationist documentary back when I was still a christian in the church youth group, it remains the only movie I've fallen asleep in the theater over, and my eyes glazed over here when Kent started going on about homology, while Forrest has my full attention.
All I'm seeing here is an old senile man going Nuh uh against someone with actual knowledge of evolution. Thanks for the video, skepTick! Great work as always!
The frustrating thing about Kent is that literally every argument from him is nothing more than a long argument from personal incredulity, bolstered by lies, misrepresentation of data, and ad hominem attacks. It’s the same ineffective and infuriatingly boring playbook EVERY. DAMN. TIME. Really, can anyone explain to me why we bother to deal with Kent or Eric anymore?
@@TheSkepTick I'm sure your time will come my friend. He always goes after anyone who doesn't believe in his big book of fairy tales. And welcome to the USA by the way.
@@TheSkepTick Dam, your not so Special feeling???? You acheive someday.... Kent is Slow as we all know, but this Video will Light his Ire, and Soon you also will be Wacked. Just wait Skep✅, you'll have your Day. Don't🥺 be 😢😭.. I wait for your, Awesome reply video, when that day come's. Gonna buy some Pop-corn for it, and a Bottle of Whiskey.. Just for that...
@@TheSkepTick Don't worry, Kent is desperate for views, so he just goes through all the Atheist RUclipsrs (at least the English speaking once) ... You are on his list somewhere ... That sounds like a threat ... damn xD
Great video as always! I really wish that Kent would try to debate his position rather than just shouting "wrong" over and over. I'm sure he's a con man and doesn't actually believe this stuff; it's all just for the money.
He's not a con man. He doesn't inspire confidence, he lacks the skills to con anyone with half a braincell. Also, the chump thinks it's a-ok to beat women just because he has a tiny "crucifix", so we can safely say that he's no man, either.
I love Forrest! This is just so sad. I wish I had Forrest as a teacher when I was doing science, I would have enjoyed it much more than my "christian science classes" which REQUIRED me to use Answers in Genesis as a resource to pass!
@@TheSkepTick That's Liberty University (And Liberty University Online Academy) for you! Homeschooled all my life by religious schools. Thanks for the great and entertaining videos, truly helps with the deconverting.
yup. and kents "teaching experience' is all in baptist schools, forcing more religious nonsense into science. He was indoctrinated and brainwashed young, and has never let up since. his only actual education is from an unaccredited baptist college. So he's not even a doctor like he claims(ed) to be. (I think lately he got in legal trouble and dropped the title, adopting Doctor Dino with his stupid fake theme park) Kent needs to go to jail again, for the rest of his life, just to keep him from abusing more people, conning them, and brainwashing them.
I would have proudly failed, and left that indoctrination centre. Even if you went your entire life without any schooling, you'd better off than having your head filled with crap as you'd have had to work those years so you'd be 18 with 12 years of work experience instead of 12 years of horseshit in your head.
Omg ur impression of David Attenborough is freaking amazing. I could close my eyes and hear your impression and be completely fooled because you're that close. Keep up the good work.!!!
1) Nope, that is proof of a creator using existing parts...... 2) Nope, DNA is so complex it can't be created from nothing. More complex than the spaceshuttle.....
@@Rob2000 Well, that's indeed what a creationist who don't know much about DNA could say at first. But I heard enough about DNA from real scientists to realise those arguments wouldn't last longer than a peace of bacon in the kennels if they were brought in a debate with someone who has the relevant knowledge. :)
@@Rob2000 oh wow, you can regurgitate nonsense! You have to first demonstrate a creator before you can use that creator to explain literally anything, especially when the non creator example has tonnes of scientific paperwork to show how their explanation works. Modern DNA isn't the first DNA, and if you want to understand how Modern DNA came about, I advise you go read actual scientific papers. I'll give you some hints, if it's got a cover, or a grabby title, or can be bought at a bookstore, it's not a scientific paper. It's going to have a lot of big words you won't understand, but thats what a dictionary is for.
@@Thoron_of_Neto I was sarcastic and gave the standard YEC answers :) I'm a hard core evolutionist. I worked with recombination of DNA to nudge yeast to produce something else.
Why anyone would debate Ken or have him on to debate someone is beyond me. He says the same thing, "dogs only produce dogs" and "that's dumb" and "2 plus 2 is 4." I'd gladly come on in Ken's stead and repeat his "nuh uhh" talking points.
I wonder how Kent would react in a debate if someone responded to one of his questions by smiling and then saying "I'm sorry, it's just that you're beneath contempt".
These so called 'Whack an Atheist' videos are a joke, just like everything else Kent says. The only person Kent actually 'whacks' in them is himself, but he doesn't seem to realise that.
He wouldn't, because it's the idiots that sit in the room with him, and bleat out how right he is, then "donate" to his embezzlement ranch... I mean, dinosaur Adventureland park
Kent's focus on homologous structures reminds me of flat-earthers claiming one anomaly they find "proves" the Earth is flat. He's a flat-earther for creation.
@@Thoron_of_Neto he ain't a flat earther.... There are globe-earthers that are creationists, they are more in population than flat earther creationists.
It should be noted, that Luca is theoretical. It's entirely possible that abiogenisis occurred more than once. Spontaneous assembly of nucleic acids isn't all that rare.
I love how Kent calls evolution a religion to discredit it, thereby admitting religion is something to not be taken seriously lol. Absolute genius
"Evolution is a religion and as we all know, religions are full of crap and are stupid ... wait ... yes, religions are full of crap and are stupid! So take that evolution!" I do love when they first turn something that doesn't need a god into a religion and then shit on religion. Makes perfect sense considering _their_ position. 🤡🌍
While I don’t like Kent, I think this is disingenuous. Kent isn’t stupid, he’s just a liar. He’ll say whatever can push his message, even if it’s not internally consistent with his other arguments. I believe he’s trying to drag evolution to the same level of creationism, or say it’s believed in blind faith unlike Christianity and more akin to other religions.
@@BootupProcess idu what's wrong with the original commenter's interpretation
I do understand your point, but it can still be a decent argument. If you can make a case for evolution to follow similar logic as religion does (taking stuff on faith and not just on empirical evidence and deduction), you can at least make the case that creationism is as valid as evolution and either position can be taken on faith. It's still not where Hovind wants to be, but it's better than allowing a situation in one postion is empirically true (or very very very very likely) and the other relies on faith.
@Louie Berg a scientific method & consensus peer review have nothing to do with faith. Modern Evolutionary theory is incredibly well supported. Nothing in creationism is. Kent has no accredited degree & is simply an abusive conman.. Forrest is highly educated on the topic.
