😂😢😂😢😂😢

I have always wondered about those speaking in ‘tongues'?

An example of L. Ron Hubbard wannabe perhaps...

I love listening to kingcrocoduck debate, it’s awesome how well he stays on point and doesn’t let Kent dance around with fallacies or dodging games. It’s also really obvious Kent doesn’t know much about science.

I know that this debate happened six years ago, but Kent is still insufferable to listen to. His condescension & arrogance is unbelievable! And he calls himself a Christian! The audacity!

But how does a pine tree give birth to a Mercedes 420 🧐

Dang. Algorithm is crazy. Just got this after watching that one Dr. Fatima video about Gravity being a social construct two days ago.

I'm not watching a single second, one cursory look at your "bibliography" is all i need to tell me how potent of a midwit dumbass you are. yes, science is a social construct because it is a system of processes enacted cognitively by thinking human beings. unlike trees, ants, or the sun, science did not spawn out of natural processes and is also not an immutable natural object that can be studied to be the exact same throughout all cultures. what's that? not the same throughout all cultures? constantly changing based on human perception? must be a social construct. fucking idiot

I think “trough” is pronounced like TROFF not TROW

Kent; “my eight year old grandson is listening to this”, maybe you should put him on the line, maybe KC could get through to him 🤷‍♂️

You did NOT face Dr Hovind. I want to SEE you with him in a REAL recorded debate not a self glorifying lying video.

I predict you will be KO'd by Dr Hovind.

I just had to write an "personal epistemology essay" for a teacher who is clearly a social constructionist and expects us to be so as well. I'm glad to find we landed on the exact same "epistemology" and will take this very thorough argument as evidence that my hasty research on non crazy epistemologies was productive as we both landed on "evolutionary epistemology" as the best representation of the way in which one can "know" the world.

As is observable through the span of the last 7 yrs, Hovind's assertion that "we haven't seen the birth of a star"(not verbatim). Well, scientists are saying(2024) that they could be observing the birth of a star. Hovind is his own worst enemy, as he has contradicted himself numerous times, this time with natural laws in physics.

damn I need a pear

KZbin is a shit site. Only just now I have found your channel. Found some of your stuff to be interesting... but I don't have time for it. 16 min is probably the most I can spent before having to go back underground. So in short: Do you support the political and ideological non sense that is slowly eating away at the more important hard(er) sciences like biology (gender ideology) or climate physics (climate change)? And the DEI stuff... Honestly these are the reasons why I actively try to avoid any western institutions, since I know that the moment I opened my mouth they would attempt to kill me for being a nazi or something.

hmmm.. 3:30 but that's just basic physics. Rule 1 is definitely important Rule 2 is something I've never done, oops. Rule 3 I relied on my memory in those cases - Though a similar thing that I did was to look through my lecture notes and rewrite them. It's extremely time intensive but it's somewhat effective. Rule 4 The sole reason I have finished my degree. Rule 5 Sometimes I have done that, sometimes I did not. aNd other times I had to rely on others to make the next move. Rule 6 Sometimes this works. But never really done it. Rule 7 It depended on my workload. Sometimes I only had a single day.

Finally a critique of postmodernism that doesn't involve jewish marxists of the franfurt school

When you went into your explanation of what you think metaphor should be used for I understood why you don’t like Jean B. You use thought to clarify. Many good philosophers all try to clarify, but many others have no interest in clarifying but instead try and provoke it. Many of the things you identify in Jean B. as not liking he’s actively criticizing. He’s showing you how to spot it. There’s great utility in being reminded that no matter the sophistication of your rationalism and scientific reasoning those same rational and scientific terminologies and rhetorics can breaks down into absurdity. Sometimes when they break down you get horrible political and historical outcomes. Jean B. in this passage is both commenting on this while demonstrating it at the same time. There are malicious political figures or cult leaders that employ very similar linguistic tactics as the ones employed by Jean. B here. If you pick up on how he’s exploiting language in a very exaggerated fashion you can learn to spot it on the ones trying to sneak it by you. I don’t always agree with him and think (like many philosophers) he can be rather silly at times, but I also think I learned a lot reading him.

Croc did an outstanding job against dr dineo . Cro is truly missed.

