Kent is not a man to debate. He's a preacher that already made up his mind as shown by the many times he've been corrected ,yet never learn or correct the errors.

Since you give no details, just guitar music, apparently you don't want anything cross referenced. You realize that it's impossible to prove that any fossil is related to any other fossil, so it's a ridiculous idea.. DNA certainly didn't program itself simultaneously with the molecular machines to proofread, repair, copy, and interpret it. Sell to stupid people. There's lots of them

At 57:00 Kent tried soooooooo hard to pivot away from getting called out for trying to pass off a paper about the universe as the observable universe

Kent is lost in misconceptions, using Gish Gallop to attract donors and followers. A spec or dot is not a singularity. Kent is conceptually wrong proved by the way he talks. Humans have conceptual blocks against anything that is outside their understanding. It is difficult for the superstitious to understand that there could be a way for everything to exist with no beginning; hence their question "Well what was before the beginning?" a fallacy in logic. A 'beginning' in our minds must have happened because our limited primate brains want to conceive that everything in our reality starts and stops. This not how the Universe works. This is why infinites are so difficult to comprehend. SINGULARITY in Physics: a point at which a function takes an infinite value, especially in space-time when matter is infinitely dense, as at the center of a black hole.

I have noticed a few glaring misconceptions; I feel you should catch and confront these misconceptions. "The Big Bang" was not large, bright, explosive, nor loud. Unfortunately "The Big Bang" is a catchphrase; a misnomer. Humans have weaknesses of perception where we conveniently put things in conceptual boxes. The general Public and the self-righteous Superstitious have made a mockery of Cosmology, a Science only a few decades old. The common misconception of "The Big Bang" is portrayed incorrectly in the numerous animated videos and documentaries where "The Big Bang" is seen as a bright flash of light, followed by a colorful expanding cloud of bright debris, accompanied by the sound of an explosion. This is all wrong and is only art. We tend to place monikers on things that require a reference in conversation. Example, a Knee is not the word 'Knee'. However, we can point at a Knee and everyone understands what you are pointing at without using the word 'Knee'. "The Big Bang" is different, it is an unfortunate 'construct' for something that is beyond understanding with nothing to point at except everything in the Universe in every possible direction. So wherever you point, you are pointing at "The Big Bang". Actually there is no real beginning as we humans can conceive; only a scenario. The unwashed Public has little better than the sense of a Beagle when it comes to Temporal Mechanics. We cannot even remember what we had for breakfast yesterday, much less conceive of a billion years. Without training, formal education, and Scientific Discipline, humans have no experience in how the Universe works, much less something as Cosmological as "The Big Bang". I get the impression that the public is parroting lore their ignorant Pastors are preaching. Errant statements describing "The Big Bang" as "The Beginning" of the Universe; so there must have been something or some deity before "The Beginning" to start it or create it; a temporal impossibility. In the Cosmological past, Time and Space worked in a way different from how we experience it here on Earth in the distant present. It is not possible for there to be anything before a beginning, much less something from nothing because 'nothing' cannot exist. What superstitious people think of as "The Big Bang" is something viewed from the outside with a beginning (what the mythical Moses errantly wrote in Genesis: "In the Beginning"); the human weakness of requiring everything in experience to have a beginning and end, arrival and departure, etc. The beginning is still happening. "The Big Bang" is not a fireworks display; we know it was opaque. Everything then and now is "The Big Bang" which is even now still expanding; no beginning and no end, no center, no edge as we know it, only a scenario of which we are inside. After the early Big Bang, it took several hundred thousand years before there was matter and light as we know it, the Universe before this time was opaque. Light did not exist until this epoch, we detect as a Microwave Background in all directions smoother than a telescope mirror. Millions of years later, Stars formed, never mind hundreds of millions of years later for large spiral Galaxies to organise as a web.

The word us concepts. Conceptions are whar occur in reproduction

HILARIOUS that Kent made the comment about the microphone --something that OBVIOUSLY had a designer. Wouldn't a better statement be, "Since this microphone was designed, it's subject to FALLIBILITY?" If it had evolved (over a period of millions of years) it would probably be functioning perfectly. Instead, not only was it possibly designed poorly, but the "intelligent" person operating it couldn't even figure it out 😂😂😂 what a dummy.