Kent likes to do 'Whack an Atheist" because he found out that he isn't allowed to "Whack a wife."
That is a good one.
Or his kids.
@@Katarn84 Not for any of his wives...
#Roasted
DAAAAAMN😂
"If you believe we came from rocks, that's wrong." - Says the guy that believes that we literally came from dirt.
Now, now, be fair. Some of us came from a rib, taken from the original dirt man.
And dirt is tiny particles of...what, exactly?
Right on🤣😂
That’s gold!
It's okay if the magical being took the dirt and breathed life into it....
Except, of course, it's the Kabbalah-types, nor others, and, of course, that's not legit...?
Forrest and Erika are two of the nicest and literate biologists creationists will never beat.
And Kent on the other hand was not even prepared to discuss basic Paleontology with Conspiracy Catz, a (now former) Middle School teacher that only taught basic biology and science.
A biologist that denies biology. Funny.😂😂
Forrest is not biologist , he is a failed biology teacher , Their is a big difference , one teaches a curriculum based on the science and the other writes science from observations.
@@reneportillo532 yeah kent is a jerk.
@@ossiedunstan4419 Forrest has two degrees in education and biology and is studying a post grad in bioanthropology. But sure, just a ‘failed teacher’.
Wow, Kent’s friend (or sex slave, trying to figure it out) Matt actually had good advice for Kent regarding not bothering with Forrest Valkai! Forrest Valkai is one of the smartest of all those who defend science, specifically evolutionary biology and has never been stumped; he debunks creationists’ arguments every time. The live Atheist show he does here and there with a cohost (I think it’s “The Atheist Experience”), Christian callers always have some sort of “gotcha” for the hosts but Forrest always has a very logical answer. He’s my favorite of all the scientists who debunk creationism and always has an answer at the top of his head regarding evolution; even “I don’t know”. Remember those words creationists. They are what separate humility and arrogance.
I wonder how many of those Christian callers he says "I don't know" to follow up by acting as if not having all the answers was a bad thing
@Dragonmoon98 Saying "I don't know" with God on their side equals blasphemy.
I don't know becomes God did it and they can never defer to anything else.
@@Dragonmoon98 A lot. It happens all the time. Skeptics aren't afraid to say they don't know something while (most) religions require shoving god into any unknown rather than looking for actual answers...
Love how Kent implies that being a "religious preacher" is something bad, and that such people shouldn't be trusted.
It is. 😳🤨 And they shouldn't.
As if he's projecting.
@@leegoddard2618 I don't think they shouldn't be trusted, but that those without evidence shouldn't be trusted.
He's wrong about practically everything else, but he's right about that. I know I'm not the only one who instinctively trusts people less, the more religious they are. Preachers and professional apologists are the least trustworthy of all (with rare exceptions). And at the peak of that mountain of dishonesty is Kent Hovind.
@@Regrettedink39 What ??? ALL religious preachers are con artists. god is Not "real".
The absolute irony of Kent calling Forrest a religious preacher in a derogatory manner 💀
@Censored Opinions - gold medallist in mental gymnastics
@@Luubelaar gold? Dude, that was downright double platinum. Kent is so dense, i fear that one day, black holes would form around him.
@Censored Opinions It hinges on his belief that other people can't detect such duplicity. He can say anything. He assumes you aren't following what he's saying, but that you will agree simply because he's up there talking as if he was always right. All he wants is to hear his followers say _"Amen, brother!"_
The lack of self awareness has always baffled me
@@WCM1945 "All he wants is to hear his followers say "Amen, brother!""
And to hear the coins clinking in the collection box, tax-free.
Forrest definitely doesn't "need" anyone to defend him from whackjob Kenny, but he's also probably the single nicest atheist science communicator who absolutely doesn't deserve any of this bullshit, so thank you for stepping up for him, favourite floating circle 😊
👏 boys(?) supporting boys
@@Romanticoutlaw Boy? Children believe in Fairy Tales, not everyone is an overgrown child. Some put aside childish Fantasy and become adults and LEARN.
It’s funny how Kent wants to say look where the money comes from about scientists, but the last time I checked it was way more lucrative to be a televangelist than a scientist.
I watched kent religiously when I was a teen. In fact he is the one that led me to becoming a Christian through his seminars. Now that I'm not a Christian anymore I can't believe I ever fell for his arguments.
To be fair, your prefrontal cortex wasn't well-developed, and your education may have been sorely lacking in critical thought.
Yikes. The fact that he manages to recruit gullible and/or uneducated folk with his willfully ignorant and flagrantly deceptive bullshit is depressing. Though, I'm certainly glad you learned to think critically and managed to climb your way out of that hole of deceit they call religion (creationism, in particular). Kent is definitely one of the most despicable individuals conceivable.
Same. Glad you got out of there before things got really bad.
Would love to see you debate him on why you left this "cult" / religion to help and prevent others from falling pray to him.
"everything counts as evidence for your religion"
The lack of self-awareness is staggering
Religion wouldn't exist in an age with a printing press if it wasn't one of the most common flaws in people.
BUT LOOK AT THE TREES!
any level of self awareness would lead one to the conclusion that religion is caused by fear of death
@@stylis666 if they didn't stop all their followers from reading their holy book for thousands of years until it was so ingrained there is no way religion would survive, absolutely.
@@zogar8526 Dang, I have almost as hard a time understanding your comment as I have understanding my own, reading it back now.
What I wanted to say is that if a lack of self awareness wasn't as common as it is, the access to knowledge would've ended religion a long time ago.
But I think you have a good point as well in saying that because it was already an ingrained part of culture before access to knowledge grew and I think that the culture and how it evolved is helping in perpetuating the problems because anti intellectualism is still super normalized in most if not all countries.
People in general are more likely to want to listen to straight forward and clear language, even if it's not supported with evidence than they are to listen to evidence, because the latter is boring and the straight shooters often present simple black and white solutions to fears and frustrations people have.
I think we'd already make great steps if people saw the irony when they are scared into voting for and parroting fear mongers like that and then complain that "the left" is causing a divide and trying to manipulate people into supporting some agenda.
If people realized that all of our brains are hardwired to always face toward danger, they'd be able to realize how that is utilized/abused by religions and extremists alike to grab their attention and sell them "a cure". And that _maybe_ it's a good idea to spend some time actually understanding what is being discussed or straw manned instead of letting people feed our frustrations and fears even more. More fear and frustration gives the illusion of control while distracting from ways to understand what we're dealing with, while more information gives us actual control on how we look at things and deal with them.
