Professor Dave Destroys Kent Hovind (Young Earth Creationism Debunk)

[@Kore_YT]

I don't understand science therefore science is wrong.

[@Nimbithefallen5326]

Kent is a total loon

[@t1glistenerelf]

+Kore I knew I liked you for a reason.

[@simonb5561]

Kore How can you claim to understand science when you believe in evolution?

[@ramigilneas9274]

Simon Bouazaza Bratsve 🤦‍♂️

[@clover9812]

all of these r/ videos allows you to make really good tldrs

[@Greameable]

"You're wrong, this book tells me so." "Lets talk about that book." "We're not here to talk about this book."

[@PADELATOR]

Dave Dave Dave.....do they swim in wateR ? I cried

[@williamknight52]

This is most definitely my favorite comment and I hope it gets more likes

[@Greameable]

@@williamknight52 You know normally I'm a comment and leave it kind of guy but it's really shitty outside in the world right now and that cheered me up, thank you.

[@apolloandwarrior_3229]

@@PADELATOR do they swim in *ThE WatEr*

[@stevent9612]

Great comment 😅

[@davling2007]

This man avoids questions like they're his taxes

[@BennettIdaho]

😂

[@serumv]

xD

[@SpongebobFlipFlop]

He avoids questions better then taxes

[@KingJuulien261]

Avoids them like a politician dodging questions

[@Ostnizdasht206]

zing!

[@Exaspatial]

"Why didn't the rabbits just evolve wings to escape the predators?" Yeah, I think that's really all you need to hear from this guy...

[@Exaspatial]

@@Nottheworst4565 Correct

[@Exaspatial]

@@Nottheworst4565 Simple, he doesn't want to know. Or even worse, he pretends not to. Either way his idiocy is his fault alone.

[@ritchie6162]

@@Nottheworst4565he does know it. He just knows how easy is is to squeeze money out of willfully ignorant religious people so he got a bs degree at a mill and uses his lack of understanding to lie and grift money out of people without trying to pay any taxes on them.

[@Mitzthatonekid]

Because then it'd be a wolpertinger and Kent would implode.

[@stephanholmes5522]

The funniest part is that the wings wouldn't help 🤣. Common predators for rabbits include birds of prey, cats, and foxes and they all kill birds so the wings would just make them easier to catch.

[@MakkusuOtaku]

I think the video is broken, the top left corner appears to be on loop.

[@DarthSinistris]

It's been on loop for over 30 years

[@jaydeejohnson7]

@@DarthSinistris 30? Perhaps 1900? Cheers mate🍻

[@MakkusuOtaku]

@@Obediah002 That's not what evolution is.

[@kathleenr4047]

@Casey B oh my God you're exactly right. I've listen to the creation guy for about a minute and a half and then I thought, 'I can't even listen to this guy anymore'. And I came to the comments.

[@Joshuazx]

I like you sir/ma'am/non, you say things that I agree with.

[@somepublic]

Kent: "I dare you to find a scientific error in the bible" Dave: "Lemme read you some passages" Kent: "Wait a minute now..."

[@randomname6710]

hahah i almost spit out my water at that part, just amazing.

[@ElJefeS4]

I laughed so hard when he did this... Kent failure.

[@thedoukster2209]

He's not prepared for that.

[@Lex60]

Was the same reason by some Christian religions control so much the study of the bible. Catholic church prohibited even to have one on your house in some periods of time. The Spanish Inquisition persecuted person just for having the book.

[@somepublic]

@jason4522 He "upheld the Bible"? What does that mean? Also, it's Loser. Looser means not so tight, like the screws that hold your brain in. Always nice to see christians go straight to insults though. Good for you. Jesus will be so proud.

[@Juggler4071]

Normal person: A man can walk a mile by taking the journey one step at a time. Kent: So you're saying that a man can teleport!? That's not scientific! There's no such thing as teleportation!