Kent: Energy turning into mass has been observed and demonstrated in multiple contexts, particularly in particle physics. This phenomenon is a direct consequence of Einstein’s equation, E = mc², which shows that energy and mass are interchangeable. Here are some key examples: 1. Pair Production • When a high-energy photon (gamma ray) interacts with a strong electric field, such as near a nucleus, it can produce a particle-antiparticle pair (e.g., an electron and a positron). • This process is a direct conversion of the photon’s energy into the mass of the particles, as well as their kinetic energy. 2. Particle Accelerators • In large particle colliders like the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), energy from the collisions of high-speed particles is converted into mass, resulting in the creation of new particles. • For instance, the discovery of the Higgs boson in 2012 involved the conversion of the kinetic energy of colliding protons into the mass of the Higgs particle. 3. Quark-Gluon Plasma • In high-energy collisions, such as those at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC), the energy of the collision is converted into a quark-gluon plasma, a state of matter where quarks and gluons exist freely. The energy of the system contributes to the effective mass of the created particles. 4. Cosmic Ray Interactions • High-energy cosmic rays striking the Earth’s atmosphere produce cascades of particles through energy-to-mass conversion. This is observed in experiments studying high-energy physics phenomena in the atmosphere. 5. Hawking Radiation (Theoretical) • In certain theoretical models of black hole evaporation, energy near the event horizon can convert into particle-antiparticle pairs, one of which may escape, effectively converting energy into mass. These observations affirm the principle that energy and mass are interchangeable, with energy providing the “fuel” to create new particles.

15:12 Lmao!!! 🤣 😂😂😂 omg I’m pissing my pants! Kent: “You’re saying that energy can be turned into matter? Where has this been demonstrated?” KC: “Have you heard of the equation E=Mc^2?” Kent: “I certainly have.” Well Kent, it certainly seems you don’t understand that equation now do you?! Lmao just soooooo exposed how little you actually know @Dr.KentScienceGent and great name considering you think you know science yet don’t know what E=Mc^2 actually entails. You’re arrogantly ignorant and a grifter all in one aren’t you?

This video was too long. Halfway through it, I got hungry so I left it playing and went to the kitchen to fix myself a sandwich. But then I found out that I'm out of mayonnaise so I went to a store. There, I saw the most beautiful woman I have ever seen in my whole life. But I'm a really shy person so I took up a three-year personality development course so I could introduce myself. She was very friendly and all, but unfortunately, she had a boyfriend. So I said, all good, I'm a mature person. I wanted the best for her and I harbored no illusion that I am the best person for her and she seemed happy with her boyfriend, so I didn't bother her anymore. But we kept in touch and we became friends and I got over my crush on her. Then she broke up with her boyfriend, we drank some alcohol because of it. I told her she'll be fine and I wished her well. I still think she's the most beautiful woman in the world, but like I said, I am over my crush on her. It was like five years already since I first saw her. Besides, I am quite happy with the friendship I developed with her. It was more important than a crush. So we kept hanging out, drinking, having coffee, and all. I had a girlfriend, she started dating other guys. My girlfriend wanted to live some other life without me in it, so I said, "Okay, I want the best for you and I want you to pursue your happiness." My lady friend and I drank alcohol about it, and she gave me the same advice I gave her when she was in that position and I became okay with the breakup immediately. But we were really drunk, so she spent the night in my apartment. I only have one bed, so you know what that means: She took the bed and I slept on the couch. But on the couch, I really can't sleep. Something was bothering me. So I tossed and turned for about three hours, then I finally couldn''t take it anymore, I stood up and went straight to my room where she's sleeping. I approached the bed, gently sat on it and I reached for her shoulder to pull her closer to me. She stirred and woke up. She asked what's up. I told her, "you know, the first time I saw you, I was watching a video and left it playing to get myself a sandwich then went to the store to get some mayo then I got so distracted by life that I forgot to finish the video." She said, "You know what, I've been wondering about a weird noise in your night drawer." So we opened that drawer, and lo and behold, there's my phone and this video still has two minutes of play time on it.

according to kent his cousin gave birth to him, they are related aren't they?