For those of you who have never watched Forrest Valkai, MAKE SURE TO GO WATCH HIM! He’s amazing, and actually takes the time to explain how science works as he debunks Young Earth Creationists. I’ve probably learned more about science from him than any of my previous science classes combined.
This! All this!
@Mike Hawk Are we talking about the same person? Forrest is an evolutionary biologist and educator (he goes out to schools to teach them about science), and explains science in a very detailed way. Kent meanwhile, has repeatedly lied about his teachings and degrees, and his arguments are just “no, no, and no”. They are nothing alike.
Also, ‘Lost-in-the-Forrest”? Amazing name-calling and totally valid argument.
@Mike Hawk Are you suggesting that teaching science is the same as preaching? You're aware that a lot of people became atheist because they learned about science and realized it made much more sense, right? There's a difference between trying to convince someone to believe in something, and teaching them facts so they can decide for themselves. Kent Hovind wants us to join his cult of mindless zombies, while Forrest wants us to learn about science. I fail to see any similarities.
@Mike Hawk Your ad hominem fallacy aside, you're saying Valkai doesn't know what he's talking about? Can you be more specific?
@Mike Hawk why exactly do you think Forrest doesn't know what he is talking about? He is an evolutionary biologist and an educator. What is your expertise to call him out? What is that he gets wrong? Can you give some examples? Or better yet, take one of his videos and make one of your own end explain how he is wrong and present the evidence to back up your position.
Good thing Kent doesn't actually try to "whack" anyone literally... except his former wife, I guess ._.
Lol gotem
And his kids.
Savage
Too soon... XD
Don't forget that one 13-year old kid who was visiting DAL that Kent bodyslammed, who ex-wife Mary Tocco recalls watching "in horror as [Kent] attacked this young boy like he went insane."
Forrest neither dodged a sledgehammer nor was wacked hard. He gracefully side stepped a strike with a feather and then unleashed one of those maglev super seed trains from Japan of science.
@6:27 I love this bit... He absolutely calls out creationists for trying to find anything that even remotely supports their pre-supposed conclusions. He hits the nail square on the head, and the best Kent can do in response is "No, you do that!"...
No, Kent, you're the one doing that. Your rant right there is pure projection. Everyone's been telling you for years that this is what you do because you quite clearly do it and deep down you're well aware of it. Deflecting that criticism directly back at us is astonishingly pathetic...
You give him too much credit. He's too stupid to be self aware in any capacity. Maybe I'm wrong and he's not, in that case then he's just pure evil* for knowingly spreading lies and misinformation. But I'm pretty sure it's just that he's stupid.
* evil as defined by our collective morals of "don't intentionally mislead for your own profit" not the religious Evil.
“No atheists were harmed in the making of this video.”
Yeah, it’s hard to hurt anybody when you’re swinging a wet noodle.🤡
LMFAO!
Depends on the temperature of the noodle. One right out of the water can cause some damage. (I in absolutely no way agree with Kent Hovind, in fact I hope there’s briefly a hell for him to go to).
@@katashworth41 Oh yeah... Definitely..
I eat cup noodles and I always add a pinch of chicken flavor powder and tabasco.
A hot noodle has swung salty and spicy water at my eye before and it isn't a nice experience.
😂
@@iAtheist4Life This is where I’m glad I’m bad with spice, I’m never going to rub my eyes after cutting a chilli. My partner might, but he knows what not to do.
That's an insult to noodles
One big issue with creationism is that even if you could disprove evolution, you would have to take it a step further and explain why god created things like vestigial structures, or parasites, or a really hostile universe…
Or mosquitoes or botflies or ringworm or gonorrhea or botulism or malaria or sickle cell anemia or Down Syndrome or Tay-Sachs disease…or…or…or…
First of all you would have to prove that such god exists
and that 95% of his perfect creations are already extinct.
My favourite is the Epomis beetle. Don’t look it up if you are squeamish! Only a very nasty god could have created that little bundle of sadism…
"He works in mysterious ways" is the typical catch-all straw man counterargument.
Debating a creationist is like playing chess with a pigeon. The pigeon will knock over the pieces, shit on the board and strut around like it won.
quote has been said so many times. just stop already 😒
@@clif26 But the analogy is SO DAMN ACCURATE
@@DinosaurianDude is it now? I've never played chess with a pigeon, so i wouldn't know. but, i do play chess.
hahaha 🤣. touchè.
seriously though, you're right. it's a good analogy. take care out there.
@@clif26 Once Kent stops his “you believe you came from a rock” craptastic strawman, I might be persuaded to not immediately laugh uproariously at your demand and see if you have any arguments of non-negative value …
Until then the shoe seems to fit you perfectly.
@@advorak8529 i dont know man. its just redundant to read the same analogies over again. that was my point. obviously you looked to much into it. but , whatever.
Holy shit, that Sir Attenborough impression was actually really damn good.
The funny thing is, Kent showed so many "textbook" examples of homologous structures in his video, I felt he did more to further the evolutionary argument than his own beliefs, especially given his complete lack of evidence for the "designer" hypothesis.
Kent is one of the most dishonest interlocutors you could ever encounter.
Forrest Valkai is a real scientist and educator, unlike someone else I could mention. *Cough!* *_Kent Hovind!_* *Cough!*
Kent is not as smart as a fart.
Kent is just a liar. Watch his debate with Catz on 'A Marvel Girl''s channel. "I wasn't prepared for that" has become his middle name.
@@freddan6fly ugh, I missed that. Thx for the tipp, gonna go watch and have a few laughs.
@@DonXardas Catz even made a song, now with his giveaway of channels to McToon and Mr Sensible, I can't find more than a copy of the song without Catz funny animation. Search for "Dr Hovind Is Not Prepared for That."
Edit found it at "Mr Baldy Sensible Catz" as video "Teaching Kent Hovind about Isochron Dating" at around 8:20
@@freddan6fly nice. Thx mate.
As many times as Kent has had his ass handed to him, you'd think he'd grasp the fact he's been so wrong for so long.
The Delusion is strong in this one.
I fully believe he knows but he's a very wealthy man and that wealth depends on him continuing to spout the crap his religious book says, so he will continue with the grift.
KENT IS A CREATIONIST.
Why would anyone think he can grasp much of anything.
As long as Kent as people to follow him and full his delusion he'll keep at it.
Just my thought. It's all about money. America, the more b.lsh.it you call around the more money you bring in.
Your impersonation of Sir David Attenborough was the Best. Thing. Ever.