[@jerryngawanangawana9036]

that makes no sense

[@lishanglong6762]

it makes sense

[@duck6100]

he'd also be wrong about teleportation because it very much exists

[@proofproof8133]

@@duck6100 sure thing! every time i walk into the bar full of chicks, the next second its empty

[@somedatussr4323]

This is perfect

[@carrieeloff2220]

Professor Dave has helped me recover from religious abuse. So thank you, Professor Dave

[@ryanhowse9266]

Dave: "I wish I had done better in this debate" Also Dave: _explains half of science in his 8 minute opener at the speed of a Gilmore Girls episode_

[@ded__]

Technine bows down to this man

[@buckeyeslim6177]

😂😂😂😂😂🤣🤣

[@Andy-Ajax-Jackson]

"Funny you should mention taxes..." ohhhhhhh snap! He actually went there hahaha

[@Slappy_McNasty_9090]

For real, that opener was great in response to someone like Kent Hovind, who cannot respond to evidence or facts that accurately reflect reality. It forces Kent to reveal how much of a scheister he is. Unfortunately, Kent is a very experienced scheister and his style is likely effective on people who already share his beliefs

[@buckeyeslim6177]

@@Slappy_McNasty_9090 I don't think I've ever heard an opening argument as compelling as this one...and I watch a LOT of Law & Order! 😂😂😂😂🤣🤣

[@420alfonzo6]

Kent: the Bible says so. Dave: so let's talk about the Bible. Kent: *NO*

[@ANTICHRISTian736]

Even tho Kent mentioned the bible multiple different times.

[@420alfonzo6]

@@ANTICHRISTian736 yeah, he mentioned it saying "the Bible says" but that's all. My point is Kent refused to talk about the Bible with Dave. At 19:00 Kent asks to see errors in the Bible and when Dave ,3 minutes later, says he'd like to talk about it Kent said no 21:05.

[@Hasaryu]

Oh god....I have to get to 19 mins to see this? I really....really wanted to watch this because Dave does an amazing job with explanations....but Kent started his 8 minutes, and I started to cry.

[@ANTICHRISTian736]

@Stan Gore it does not have to. Using math and research you can put time stamps on the events of the bible.

[@Hasaryu]

@@ANTICHRISTian736 So here is my problem with this idea. On one hand, you have a book, with many fanciful ideas like Adam and Eve living to approximately 900 years old, an Ark that was supposed to hold 2 of every animal for about a year, men rising from the dead, and so on so forth. On the other hand, you have science, where millions of people devote their lives to figuring out how the world works, using a variety of different sources, such as Ice core dating, geology, fossils, laws like the speed of light, evolution, ect, to prove the age of the earth is billions of years old. To throw another wrench into things, scientists are constantly challenging ideas that others present, checking peoples methods meticulously, or finding new information that invalidates or changes the way we see things. So, my problem is, why would I trust one source when many sources say that it is wrong? And if I could only trust one source, why should it be yours? Why not another religion?

[@kevinwheesysouthward9295]

Kent’s logic: Adults don’t come from children because we’ve never seen a child go to bed and wake up the next morning as an adult.

[@knarfamoranemix6030]

Actually, that may be a good analogy. Thanks for the idea.

[@snoopyjot]

Technically we do, at the end of puberty when our growth plates fuse we literally go to bed and wake up as an adult, although we don't look any differentiated. I'm a good example. I went through puberty a bit too early so I literally went to bed as a child who was going through puberty then when I was 9 and my puberty finished I suddenly was biologically an adult... even though I was only 9 years old. So I literally went to bed a child and woke as an adult 🤷‍♀️

[@knarfamoranemix6030]

@ Fiona -Jane kelly : If that is the case, then the adult in the morning is still almost identical to the child before. The different child kind Kent Hovind expects to appear is very different from the parent kind, like a mouse producing an ape. Hence, we can use the analogy of a baby turning into an adult overnight. No one has ever seen that happen. Yet there are people who believe babies can turn into adults. It's a religion, not science.

[@hehefunnysharkgoa9515]

​@@snoopyjot Except you've arbitrarily defined 'an adult' to meaning someone whose skeletal structure has stopped developing. Someone else might define 'an adult' to mean someone who has turned 18, someone else might define it to mean they've started their first job, etc. The Ancient Greeks defined adulthood to be somewhere around 14, 15. Biologically a human is adult the moment it is capable of producing offspring, regardless of their growth plates. The definition of 'adult' is vague and subject to change as people see fit. This is the entire problem with Kent's argument.