A masterclass in building a straw man caricature to affirm ones own views. I almost spat my food out when you started characterizing constructivism. I have never met a constructivist who thinks facts are arbitrary. Nor is the core principle of constructivist thought about power structures and woke shit. Lmao. Have you read Piaget? No need to answer. I know you havent. 💀

If atheism is true then “Yes, science has to be nothing but a cultural construct.” This is what theists have tried to warn sillly atheists like Tyson about, but they weren’t smart enough to listen.

Kent, you double speak about time in first minute. Which is it. 6 days or 6 periods of time in gods opinion?

You deleted my comment instead of engaging me in dialogue. Coward

I am PhD however I believe that the pre knowledge dictates the outcome. Not your specific experiment very narrow field of for instance chemistry. But the knowledge is build upon already existing knowledge and biases accumulates. Tennis ball example up there is very naive. Read “The Bioarchaeology of Socio-Sexual Lives.” Mind need not to be adhere nor conformity or non-conformity but find a way in between. People who use chromosome number (biodeterminism) to justify the exclusion of non-binary people are taught to do so because the paradigm exists that was created by heterosexual man. Of course the XY and XX exists but there are many examples of queerness in Nature. In fact number justifies nothing in this case. Imagine studying and defining sex decades and filthy radical deconstructivist comes and says you are wrong. It is personal so scientists are conservative not science itself. I am not sure of generalization that science is wrong in essence but some truth can be found in the writings of those philosophers. So do not be the guy that is conservative and do everything to save “science” but accept the shifting of a paradigm. p.s. I do not mean flat earthers or anti vaccines.

Wow. People really hate studying.

Evolutionists are literal con men 😅how can space move, can you see space? And how comes the star don’t move ? This is nonsense

32:53 Equivocate doesn’t generally mean the same thing as Equate or Equivalate… I get what you mean though.

Deberían traducir al castellano todos esos debates .

this apologetics nut is rubbish

"Explain it to the average viewer"......meaning explain it to me, once again!!

I would say that there are many issues with science, as a graduate from a research-heavy university. However, the most I can say science is a social construct is the way in which hypotheses are conjured up; people often base hypotheses on their understandings of the world, making assumptions which seem likely based on what they know and what previous research indicates; previous research follows this same pattern. Additionally, much research is conducted on participants who also themselves hold the same biases as previously mentioned. I was a psychology major, so this applies largely to that.

I often say that lived experience is valid if approved by cathedral and invalid if not. I make this point by saying something that would sound weird to many. When I grew up, holy men were very much opposed to homophobia. They saw gay jokes as disgusting as making poor jokes or fat jokes. This would be probably be called an invalid experience.

westerners are the best storywriters n storytellers ever. and all thanks to the greatest story ever told. endless philosophizing makes it all happen

western science has gone and got its head lodged in godly n religious ideologies thanks to jesus. we need to help them to start coming out of it. its not an easy task. they have become utterly decided as being intelligent by their own makings.

I'm surprised people take this nerd seriously

How do theists not look at Scientology and think “wow if modern people can be fooled into believing such nonsense written by a sci fi author and question everything”

"You weren't there 100,000 years ago, so your opinion is mute!" Well, you weren't there 2,000 years ago, so your opinion on the resurrection of Jesus is mute.

Science is a tool to observe god. However, god cannot be abserved through the lense of a lie. Constructivism is a decease of the woke neo-activist. Our institutions of higher education love pumping out witless, activist mongoloids that see the world through a lense of power and oppression and wish to reshape the world, its history and perceivable reality into something that agrees with there social marxist world view that reliefs them of any personal responsibilty outside of cultivaring false moral virtue and psuedointellectual nihilism.

I don’t see the problem with seeing science as a social construct. Even at the level of the scientific method there is an accepted socially understood construct, mainly the socially accepted idea that contradictions don’t exist, which falsification relies on. An example would be seen in the theories of modeling fluids. Hydrodynamics assumes a continuous fluid but models on diffusion in fluids assumes a discreet particle based medium. As such, the modeling of the same fluid has two socially understood ways to interact with the liquid and shows that there can be two ways to deal with the same matter. Beyond that, how should we approach Newtonian dynamics acceptance? It was always wrong, but useful. We now know that general relativity is better for calculating systems at the universal level, but ND is fine with local planet based observation. Lastly, I can see a role for paraconsistent logic in physics, mainly QM.