Funny how Forrest mentioned “analogous structures” and Kent immediately launched into a prepared sermon about “homologous structures”. 🤣
love forrests video's. he is a great teacher
Forrest: *discusses a ton of science*
Kent: ..........Nuh-uh!
🙄
That’s basically it!
That was way more fluent and well-spoken than Kent ever is.
Yup usual "Whale Rock Chevrolet Tornado gives birth to a Cat Dog Banana" ... the strawiest straw man that was ever made of straw.
Kent could best be described as a "conman for god". He always wants to "debate evolution" and yet he has never once debated anything resembling evolution
I dunno, all around scumbag seems to encompass more of Hovind.
Oh he has.
Just that his definition of evolution includes almost everything that has nothing to do with evolution. Cosmology and abiogenesis being the main topics.
@@lidbass It's always peculiar to hear/watch him talk or debate or whatever else, is always a strange experience. It's like someone would ask me about hard water filters and I would start by explaining the discovery of metallurgy, and even then I think my example might have more sense than his explanations.
Yeah... Kent Bovine is "debunking" evolution by making stupid claims like "You're dumb if you think that whales evolved from trees"...
Or... just a "conman."
"Whacking", obviously Kents favourite argument in any dispute. He even went to jail for it! :D
I have had some horrible teachers in my day... but I am thankful that every single one of them was a better teacher than Kent.
I CAN'T BELIEVE just how many times he said something that was more true of himself than Forrest. The biggest was trying to say "Well it's in the book so it must be true" as a way to discredit the idea when that is the FOUNDATION of hus religion
His main problem is that evolution is taught and creation is not. His goal is to either teach both or neither.
@@ChibiCuna There's nothing to teach. "God did it" ain't exactly a riveting lesson.
And that's ignoring the fact that evolution, even if unproven, is still the better model according to Occam's Razor since God hasn't been proven and the natural mechanics and components that are prerequisites for evolution have.
I think Kent is an energy vampire. I feel drained every time I hear him talk.
You may have a very valid point.
While his followers merely feel their wallets being drained.
Kent is an intelligence vacuum!
Just look at it as a comedy act. It becomes almost irresistible to watch!
I agree. He upsets me to the core more than any other apologist.
Kent failed miserably, he’s got a serious god delusion. Excellent work SkepTick, your work is important for the progress of humanity. Don’t stop, irrational apologists are everywhere; it’s astounding the amount of fictional garbage humans on this world believe, the brain-rot is ubiquitous. For humanity to make progress these delusions must be exposed. 👍🏽 tons of work to do! Thank you SkepTick!
I would love to see Forrest debate him, though from this video i doubt this guy could be respectful and not resort to just name calling and repeating 'you're wrong!' without offering an actual evidence. But i love hearing Forrest being clear and undeterred and i always learn something new from him😊
Yup, one of my current favourite things is listening to Forrest on call-in shows, him getting literally any question and listening to him just completely nerd out for 20 minutes, while his co-host sits there in appreciation. I could never be as passionate about anything as much as Forrest is about bioanthropology
I wouldn't want Forrest to damage his brain, even listening to Hamm. Hamm is toxic.
Hovinds entire argument can be summed up with, "No. YOU ARE!" Combined with, "Wrong! Next."
I've come to learn it's actually pointless to argue with a creationist. In one of my lectures I listened to from wondrium, one lecture talked about the misconceptions about science, which evolved from philosophy and was called natural philosophy. Creationism is basically anti science. They don't wanna learn. They don't wanna understand. They've already made up their mind that everything they don't agree with is wrong.
I have no interest in trying to convince the interlocutor but rather those in the audience who are not being confronted and doubling-down from fight-or-flight cognitive dissonance. The curious and open-minded audience can safely observe the Creationist interlocutor having his intellectual ass handed to them.
@@richardmcquade8267 Exactly.
It's not about the dishonest creationist one is debating, they are either already lost to the idiocy that is creationism or they know it is all bullshit, but they get payed enough, so they don't care that they are ruining peoples life with that bullshit ...
It's about the people listening to them, it's about the people reading those comments ... and it's about the children, that are indoctrinated into those cults ...
It's about the people one does not talk to, but who are still there and are watching ... if only one realises what a piece of shit most creation apologists are, that's a win, as it may lead to one less person suffering from this misinformation ...
The point of a debate rarely is to convince the person you're debating, but to convince the audience. Kent is too far gone, but some of the audience watching the debate may be sitting on the fence and a good debate may make them leave the cult of creationism.
The point is always to try to inform an audience. The thing with someone so incredibly dishonest, arrogant, abusive, wilfully ignorant and stupid as Hovind is to always remember that antagonising you is a deliberate aim. They relentlessly try to provoke a harsh response with bullshit and then abuse, against which they can then cast themselves as the poor little righteous holy victim. You can clearly see it here. It's probably under-appreciated that these kinds of people operate by trying to set up psychodramas with three basic roles: Oppressor/Tyrant (pure projection onto someone with knowledge who doesn't submit to them), Righteous Victim/Martyr (them), and Saviour/Rescuer (usually their invisible imaginary Grand Overlord who supposedly promises to put a big bitch-smiting down on Oppressor).
Well, you know what they say. Never argue with an idiot, because they would drag you to their level and then beat you with experience.
Kent is trying to introduce us to real science, like Gods and Faires and Unicorns and Demigods and Wizards and Giants and Magic. Truly the pinnacle of scientific thought, or the setup for my next d&d campaign
I'm sorry to tell you but in a d&d campaign has more logic and reason than in Kents videos, imagine a session if people act like him:
DM: "you are in a tavern..."
player 1: "NO, THAT'S DUMB, we start at the the 'start' square"
DM: "we are not playing monopoly, that a all other game"
player 1: "YOUR GAME IS DUMB AND YOU TELL PEOPLE LEIS..."
player 2: "I cast fire ball and kills player 1"
DM: "thank you"
@@חפרקריסטל "in fact, the gods bless you, not only retaining your spell slot, but automatically doing max damage."
@@חפרקריסטל Sadly killing player 1 does not make them vanish from the room ... so Kent is still there, whining about it, he is just unable to participate in the game anymre ... >.
"If it's homologuous, or if it's different, it's both evidence for Evolution" yes Kent, because you voluntary misrepresents science. Evolution was precisely proposed BECAUSE we made all those observations. The fact that it can accurately represents everything in nature is a GOOD THING!
question because the transphobe who made this video refused to answer it but: is what kent said true about the similar structures having different genetics at play? If so, doesn't that pretty much entirely debunk the idea and theory of evolution? How can similar structures be indicative of evolution, if their genetics have no similarities?