[@hehefunnysharkgoa9515]

@@amyseilnum3346 Because all the polar bears that didn't have white fur died. Also I don't know what you mean by "straight to", this is a process that took hundreds of thousands of years.

[@BiglookG29A]

I will admit I was once a hardline creationist and I thought Kent Hovind was a godsend to the Christian community. I wanted to be able to debate atheist better so I started studying evolution. After discovering how wrong I was I renounced this creationist nonsense. Education is important.

[@str8dnocuddldadshome213]

If this is actually true then good on you for taking in new information and adjusting your opinion accordingly. It’s also important to make sure the information is accurately depicted. It’s a rare skill.

[@mikejosef2470]

That must have been hard. I did the same but was a child and didn't have particularly strong convictions (I guess that's the way of children; we learn new things all the time and just accept it, and so if we figure out something new, it's not so earth shattering).

[@nostur4984]

@@str8dnocuddldadshome213 Eh that can go two ways. I'm from a muslim country where my uncle was a fan of a local equivalent of hovind. he studied evolution harder and it actually made him disbelieve it even more

[@WatchandLaugh-c8m]

Mad respect, you learned you were wrong by yourself, it's impressive to learn past your mistakes

[@nostur4984]

@@mikejosef2470 yeah man. it's really important to be exposed to lots of culture while you're a child. it's the key to ending all sorts of dogma

[@Lunatic5306]

“ winning an argument against an intelligent person is impressive. Winning an argument against an idiot is impossible.”

[@anthonyharty1732]

Another one is you can’t talk sense into an idiot, Hovind is the proof. 😂🤣😂

[@Tower_Swagman]

I mean, if you're dumb enough, you can win, but both parties will exhaust each other

[@markboyko4538]

You guys keep laughing at Kent but he’s upset and in fact feels pity on you because you believe in this delusion that nothing created something. These evolution scientists always look into cells but they can’t ever explain how nothing created something. There’s a painting because there’s a painter there’s a creation because there’s a creator. Humans where created by god, don’t fall for this evolution trap. It’s simple we don’t come from sponges. No thing except for god existed millions of years ago so you cannot claim that evolution is an actual thing. Understand that the life your living is wrong and sinful but every person has a savior and that is Jesus Christ. Repent of your sins and trust in Jesus. You won’t see him but you will feel his effect, similar to wind you can’t see it but you feel it’s effect. Then your trust and belief will keep growing stronger and you will do what I’m doing, telling people the truth.

[@travisbicklepopsicle]

@@markboyko4538 'you cannot claim evolution is an actual thing' Sure you can, if you're referring to biological evolution. In biology, a simple, one sentence definition of evolution is: 'Evolution is the change in the characteristics of a species over several generations and relies on the process of natural selection'. That's it. It's how life on Earth works. It's demonstrated to be fact every day, all over the world. No one in history has ever demonstrated otherwise. There are plenty of geneticists and others working in the life sciences who are religious and have no problem accepting this basic fact of life. Even very devout Christians, like Francis Collins, who led the Human Genome Project, knows evolution is fact. No data or evidence indicates it isn't. You can modify some aspects of your beliefs so they align with reality, but you sure can't change reality.

[@wickedAberration]

@@markboyko4538 You're lying to people, and yourself. There is no divinity in this world.

[@danielsarn3823]

"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits" - Albert Einstein

[@nofairytales5604]

This Kent guy proves that stupidity has no bounds and, contrary to his argument, is living proof we are related to primates.

[@ryangilles4837]

You’re right, professor Dave discredits himself my constantly reverting to ad hominem attacks and name calling.

[@Bryan-px3kr]

@@ryangilles4837 And still some how faded kent. Amazing

[@misc.2682]

@bryan Sike! Lol I'm not saying I agree with him but Kent destroyed Dave in this debate.

[@Bryan-px3kr]

@@misc.2682 if by destroyed you mean "screamed over him like a child and dodging all questions". Then yes yo boy caught a body

[@Backscratchandhalls]

I absolutely love how this moderator chooses to not moderate at all

[@ivannpetermagerman2727]

For real. Dude was reading chat the entire time or something

[@WestLightz]

They invite people with big audiences to "debate" so they can make money off of superchats or w/e from them. It'd be one thing if they actually moderated but they're just unnecessary middle men leeching off people imo.