How does Kent Hovind know that the earth is 6000 years old.

Why haven't biologists, paleontologists, etc., made a virtual simulation of the primordial sea environment? They sound very sure of every compound present during the days when the first life forms emerged on Earth. They could recreate environments similar to the Silurian Period, Archean Eon, etc., and input all the data they've collected on the research. Evolutionists can make all the excuses they want, especially now that supercomputing power is readily available, with machines like Summit at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Fugaku in Japan, Tianhe-2 (Milky Way-2), SuperMUC-NG, and many more. Well, if they cite missing compounds and other excuses, let's propose an alternative: a virtual simulation of a MAX OUT UTERUS environment. UTERUS is the best environment for developing life forms, so this should be more than sufficient compared to the primordial sea, right? Input all the data into the MAX OUT UTERUS virtual simulation, and evolutionist scientists might want to add lightning as a catalyst for merging cells. Let's create a virtual simulation capable of computing the data collected by evolutionary scientists and fast-forward billions of years to see if life thrives.

Okay, experts, if you know everything from the beginning of Earth's formation, especially in the Neoproterozoic Era, you talk as if you know everything, including the compounds present in the primordial ocean that are presumed to be the building blocks of life. Right? Then why not all of you "EXPERTS" gather and recreate a simulation of the primordial sea, also creating environments that mimic the atmospheric composition, temperature variations, surface terrain, and other factors present at that stage? While you have a good understanding of the chemical composition of the primordial ocean based on geological evidence and scientific research, there are still uncertainties about the precise conditions and the exact combination of compounds present at that time. Right? Additionally, replicating the exact environmental conditions, including temperature variations, atmospheric composition, and surface terrain, would be technically complex and resource-intensive. Right? But there's a machine that have High-Performance Computing (HPC) System, right? That way we can fast-forward it to the Silurian Period. For years of observation, let's see if this research produces a complex being, eventually becoming at least like "Agnatha." LET'S PUT THIS TO THE TEST, "EXPERTS!"

You over state the problem of reproducibility in psychology. It isn't that dire. What many fail to recognize are the multitude of replications that are embedded in studies that set out to expand on an existing research paradigm. They just aren't identified as replications.

7:20 How do you choose which under-determined background propositions to test if you can't actually test them all? 13:56 Science can't escape social influence, different fields of science have different culture and those cultural values (including the wider cultural values of the society the scientists in those fields were raised in) will influence important factors like which background propositions are tested and yes even who those scientists are. For instance, it isn't by accident that most scientists in early America were white, it wasn't the case that all the smart people just happen to be white, there were (and arguably still are) severely important social factors that play into that. It is then, not outlandish to suggest that this may influence other scientifically relevant factors like which background propositions are chosen for testing. 14:48 Doesn't the attempt at Phrenology and Eugenics reveal that on some level this is true? Scientific racism is an actual thing my guy. 20:48 This seems like a straw man, isn't the argument that where under-determined background propositions have equal explanatory power (and all other features being more or less equal) that the background proposition that most favors political progress should be chosen or at least exclude the one that perseveres that status quo? All else being equal, why wouldn't we? 25:27 - 28:12 Okay, so that's all pure insanity and I would never try and defend these people's conclusions, nevertheless insofar as science is an exploration for accuracy and approximate truth (and it definitely is), social constructions inevitably bleed into that exploration. I mean we have explicit examples of science being used at attempts to preserve racial hierarchies... 28:15 I see your point and I agree, it is never ok to sacrifice explanatory power and falsifiability for any other value. This still doesn't address how scientific fields should address competing background propositions that are equally under-determined in situations where all background propositions can't be tested due to resource constraints. Social constructions will bleed in.

👑 🐊🦆!!!¡!!¡¡¡!!!!!¡!!!¡¡¡¡!!!!

Kent Hovind wins again!!!

I think a far more pragmatic approach would be to determin the standards of opression, as Even those who dismiss that opression ever happened, or those who insist it happened have to agree on the methodology to determin opression, how to measure it, and so determin If it exists or not. I found it wierd that this video isnt about that, sure we can agree that the social sciences are fucked, but does that mean we should try to reform them and offer actual solutions, or should we dismiss them and call them something else then science? I have no problem with either approach, its just means that those two groups arent going to agree, and do their own thing.