@@Otome_chan311 Similar structures will arise from natural selection. The way the genes expresses those similarities can be vastly different, it does not matter. What is debunking evolution in that? See, different genes expressing similar structure can perfectly be explained using evolution. And about that transphobe comment... are you OK?
@@Otome_chan311 Your troll comment is too complex for me to explain to myself, I have to admit...
@@Otome_chan311No, what works in nature simply works. Eyes have evolved multiple times in multiple species. Wings have evolved multiple times in multiple species. It's just about external stimuli, change the stimuli and you will change evolution. Let's say the oceans warm up by 3 degrees world wide, that change would kill off those that couldn't handle it. The ones that survived would go on to pass their genetics forward, genetics that allows for higher temperature resilience.
This is Matrix level SkepTick…I’m watching a person react to a video of a person reacting to a video, of another person reacting to a video…love it 😂❤
I’m definitely going to see if I can do more reactions to reactions, reacting to further reactions.
Hahahaha😂 your david attenborough (i think that's how it's spelled) impersonation was freakin spot on.
That convicted criminal hasn't said anything worthwhile in decades. No matter what nonsense that guy spews forth, you can find clips of people debunking every single point he makes. Multiple of them. And even though he has been prooven wrong countless times, he still uses the same talking points.
This comment implies he has at some point said something worthwhile. I'm gonna need a citation on that. Lol.
@@jasonibbs His worth to us comes from him demonstrating precisely how not to defend a belief.
@@RichWoods23 ok, I'll accept that. :)
@@jasonibbs
If you like to laugh, his sovereign citizen shtick in court before he was put in federal prison is worthwhile. Not because it is correct... but because it is hilarious how incorrect it is.
There's a lot of money in affirming a God.
Oh man... My first thought was "Oh, I would Love to see Forrest respond to this" but after watching it I'm a bit dismayed, because there's really nothing to respond to. Just 15 minutes of Kent going "Nuh uh, yur stoopid".
I'm starting to think we saw so little of Forrest here because Kent realized just how good he is at his job at explaining things.
And today we learned that Kent doesn’t know what the words vestigial, homologous, and analogous even mean. Bit tricky to disprove things when you don’t know what they are.
Well ok, that was a lie. We didn’t learn that today. We’ve known that for as long as he has been talking about evolution. And by talking I mean strawmanning.
If Forrest got whacked by anything it was a soggy strand of spaghetti that disintegrated on impact.
It's easier to argue against words like "vestigial, homologous and analogous" when you use YOUR definition rather than the meaning used in science. It's like using the common meaning of theory rather than the scientific meaning of a Theory.
He also has his own definitions of "pay taxes" and "don't hit people, especially your wife and kids".
He doesn't know the difference between sex and gender also.
@@joshuataber9848 True, but that is a more wide-spread issue. Sex and gender are very commonly used words, and commonly used interchangeably even though they shouldn't be. Even sources that aren't (at least not technically) religious get that wrong very publicly, so it's understandable that people who don't look into it more can get it wrong. Not that I'm defending Kent here - he's been corrected enough times that he knows he's wrong.
Vestigial, analogous, and homologous are far less common words. Harder to get wrong because if you are actually using them, especially in a biological/evolutionary context you've probably been doing some studying on the topic and don't really have an excuse to get their definitions as wrong as he does. The basics of them are not exactly complicated, and he doesn't even get that right.
He is the most dishonest grifter of creationist, but he's so entrenched in creationism, he would lose everything by admitting he knows he's lying.
@ odin..Yeah tbh Kent usnt as dumb to really believe his own shit..He like trump...enough if you can sell it.
Here we are playing 3D chess and Ken is sticking the playing cards in his nose.
Checks out.
Kent is a greedy foolish fool. I cannot stand this silly man.
Forrest is the opposite, smart and actually has evidence for his science.
Thanks The SkepTick your videos are amazing and I thank you.
The bible says that the fool despises wisdom and turns away from knowledge, which is what Kent is doing.
@@justinlindfors8512 The bible also says that if you make horses fuck around a stripped pole you get a zebra offspring...
@@justinlindfors8512 the wise man has not seen, yet believed. and a fool is someone who does *not* readily believe extraordinary claims on insufficient evidence i.e. "says in his heart there is no god".
those are the equally biblical definitions kent picks and chooses when he takes the bible literally. and of course, there's clearly not a single contradiction in the bible even though what you wrote probably is in there, too.
Spectacularly narcissistic, abusive, dishonest, self-entitled, self-righteous, arrogant and stupid beyond belief. What's not to love?
@@darrynreid4500 Absolutely you are spot on!
I think this is just feeding the trolls. This clown repeats the same inaccuracies that he's been corrected on multiple times. I'm pretty sure he doesn't care about making points to people who are scientifically literate, he just wants to reinforce the cultists who already follow him and maybe ensnare a few vulnerable minds along the way
So true. It's not about converting people it's about retaining the non critical thinkers that support his cult. I'm glad Christianity had lost more members over the past 10 years than any other time in history. And creationists wonder why people are leaving the church. Because their bigoted views.
Its the vulnerable minds I'm concerned about. Those who are in are grown up enough to walk away, but choose not to. Its the young teenage viewer that is at a philosophical existential crossroads (as I was) who are most susceptible to this kind of chicanery.
I really don’t think Kent cares all too much about the typical core tenants of Christianity given how readily he brushes off other Christian authorities, more qualified than him, should they call him out. He refuses to study his own holy book, beyond reading the KJV, yet insists that he knows it. Being able to recite a line from an outdated translation doesn’t equal understanding. Kent will use the parts of Christianity that he likes in order to reinforce his inflated self importance as well as his persecution complex. The same reason he clings to his conspiracy theories.
Kent is of course not an honest actor but this still needs to be done. It’s not for hovinds sake but the victims of his grift and so Charlatans like this don’t go unchecked.
He can't admit ever being wrong or his followers will crucify him.
Personally I would not debate and share a screen with Hovind considering what he and some of his friends have done. Disgusting!
“Call Standing for Truth” … a “Christian Ministry Defending the Truth of Biblical Creation”. Yeah, that seems totally unbiased.
You stood up for Forrest. One of the most wholesome, loving, and amazing beings I’ve seen speak for atheists. A super smart biologist too. You have earned a new subscriber mysterious circle in the sky. Should I start a cult for you? We could make it funny! Or we could make some money. You tell me what you’d rather like 😂🖤
Thanks Moros! I appreciate it. We have a rainbow giraffe cult. 😅
Oh my friend, at first I heard what you had to say. Now you have my attention 🧐😏
@@TheSkepTick this giraffe would make the world happier than a jealous foreskin loving god of Jews😇
That was an off the hook imitation of Attenborough! Well done 😂😂😂
Agree. It was a solid impression.