[@xarzu]

Thanks for that. You have a good sense of humor.

[@magic3577]

He was just playing solitaire or something

[@billybob-jh8em]

he was really into his coffee

[@不眠社畜]

Talking to a wall would be much more productive than debating Kent

[@Man-xk9rz]

Exactly. I can literally feel my brain cells committing apoptosis every time I hear Kent's "counter argument" against evolution.

[@sixfootoneistall2002]

At least the wall wouldn’t actively make you dumber

[@paulgaethke2570]

Or watching paint dry, LMAO

[@UnofficialLesTwins]

The moderator was so dumbfounded by Kent's arguments that he wasn't able to do his job 😅

[@user-DongJ]

“Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself. A wise man will not rebuke a fool.” Bruce Lee 1940~1973

[@radudrag]

LOL @@user-DongJ That actually has it's roots in the Bible: Proverbs 26:4-5 4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him. 5 Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.

[@user-DongJ]

@@radudrag "Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance." Kung Tzu ~500 BCE

[@radudrag]

@@user-DongJ Kung Tzu was a wise man. By the way the book of Proverbs was written by King Solomon who lived between 990 and 931 BCE.

[@user-DongJ]

@@radudrag - Kent Hovind knows that compare to the Flat Earth apologists, Young Earth apologists have a slightly better chance of cracking/shaking the Old Earth promoters since there are still many more unsolved/unresolved problems, mysteries, dilemmas, etc. By creating enough Fear, Uncertainty, Confusion &/or Doubt (FUCD) & attacking those unresolved problems, Dr Hovind can keep Prof Dave on the defensive & grow/keep his base of Young Earth believers. Such tactic/strategem was discussed in Sun Tzu’s Art of War & 36 Strategem. Perhaps Prof Dave should become more familiar with books like the Art of War to better counter Dr Hovind’s tactics.

[@michaelfreedman1006]

I like this quote: "A scientist can read 100's of books on a subject and says "I still don't know it all", but some guy can read part of the bible and know everything about everything."

[@pyro111100]

Yep, the simple situation whereas you learn more you realize what you haven't learned. Just imagine if we stopped progressing past the iron age because no one cared enough to realize that there are better materials than iron. If it were up to Kent we would still be living in grass huts dying of the common cold.

[@fenrirhere]

exactly. lol

[@BudgetFilmmaking]

Except Christians are far more likely to think they know a sufficient amount about a subject they have zero familiarity with than scientists. Just like Hovind. That's what faith does to a rational mind.

[@tarantulamantis5189]

@@fenrirhere The Dunning Krueger effect is beautiful

[@bilyanavelikova5584]

@@nastasedr Watch it. It's a good watch. :)

[@bradenr867]

Update everyone: Kent’s lawsuit has failed as he now faces domestic violence charge

[@dogwalker666]

Excellent news.

[@iwenttoohio5045]

Absolutely EXQUISITE NEWS!!! this is music to my BLOODY EARS!!!

[@Canis_Fatalis]

Hallelujah!

[@thatoneguy6146]

Good to see there’s some justice in the world

[@chrisgenovese8188]

@@dwaynechristophercheeke8605 no, he has faced several domestic violence charges. He likes to beat the shit out of women.

[@FrazerNairnSmith]

I regret putting this on in the background whilst I was driving. Nearly crashed the car just to stop hearing Kent's idiocy.

[@Dr.Funk8864]

He is pretty infuriating

[@genderlessweeb]

Lol I have a similar situation, I'm sewing rn, and its taking everything in me not to rip this skirt to shreds

[@StarStriker-pk1zy]

By the way for anyone curious, the judge rejected his appeal. He’s still a felon who used his church to commit tax fraud

[@N1976DL]

He also abused his multiple ex-wives. Physically and psychologically.

[@N1976DL]

@@frankinher7467 that information is as readily available to you as it is to me. Do the work.

[@markwalding8205]

@@frankinher7467 weirdo

[@TheNzFox]

@@frankinher7467 I could go into details but its just best to hear from the horses mouth, here is Cindi Lincoln, one of his ex wives, speaking about it kzbin.info/www/bejne/qpS0ZmWbpqenpNU

[@TheBox225]

@@frankinher7467 lmao he got arrested for it in September!