This is literally CSPeirce

11:37 definitely didn't just have to do that with quantum condensed matter field theory (though I must say, it wasn't really by choice - there was a screw up and I had to do some prerequisites in my own time to keep up with the course, and so wasn't usually so up to date with the lectures 😢). Worked decently though.

Social constructionism and NeoLysenkoist pseudoscience has consequences with deleterious effects for our survival.

The first 20 seconds were honestly pretty agreeable. Usually people get away with terrible things because they band together and defend the terrible thing with mutual self-interest and ganging up together to prevent each other from getting wiped off the earth for ballsing things up. Too bad Alex Jones is contractually obligated to turn everything he says into a schizopost about esoteric conspiracy theories about interdimensional vampires and potbelly goblins.

The binary code at the end of the video at 16:30 translates to this? Google research says Victims of the Santa Barbara Massacre. I didn't see anything in the comments about it so I figured I would translate. " On May 23, I shall honor my fallen brothers and sisters with an indictment against the media, whose greed and lust unjustly glorified their murderer. Katherine Cooper Veronika Weiss George Chen James Hong David Wang Christopher Martinez They were the ones who mattered. "

I find it absolutely ironic that possibly the most fundamental, nature-oriented science of all is associated with little more than finding ways around made-up (!) scenarios with often obvious, missing factors, specifically oriented around a specific subject to the point you're asked to IGNORE a number of existing factors. I'm a chemistry major and we go through the same thing. The idea of it building skills and comprehension in reality gives way to: identify availible data -> modify the right formula -> repeat until you've figured out the pattern behind how they set it up for you. It's ridiculous.

18:42 "Ray-Ray, just hear me out" The pet names send me into fits of giggles all these years later. These can at times be the funniest street-preacher videos on youtube.

The way he reacts to hearing you repeat that your name is Kaycee. WHY ARE YOU HIDING BEHIND YOUR INITIALS hits the same as WHY ARE YOU BUYING CLOTHES AT THE SOUP STOOORE

Philosophy is the second born twin to science. Technically younger but practically simultaneous

Creationist appeals to philosophy are exhausting. I don't give a shit about people's philosophy or sense of logic. If they don't conform to evidence then they're not logical. All else is simply a philosophical worldview that has no place in a discussion of what is or can be real. I think the reason they keep going on about logic is because they think that the argument that the god of the bible is self-contradictory is THE ENTIRE argument against Christianity, and not all the prophecies that haven't "yet" come true, the historical figures that seem to be nothing more than folklore or a combination of different people, or the simple observation that everyone believes their religion is the one true religion and many have absolutely no exposure to Christianity, and are treated to hellfire all the same. These are issues with the bible because the bible has a set of unalterable, divinely-inspired statements of fact that are easy to disprove. With evolution, the evidence corroborating it is so enormous that they have to try to shift the goalposts of evidence and come up with a logical reason that nothing we observe is possible. The assumptions of science that Martymer81 outlines in his series on pseudoscience, and the naturalist nuke you've went on to make, showcase the only logic or philosophy that truly matters in the science discourse: do we observe this, is it reliably repeatable, and can we make predictive models based on it? If it is outside our universe, it cannot be falsified or proven. If it cannot be consistently demonstrated, like with faith healings and group prayers, then it is likely placebo. There's no real way around occam's razor except to completely invalidate the entire concept of science itself, which creationists love to try and fail to do all the time.

So according to Kent,God created the universe and earth in 6,000 years but made it look billions of years old because he wanted to decieve people,I guess.

Video still just as relevant today as it was back then.

I was able to solve both the Rigid Rotor and the Hydrogen Atom this year.

Gravity is racist.