Kent has been doing this for years... noticed that he challenge a debate for "one topic", that's how he controls the narrative because when you bring up something else (even when it's extremely relevant), he will dismiss the line of questioning due to "not being related to the topic". The guy's a piece of work...
It is also how he deflects all critique of his own position, as he just states that bible answers everything and "I haven't seen anything wrong in it, so it is true", but If you try to have any conversation about that, it is not the point of the discussion, even though he bases all of his arguments on it.
Kind of funny when his "one topic" can make Big Bang theory and Abiogenesis part of Evolution. He dictates rules we always break.
@@Trombi01 I know right?
"Evolution's wrong because Book!"
Then let's talk about the book, the basis of your "evidence".
"No."
@@jujuplayboy It's hilarious when people he debates actually try to pin him down on one topic. He tries to dodge around them like he's playing frogger.
And even when we stick to the topic, we end up with "I'm not prepared for that"
the duckodile keeps on getting funnier and funnier. the fact he thinks thats what evolution is means he truly doesnt care if its true or not. but i think thats pretty clear even without it
Of course he doesn't care. His fundy religion has made him a very rich man. Why would he want to change?
I thought it was Kent's baby picture.
DVD "Things that Kent Hovind don't think so"
Also, that impersonation of sir David Attenborough is top notch!
Appreciate it!
Forest actually said he would debate Powell. But the boy backed out when one of the stipulations of releasing the debate unedited on both channels was brought up. Shows that matt knows he can't win and that he is knowingly deceiving his audience.
Forrest could debate Kent while asleep. I love how Kent claims to believe everything in the bible is completely true, but says flat earthers are dumb, even though in the bible it literally says the earth is flat.
What is the saying about debating with fools? It brings you down to their level or so?
and more; it gives them the illusion they are of your level.
Debating Kent is like playing chess with a pigeon. He'll knock the board over, scatter the pieces, crap all over everything, and declare victory.
Yeah, because Kent has been using the same script for years. Forrest could prerecord his response and be done with it.
The problem is Kent will whine and throw a tantrum when the other person makes valid and good points by saying they're going outside the scope of the debate or do strawman arguments but when he gets called on his bs throws another tantrum that the other person is being mean, unfair, etc
Being eternally punished for trying to ingest from the Tree of Knowledge that was deliberately placed in the center of the yard by the responsible parent makes one wonder.
'Raise up a child 'What to think' rather than 'How to think' and when they are older they not easily depart from it.' Proverbs 22:6, (paraphrased) is nowadays known as religious indoctrination/ childhood brainwashing.
I wonder how Kent got such a strong whacking hand? Was that his domestic violence hand or he is lonely with a sock hand.
Not necessarily different hands.
He said he got his “strong forehand smash” from all those years of playing tennis. He said this during a seminar where he admitted to beating his kid because he wanted him to fear him.
@@Magekind Idk I wouldn't want my partners blood on my spanking hand. But then again he probably gets off on that.
@@MrMild-sv7is that... is him confessing to child abuse, a FELONY. Kent should be sentenced to 6 years, fined 6000$, and discredited by everybody as a source
10:38….. “maybe this is why I have tiny hips”. LOL That was awesome Tick!!!
I’m glad someone enjoyed that joke! 😂
@@TheSkepTick He said it first, didn't want to steal his Wind, But I agree, 💯%...Your a Riot...!
And, pain to my rib cage, get me Laughing, way to Hard..
24:52 Forrest did not "dodge a creationist shaped sledgehammer". He deftly dodged a wet, soggy, creationist shaped noodle.
10:40 - "just because they're vestigial, they can still have some use"
The very definition of a vestigial structure is one that has a diminished or altered / adapted function. The whale's hip bones no longer function as an anchor point for the hind limbs, but have found a new use during coupling.
The whale's hip bones are thus vestigial structures.
Kent: "Nope, you're wrong" means nothing without a good reason.
"Nope you're wrong" without a why and how just means the person is an idiot and their comments can be disregarded.
30+ years and “you believe we came from a rock” is still his greatest argument.
Also, the way he pronounces “t” in waTer drives me nuts.
WAH-ter.
And he sounds pretty damn close to Ross Perot.
@@leftbas65 Holy crap… he does lol
I haven't watched the video yet but did everyone's favorite inmate really try to whack Forrest Valkai? Oh boy...
He's known as 06452017 because he wasn't smart enough to pay his taxes.
@@InterestsMayVary2234 and thought everyone else to stupid to catch his very obious tax fraud.
Jake Paul challenging Connor McGregor type beat
I like these videos.. but I seriously doubt that Forrest is going to need help for a long time.
@@חפרקריסטל i mean, how stupid can one be to make, and distribute videos wherein he admits to it, for decades and think somehow the government, duly elected by the people, wouldn't come and take what is owed.
Forest was talking about analogous structures, but somehow Kent thought they're talking about homologous structures. Those are two completely different things. To confuse one for the other is to not know the difference.
imagining studying your whole life then called a sold out by a guy who has a fake doctrate
Kent “I didn’t watch it all …”
Which pretty much sums him up in a nutshell, the attention span of a two year old. 👶🏻
I think he meant "I didn't watch it at all..." and had his lackies clip or tell him the best part to respond to.
You're almost up to 20,000 subs already?? That's amazing... I'm so happy for you
Thanks William!!
@@TheSkepTick anytime! That was a pretty good David Attenborough impression lol... I wonder what Forrest must think of his whacking... I kinda want him to show his Darkside and obliterate him once and for all... send him back to the shadows whence he came... lmao
Yeah right, Great job is appreciated.
9:45 “You are lying or stupid”
Projection much, Kenty boy? I for one would postulate that he is lying AND stupid.
"You are religious preacher!" - imagine if people arguing against creationism used "scientists" as a pejorative
They do that all the time.
@@rs72098Well Kent isn't a scientist like many in his wheelhouse. So that's why it's a pejorative, they are simply too ignorant or complicit in the lie to even argue a cogent point.
The irony is that science didn't EVEN start with a blank slate. It started with the assumption that the Biblical creation story and global flood were true. Evidence accumulated to the point that scientists realized, oh, no, the earth is much older than that, not all layers were deposited in a single event, and the earth has never experienced a global flood. So they had to correct the science. Whereas creationists just kept lying and begging the question, even though they were the ones who got to start with the (incorrect) assumption of truth.