[@gamgam7979]

he really went "I'm not aware of any scientific errors in the bible" "ok, here are some errors" "well why do you want to talk about the bible"

[@kwasiosafo]

Obviously it was not the topic on debate, and what he did is a common debate tactic: focus on destroying the other person’s basis, which he successfully poked holes in. Apart from fossils and billions of years which have no present-day observable evidence Dave had nothing to say. I just think these are two entrenched ‘faiths’ or ‘schools of belief’ having a go at it.

[@M.Wilson7946]

@@kwasiosafo that's a really interesting tactic: use phrases that appear very neutral while simultaneously spewing bull shit in support of one position. Very dishonest, if I may say so, myself.

[@gamgam7979]

@@kwasiosafo but the bible is his sole piece of evidence, and he was using it at the time to defend his statements. the entire debate went like this; kent: *lies about observable fact dave: can i explain to you why that's wrong? kent: stop changing the subject understandably, dave got frustrated eventually.

[@masononemine1702]

@@kwasiosafo Mate you say that fossils provide no evidence for evolution. Kindly elaborate on that.

[@teocraft_7625]

hmmm you really look like a rickroll

[@slade88green]

Everyone: "Flat Earthers are the stupidest people on the planet". Kent: " Hold my beer".

[@marvinhesler321]

I find them to be extremely interesting because there challenges are hard to defend ..

[@SiegfriedDrachentoeter]

@@marvinhesler321 But they can be done. And thats always the most important part.

[@Jose_Hunters_EWF_Remixes]

Kent Bovine has been speaking for about 12 seconds and I'm bored already. NEXT!

[@codyscholberg6529]

​@@SiegfriedDrachentoeter I wonder if you could move along the micro-macro direction by expanding or shrinking much like walking across a room, how the world would be viewed? It might look like this "realm" we are in - where things are of fixed size - is a bit like a flat plane. And prob between the most micro and most macro, Earth's in the middle. Maybe ancient "flat earth" and "earth's in the center of the universe" was profound wisdom we have lost and was actually completely, totally different than retarded "flat earth" of today - as if it wasn't a sphere. To compare only the outer shell of theories and say they're the same based on only what's observable without taking into account any of the intangibles or invisibles. Isn't that kind of like willful self-delusion?

[@marvinhesler321]

@@SiegfriedDrachentoeter NO ..in fact no one can still prove true curvature..Period..I have heard all the silly lame arguments but still no clarity

[@JesseSpeaksYT]

56:50 Craig Venter, a prominent biologist, made headlines in 2010 when his team at the J. Craig Venter Institute successfully created what they called the world's first synthetic life form. This achievement involved synthesizing an entire bacterial genome (Mycoplasma mycoides) and transplanting it into a cell of a different species (Mycoplasma capricolum). The recipient cell then began to function and reproduce according to the synthetic genome's instructions. This was a significant step in synthetic biology, though it's important to clarify that while the synthetic genome was created from scratch, the cell in which it was placed was not synthetic-making the life form itself not entirely synthetic but rather a hybrid between synthetic DNA and an existing cell. (meaning he DID NOT create life from a cell, rather implanted a synthetic into a LIFE barring cell.)

[@ProfessorDaveExplains]

Which is what I said.

[@chickashfr]

Kent: *SO YOURE SAYING A MAN BIRTHED NEW LIFE?*

[@JesseSpeaksYT]

@@ProfessorDaveExplains You were stating life was made via synthetically. As a truth claim, when it is not. That is intellectually dishonest, you and I both know artificial implantation does not create new life. We have yet to create new life in a lab.

[@guaranagaucho3071]

@@chickashfrI DONT LIKE THE FROGS KISSING PROTISTAS, IT TURNS THE MEN GAY

[@JesseSpeaksYT]

@@chickashfr Someone here is being intellectually dishonest. That's all I was saying. Why bring up Craig Venter at all if not to use him in the argument to prove a null point about "creating life" in a lab. Because Craig did NOT do that.

[@cicadaboi101]

Kent - "This old book has very good evidence for creation" Dave - "Ok let's talk about that book and see whether it's trustworthy" Kent - "Hey this is a debate about creation vs evolution why are you bringing up that old book" Fucking genius.