This was not a debate. It was 2 "scientists" who just throw big words and won't let Mr Hovind talk. They have their mind made up and can't refute Mr Hovind's observation that we are not related to rocks

Very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very bad idea

Wow...Kent has been having this same argument, with the same replies, for the last 7 years. He's learned nothing. It's kind of hilarious, he's arguing with the world as it whizzes by him, new discoveries and inventions flying out of humanity, and Kent on the side lines saying "You're wrong because Jebidiah 7:14 says t"Behold the holy man, for he lieth only with lies upon the throne of the lords mighty bowl of soup"". People just frown at him in a mildly confused way as they look in awe at the universe through our ever increasing understanding of it. .....You're wrong because Isaac 21:32 says "Denieth my strange and strong fingers, for they wrap tightly around a cardboard frog, and the lord smiles on the hungry cow"

Hovind lacks the education to take on this subjects , painfully obvious .

I love this young physicist best I've heard for a while he destroyed dr dino fake 😂

I don't know if it was noted or not, but at 2:56 ish you say that it's the mass of iron to make the star collapse. Could be I recall it wrong, but IIRC it's another mechanism involved, like the fusion of Fe being endothermic instead of esothermic (?), causing the equilibrium of the star to break, starting the collapse. Have to check on that, it had to be in Krauss book.

maybe it is worth to update some parts e.g. adding differential geometry as a basis for any hep physics, and maybe swap knot theory with algebraic geometry for strings. but to this day I still think your video is the best motivational one if one wants to pursue a physics degree.

yeaah fizix gang rise up !

Just ask Kent how fast a Galaxy would have to be travelling to traverse 14 billion light years in 6000 years. That would immediately shut down his Doppler argument

A few partial objections. 1. I am an applied scientist. From my perspective, it is abundantly clear that society impacts what research is funded (the profitable ones), what kinds of results scientists feel pressured to produce (positive), and that science is communicated to the public in ways that are heavily warped by society. That much seems like a reasonable definition of "science as a social construct", which I know at least some STS people to hold; I do understand your critique to mostly be targeted at the absolute relativist fringe. 2. In softer or more applied sciences, interpretation is very commonly up to debate, even when everyone agrees on data. If watching TV before bed delays sleep by 15 minutes, then is it clinically significant? Depends on the definition of clinical significance, which depends on the society's value judgements about sleep disturbances. Similarly, researchers on both sides of the debate on social media's impact on mental health agrees on the data; the dispute is whether the effect size seen is negligible or alarming. 3. While critical theory may be useless from your perspective as a hard scientist, from the perspective of the scientific study of engineering, critical theory is incredibly valuable. Since our research informs how tools are built, we try to design systems in a less biased way (e.g. algorithmic biases); the techniques and definitions of the field (AI fairness) is borrowed from critical theory. In other words, critical theory is useful to engineers insofar as it helps us design useful (e.g. high utility, safe, fair) systems.

There's a very specific reason why these people create their own special spaces to espouse this bull****.

Aaand the King is back. I wonder if Dave and/or Sabina will end up on his radar. Fingers crossed.

The problem is these lefties dont even rly care abt lived experiences either. The minute it doesnt fit their ideology its immediately discarded. Ex: the freed israeli hostages talking abt their abuse being told it didnt happen.

Yikes. How can you spend your life debating science and not be familiar with dark energy?

I’ve watched this video more time than I can count… I just keep coming back to it. I was obsessed a decade ago and I still am, with the story of how we came to be.

I believe you don't do the 3rd video because you intuitively know the known information is incorrect and incomplete. Your personal intregrity prevents you from turning science into a religion.

confused bio major here: “if you want it bad enough, you can have it, you just have to work for it” is what i needed to hear. biophysics here we go lol

Hello friends. I come from the future. Turns out Trump won 2024 and is going to put an anti-vaxxer in charge of the FDA. I was hoping King Crocoduck's videos on Lysenkoism would be limited to strictly an obscure academia debate but I guess we are going full Lysenkoism on a governmental scale now.

this is a cool video

I'm half way through. I am amazed at Ken Ham's ability to talk on and on without saying anything. Creationists just can't address the actual data! They don't understand the evidence and they don't want to.

Kent really holds the opinions of toddlers really high. I wonder why

Ten years later and Ray Comfort is still a lying douchebag.

Wasn't he also the guy saying a person could change between being a man and a woman?

that thumbnail goes hard ngl🥶🤤

Which books would you recommend to someone who's getting started on the philosophy of science?