How DARE he come after Forrest! He is such a clever, enthusiastic, compassionate creator. He's an amazing teacher and he is so fun to listen to! And what is up with the stupid wee dig at the start? So what if you hadn't heard of him, Kent?
Forrest is a gift. Kent is a punishment.
Really? I think kent is a gift... kinda...
Cos, you see, its because of kent and his fellow creatards that religious people leaving religion en masse. They cant seem to take his crap anymore.
Even my own aunt who scolded me for being an atheist is calling kent a dungheap. Imagine that...
I think you just explained why Kent wanted to come after Forrest.
LOL.
@@hakureikura9052
I would like to believe that.. but creationists never surprise me anymore.
Creationist-shaped sledgehammer? More like a toothpick rolled in cotton wool and fairy floss, in terms of effectiveness...
Kent Hovind’s claims are based upon assumed conclusions that are not supported by evidence. Kent needs to prove that god exists, and prove that god created everything by magic. Yet Kent is trying to claim that Forrest’s analyses are assumed conclusions that are not based upon evidence. Kent is trying to defend an unfounded religious belief, by claiming that contradictory analyses are based upon an unfounded religious belief?
I note how Kent quickly jumps into conspiracy theory mode, by asserting that Forrest Valkai is basing his assertions on what his funders want him to assert. Forrest Valkai is a very good chap, and I’d wager that Forrest is sick of creationists claiming that he believes that he came from a rock...or that animals magically ‘turn’ into something else.
Still too solid.
Lol good description.
A 10mm length of over cooked noodle would be more accurate
I'd say it's more like their god in terms of effectiveness.
As he's stated multiple times, Kent's "strongest" argument is that [his interpretation of] the Bible says that the entire universe was created in six literal days. We all know there are _many_ flaws in his belief from a scientific perspective. Even _Kent himself_ knows this, as we can see by his need to lie, repeatedly, to support his claims. But here's what I think is the biggest problem with his arguments: He's trying to make religious faith fit within a scientific model.
Contrary to the common Christian persecution complex, science isn't trying to disprove God. Science deals _exclusively_ with the natural world and God, _by definition,_ is supernatural and therefore has nothing to do with science at all. Trying to apply scientific concepts to what is ostensibly a supernatural being is like trying to grade meats by the size of the trees they grow on--it's completely nonsensical. Worst of all is that, when religious beliefs are shown to be impossible by current scientific understanding, believers tend to fall back on their deity being capable of anything, including suspending the laws of nature at will. And if that's the case, why argue about what's possible at all?
So, why the obsession with pretending their religious faith can make sense from a scientific perspective? In my opinion, the primary reason, possibly the _only_ reason for this extremely dishonest argument is so that they can pretend their faith should be taught in public school science classes. It isn't science and Kent knows it. He might be painfully stupid, but he's a liar, first and foremost.
Even one of the greatest religious people of all time (St.) Augustine of Hippo refers to Genesis as an allegory.
I think it cause they have no faith and are scared behyond words of being wrong. That all the good deed will go unrewarded. All the evil they see will go unpunished. And something they spent building their lives around is wrong. So isntead of having faith the wanted to be told their right. Told their correct and will get what they want. They get to play and feal like the the hero fighting against the odd without any real danger to themselves.
Kent love this cause with the info from that documentary about him Kent want to be seen as a great man. But he has nothing to offer. So he goes for the crowd that want to be told yes and I return Kent gets a bunch of yes men to use as he see fits.
You are absolutely right! I think these idiots are so up in arms because evolution simply does not fit into their 6000 year narrative. Nor does other sciences like geology and cosmology. And in order to keep their religious status quo they have to fight against science. They can't lose the grip on their followers. If their followers started believing in evolution and other sciences they might start to question the obserd claims in the Bible. And they can't have that now can they? And now that genetics has come along and proven evolution, again, they are scrambling to discredit that. I simply can not wait for someone to discover life somewhere else in the universe outside of the earth. Once that discovery is made these apologist idiots will have a lot of 'splainin to do!
Why can't they be smart sky daddy preachers? Why can't they just say God created evolution? And why can't they just revise the Bible to include the billions and billions of years required to have the universe we have? Why couldn't God have poofed the universe into existence 13 billion years ago? If they did that they probably wouldn't be losing as many people that their religion is losing. You can only have reality slap you in the face so many times before you have to change your belief system, when the old system does not correlate to what you see in front of you. And as science figures more and more of our natural world out, apologists will have to just work harder and harder to keep their flock!
"Even Kent himself knows this" Kent once was dumb enough to discuss with Aron Ra. Kent stood no chance, because Aron Ra knows how to deal with people like Mr. Inmate. At a certain point in the discussion, Kent admitted that he is wrong.
Just to go on with the same BS afterwards once the discussion was over.
Since then, Kent never again mentioned Aron Ra and I guess he passed this knowledge over to his sidekick Mr. Peelboy Powell.
Not sure however where to find the discussion, probably somewhere in the depths of Aron Ra's youtube channel.
@@denzelminimo1883 "greatest" religious person? That's like saying the greatest cult member, lol not very convincing.
Dunking on reactionaries is always right. And defending great teachers like Forrest is also good. Glad you're stepping in, because he's a great teacher and I have learned so much from him and thus deserves some praise.
As a biologist, Kent makes me want to vomit. His words are so dishonest and demeaning to reason.
Man, it must have been hard to say "Says the man with unaccredited credentials."
If you look in a dictionary and look for the word irony, Kent's picture would be there.
The fact that he keeps telling Forrest to call Standing For Truth for a debate is....hilarious. Anyone who follows Gutsick Gibbon knows exactly why.
As a scientist, I am acutely aware of how scientific knowledge deep within several extremely technical fields has important limits. Every sentence Hovind utters demonstrate how stupidity fueled by narcissistic arrogance, sadly, does not.
Hovind and his kind (poke intended - what's more, unlike these people, I can exactly define what I mean by it) make a lot of noise about their supposed supreme morality; yet believing that one is entitled to coerce other people into submission to a dogma consisting of a mix of incoherent nonsense and demonstrably false assertions is about the most immoral position it is possible to hold.
I can unfortunately imagine the hell of having Kent as your bio teacher. He’s so mean. He talks down to people and calls them “boy”. I can just picture him talking like that to students in front of the whole class.
Can we start telling him to ‘pipe down old man’?
@@TheSkepTick Right on! He’s a nasty ole bizard. Thanks for the ❤️!
I would like to add that the science presentations that I've found the most boring were creationist. Even fell asleep in the theater over a creationist documentary back when I was still a christian in the church youth group, it remains the only movie I've fallen asleep in the theater over, and my eyes glazed over here when Kent started going on about homology, while Forrest has my full attention.