[@cicadaboi101]

@siavash ghorbani Ad hominem

[@kirayoshikage1491]

@siavash ghorbani that’s what kent did though?

[@kirayoshikage1491]

@siavash ghorbani I mean that the comment you insulted had nothing wrong in it, because the comment was making fun of what Kent said in the debate.

[@kirayoshikage1491]

@siavash ghorbani oh ok. I was just confused. I didnt know that was how weebs talked, maybe because I spend so much time reading comments from other weebs that it's become normal.

[@P74_14]

In the movie the green mile

[@trevorduncan9580]

"Can you show me examples of scientific errors in the bible?" "yeah, if you don't mind" "actually don't do that." HAHAHAHA! that was the best

[@colelukeharry]

Hovind was ready to do just that for one second because his mouth moves before he thinks. He knew he would be on a loser using his "science" book.

[@trevorduncan9580]

@@jamesj2022 what in the world are you talking about? In ALL of that writing you don't actually bring a single point or fact. See, that's the issue. You spout some Bible verse and hate but your words are empty. I don't know why some Christians hate on evolution. There are PLENTY of scientists and intelligent people who believe in God AND evolution. I mean we have human history that goes back more than 5 thousand years so it's pretty absurd to think humans existed before the planet did. Believing in the facts we see in the world around us is not some attack on God. I find it so interesting how people take SOME parts of the Bible SUPER literal but then completely ignore other parts. Dyeteronamy 25:11,12 or how about levitcus 19:19 or leviticus 19:27? Or how about slavery? Do you own slaves? Ephesians 6:5 , leviticus 25:44-46... what about stoning a child to death for not listening? Deuteronomy 21:18-21... do you own more than a single shirt? Luke 3:11 ever made a crude joke? Ephesians 5:4... see I can quote Bible versus too but you'll just ignore those and say how it's not to taken literally or :"Jesus doesn't care about the old laws" ... suuurreee... look, science doesn't care about the Bible and it isn't attacking God. MEN wrote that book and it's been changed A BIT over the years so its certainly not infallible. weather U believe in God or not that should be self evident. Interesting you mention plastics in the water... bring that up in church along with climate change and let me know how it goes for you.

[@xironevarus576]

@@trevorduncan9580 you know. Growing up pagan I always heard the retoric of being evil and brainwashing people. Then when I gave up my faith and started looking at the evidence. Turns out I'm still evil and brainwashing people

[@fivehivemind805]

@@jamesj2022 Biological evolution is just how nature works. If you have a problem with reality, then take it up with the creator you believe in, since he/she/it would be the one responsible for evolution. Bigotry and racism are not 'evolution things'. The science of genetics/evolutionary biology indicates we are all related. Racist hate groups like the KKK for example, often use the Christian Bible as justification for their racism. This is because they are ignorant. Like you. The good news is, you can always educate yourself. No need to take a trip to the library; you have internet access. Start learning. You don't even know the definition of biological evolution.

[@themonsterbaby]

🤣🤣🤣

[@zachkrampien8699]

Damn Dave, most efficient use of 8 minutes in an opening argument I've ever heard. Exactly 480 seconds and completely brutal

[@heyitzrare]

Literally game set match. Best part, Kent literally did _exactly_ what Dave said he would do lmao

[@ngcastronerd4791]

@@heyitzrare He had him all figured out. Kent had to resort to buffoonery and claims of imminent "whacking's". Pitiful.

[@heyitzrare]

@@ngcastronerd4791 Yeah, Kent had no choice there lmao

[@nelsony2134]

he already won there tbh

[@AlexMiller-sd5vk]

Holy hell, and then the 8 minutes he responded with was pre-destroyed in Dave's opening. Also, calling Professor Dave on par with child abusers is offensive.

[@SonarTheBat]

>Says the world being created by a singularity is ludicrous. >Doesn't know what a singularity is.

[@Palpetinus]

This moderator, while he has a lot of patience, does no moderating whatsoever. He's a host, no moderator.

[@IrishDemon]

That’s why I refuse to debate Nathan Thompson on that platform

[@jamespeterson7125]

From what I've seen, James does an okay job of enforcing rules. The problem is, often there are pretty close to no rules. So no rules, no enforcement.

[@omarosemoon1005]

That's James for you

[@Viking_Luchador]

Chris Wallace's long lost twin

[@richardhouseplantagenet6004]

James stopped after Dave started insulting Ken. Dave failed by resorting to insults, ad-hominems, & religious attacks (which he literally disavows before 2:00). No Hovind acolyte or moderate will change their mind after watching this; they'll just hear Dave name-calling (and lying about Venter at 56:00) & assume he knew he was wrong. Dave's behavior kneecaps actual, serious defenders of evolution.

[@Giescul]

A scientist debates a toddler. Does this count as child abuse?

[@apolloandwarrior_3229]

Not if the toddler is an 80 year old man who shids in a diaper

[@Mark_Money420]

@@apolloandwarrior_3229 lmfao 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂

[@PandemoniumMeltDown]

Yes

[@raym444]

@@BlakeosaurusRex not angry, frustrated. Hovind's explanations sounded like they came from a 7 year old.

[@nikylemoodley6629]

@@BlakeosaurusRex He is frustrated because he is arguing with someone who keeps using the same stupid argument which makes no sense.

[@slappy8941]

Professor Dave: "He's gonna say some book said a thing." Kent Hovind: "Some book said a thing."

[@karthik-manickavelu]

Hahahaha.

[@jeremycox6471]

Yeah and “professor” dave is going to say some book says something else. Books don’t say a thing dumb ass.

[@sebastianlaplume461]

Jeremy Cox that better be a joke

[@richardlubes9208]

@@jeremycox6471 You sir are an example that siblings can't have children without the loss of IQ.

[@Ottawa411]

@@jeremycox6471 Science isn't a book, it is a method. My daughter is in university and she spends countless hours in the lab. They are required to learn things for themselves and test the things they learn from books and lectures.

[@gmnrggggg]

“Have you ever seen an Amoeba turn into a human?” Mf have you ever seen god create a human? If physically seeing evidence is what matters then creationism is by literal definition, imagination.

[@AMC2283]

Regardless, the theory doesn’t predict that amoebas change phylums.

[@Commenter-b3n]

An Amoeba cannot turn into a human. That's not evolution. It's not like Pokemon.

[@MrWeedCat7070]

The moderator is playing Angry Birds while hosting this.

[@aidanbarrett8606]

Probably, I wouldn't blame him lol

[@nicnick2000]

It is a very bad moderator....

[@obsidian_oki]

It stops him from loosing all his braincells

[@Naptosis]

@@obsidian_oki if they get too loose, they fall out.

[@robertgabriel6858]

Funny shit man, lol

[@FakingANerve]

30 minutes in and I honestly think the Geneva convention would classify this as torture if this were played on a loop to detainees.

[@alikraken]

Hahahaha

[@wavingbuddy5704]

Yup

[@Unknown-yn4pk]

24:06 this must be an end of a discussion. kent know nothing about biology this is a proof, he knows nothing about what dave asked works. thats it this is a proof that kent is nothing bore but a biggest scumbag.

[@AP-gk6se]

By 25 minutes i have paused 4 times to take a breath as this is actively killing my braincells.

[@reseirs]

you can just feel the love in the room

[@DawzeyJ]

I would love to see a debate between the young earth creationists and the flat earthers. It would be amazing.

[@AMC2283]

the blind leading the blind

[@BugsAGD]

The world isn't ready for it.

[@alexcollins3086]

They're the same people.

[@weiwei-uplink]

I know I'm 1 year late, but when he called you a child abuser for 'teaching lies,' was probably the maddest I've been in my life.

[@arnoldsachnuseum8501]

Yes totally mad

[@TheMiracleMatter]

boy, must you have a happy life if that's what makes you the most mad.

[@weiwei-uplink]

@@TheMiracleMatter Eh not a sad life but it just really made my blood boil for some reason.

[@EKDupre]

Yeah. That was appallingly ironic.

[@TheMiracleMatter]

@@weiwei-uplink I wasn't being sarcastic when I said happy life. I meant to say I experienced and witnessed so much more upsetting things than that during my life. ...And to give the devil his due, Dave also really dropped the gloves quick.