All I'm seeing here is an old senile man going Nuh uh against someone with actual knowledge of evolution. Thanks for the video, skepTick! Great work as always!
Appreciate it, Eh!
Is Kent the posterchild of the Dunning-Kruger effect?
Yep.
Looking at Kent ‘the Con Man Tax Fraud’ Hovind with a baseball bat, only makes me think of the phrase “swing and a miss”.
The frustrating thing about Kent is that literally every argument from him is nothing more than a long argument from personal incredulity, bolstered by lies, misrepresentation of data, and ad hominem attacks. It’s the same ineffective and infuriatingly boring playbook EVERY. DAMN. TIME.
Really, can anyone explain to me why we bother to deal with Kent or Eric anymore?
I HATE when Kent asserts something and then says "OK?", as if he was educating babies. GRRRR!
You know you've made the big time when you get wacked by Kent.
It’ll never happen to me!
@@TheSkepTick I'm sure your time will come my friend. He always goes after anyone who doesn't believe in his big book of fairy tales. And welcome to the USA by the way.
@@TheSkepTick Dam, your not so Special feeling???? You acheive someday....
Kent is Slow as we all know, but this Video will Light his Ire, and Soon you also will be Wacked.
Just wait Skep✅, you'll have your Day. Don't🥺 be 😢😭..
I wait for your, Awesome reply video, when that day come's.
Gonna buy some Pop-corn for it, and a Bottle of Whiskey.. Just for that...
@@TheSkepTick You're telling me it hasn't happened, yet? I find that very surprising!
@@TheSkepTick Don't worry, Kent is desperate for views, so he just goes through all the Atheist RUclipsrs (at least the English speaking once) ...
You are on his list somewhere ...
That sounds like a threat ... damn xD
Great video as always!
I really wish that Kent would try to debate his position rather than just shouting "wrong" over and over. I'm sure he's a con man and doesn't actually believe this stuff; it's all just for the money.
He's not a con man. He doesn't inspire confidence, he lacks the skills to con anyone with half a braincell. Also, the chump thinks it's a-ok to beat women just because he has a tiny "crucifix", so we can safely say that he's no man, either.
@@EvilFookaire Ooh! Zing! Love it!
I love Forrest! This is just so sad. I wish I had Forrest as a teacher when I was doing science, I would have enjoyed it much more than my "christian science classes" which REQUIRED me to use Answers in Genesis as a resource to pass!
No way!! I would’ve someone like Forrest as my teacher too!
@@TheSkepTick That's Liberty University (And Liberty University Online Academy) for you! Homeschooled all my life by religious schools. Thanks for the great and entertaining videos, truly helps with the deconverting.
yup. and kents "teaching experience' is all in baptist schools, forcing more religious nonsense into science. He was indoctrinated and brainwashed young, and has never let up since. his only actual education is from an unaccredited baptist college. So he's not even a doctor like he claims(ed) to be. (I think lately he got in legal trouble and dropped the title, adopting Doctor Dino with his stupid fake theme park) Kent needs to go to jail again, for the rest of his life, just to keep him from abusing more people, conning them, and brainwashing them.
I would have proudly failed, and left that indoctrination centre. Even if you went your entire life without any schooling, you'd better off than having your head filled with crap as you'd have had to work those years so you'd be 18 with 12 years of work experience instead of 12 years of horseshit in your head.
Omg ur impression of David Attenborough is freaking amazing. I could close my eyes and hear your impression and be completely fooled because you're that close. Keep up the good work.!!!
Forrest is a genuine legend.
When someone spends that amount of time in prison they have definitely whacked something much harder.
I love how all those creationists totally ignore the DNA proofs of evolution...
Every observation is compatible with magic.
There is no point debating a creationist that has an almighty all-knowing god as an argument.
1) Nope, that is proof of a creator using existing parts......
2) Nope, DNA is so complex it can't be created from nothing. More complex than the spaceshuttle.....
@@Rob2000 Well, that's indeed what a creationist who don't know much about DNA could say at first.
But I heard enough about DNA from real scientists to realise those arguments wouldn't last longer than a peace of bacon in the kennels if they were brought in a debate with someone who has the relevant knowledge. :)
@@Rob2000 oh wow, you can regurgitate nonsense!
You have to first demonstrate a creator before you can use that creator to explain literally anything, especially when the non creator example has tonnes of scientific paperwork to show how their explanation works.
Modern DNA isn't the first DNA, and if you want to understand how Modern DNA came about, I advise you go read actual scientific papers. I'll give you some hints, if it's got a cover, or a grabby title, or can be bought at a bookstore, it's not a scientific paper. It's going to have a lot of big words you won't understand, but thats what a dictionary is for.
@@Thoron_of_Neto I was sarcastic and gave the standard YEC answers :)
I'm a hard core evolutionist. I worked with recombination of DNA to nudge yeast to produce something else.
Why anyone would debate Ken or have him on to debate someone is beyond me. He says the same thing, "dogs only produce dogs" and "that's dumb" and "2 plus 2 is 4." I'd gladly come on in Ken's stead and repeat his "nuh uhh" talking points.
I wonder how Kent would react in a debate if someone responded to one of his questions by smiling and then saying "I'm sorry, it's just that you're beneath contempt".
These so called 'Whack an Atheist' videos are a joke, just like everything else Kent says.
The only person Kent actually 'whacks' in them is himself, but he doesn't seem to realise that.
20:32 I would love to see Kent Hovind disagreeing with whoever is funding him!
That won’t ever happen, right?
He wouldn't, because it's the idiots that sit in the room with him, and bleat out how right he is, then "donate" to his embezzlement ranch... I mean, dinosaur Adventureland park
Listen to Kent carefully, you will hear “I need to remain relevant-please debate me”. He doesn’t believe a word he is saying. He a simple grifter .
Wake up Ken. It's okay to admit you've been wrong your whole life.
Kent's focus on homologous structures reminds me of flat-earthers claiming one anomaly they find "proves" the Earth is flat. He's a flat-earther for creation.
While he himself is against flat earth, ironically
@@denzelminimo1883 isn't it though? Friggin ridiculous that that's where he draws the line of literal interpretation isn't it?
@@Thoron_of_Neto he ain't a flat earther.... There are globe-earthers that are creationists, they are more in population than flat earther creationists.
It should be noted, that Luca is theoretical. It's entirely possible that abiogenisis occurred more than once. Spontaneous assembly of nucleic acids isn't all that rare.