[@jfpatxo8707]

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” - Mark Twain

[@Kroll117]

You have to debate and argue with some people because they're spreading false information and beliefs that are detrimental to society

[@andreaswinkel1297]

Those idiots like Kent not just ignore science and logic they even fight against science and logic because science and logic are foes to their medieval religious beliefs. 🤷‍♂️ The whole drama is that those idiots use technology which could not exist without the science and logic they are fighting against so hard!

[@andreaswinkel1297]

What is the role of the moderator in this discussion?

[@shikniwho7215]

@@Kroll117 well the problem with debate people like Kent is they will never accept they are the losing side then bragging to they follow about how no one able to win the debate again them. This kind of people will never change they mind no matter how many times you debate them, most you can do is hope some of they follow to watch this video and actually know how nonsense Kent is.

[@cjbotes1663]

Buddies - I like Dave, I think he is a precise and diligent debator and subscribe to his channels BECAUSE he is worth it. However ... a lot of these commentators misses the boat. Dr Kent got it some premises right, although he has some flaws in his "debauchery". Prof Dave has it ALSO wrong, and on several aspects, BUT mostly due to each trying to overshadow the other, INSTEAD of solving the problem, ie State and provide evidence to the hypothesis, then DEBATE with a follow up on the next programme on facts, errors, ommissions. However, I understand his and Dr. Kent's thought process and believe this needs to be a series of discussions as these debates are NOT Solutionary. One debate must be on Chemistry, one on Biology, One on BIOCHEMISTRY, one on Physics evidence, One on ... are you getting the line of thought? I didn't get ANY solutions from this debate, as the REAL analysis wasn't yet discussed. They started, thats the best way to put it. However, reading some of YOUR comments Guys and Dolls ... WOW!!! If you do not get WHAT I'm trying to explain to you, You're able to CONCLUDE some preordained / pre-thought process from basically "non-conclusive evidence" Man... You're just ... Magical?!!! Your bias is NOT palatable.

[@oranganewton]

Being a somewhat intelligent kid adopted by a vigorously religious Pastoral family this was waaaaaay too close to my weekly "debates" growing up

[@barbaraannen8126]

I'm so sorry to hear that. That must have been tough. I was the one asking questions in Sunday school

[@morningstarxs7848]

Lmao I feel you , mom would force me to go to church and church school. I would constantly debate with her. To the point, she took me to a preist to argue against lmfao

[@isagiyoichi5207]

Damn you must have good debating skills, because once I bring up something about god my parents just beat me up 😢

[@jimlidgard8295]

That must been rough...

[@PaperBagMan884]

Just a bit of advice, anyone claiming to be intelligent is never actually intelligent, 10 out of 10 times.

[@nmastando56]

“you think that a dog came from a protista” over billions of years yes “give me evidence of a protista giving birth to a dog” that’s basically what this debate was

[@maylingng4107]

Anyone who asks such an idiotic question is braindead.

[@luish1498]

creationists «think» that «related» means «give birth to» . so they think when someone says humans are related to dogs to creationists brain that means dogs give birth to humans! LOL

[@maylingng4107]

@@luish1498 Yes, creationists are extremely dumb that way.

[@JeremyWinfreeDev]

Science: We harnessed fire to create glass and metallurgy which eventually lead to the discovery of radio waves and the invention of electronics which eventually lead to the development of smartphones. Kent: So you're saying smartphones came from fire? Show me a smartphone today that came from fire!

[@Virtualblueart]

@ANDMA Whatever creationists need it to be as far as any creationist has ever been able to explain it (most often at proverbial gunpoint since they love avoiding ANY kind of explanation on what kinds actually are.)

[@JeremyWinfreeDev]

@@ChildOL It's not the evidence that's the problem. There is just as much evidence supporting evolution as the creation of smartphones. The issue is the conclusion. Apparently you are able to contemplate the individual advancements in independent fields that eventually lead to the development of smartphones. Arguments like "what is the point in an app that makes phone calls if there is no smart device or phone calls?" make no sense. Yet you creationists keep making arguments like that. Another common mistake creationists make is to assume the life on this planet is at an apex. Use your great imagination to imagine a scenario where tiny advancements over long periods of time lead to the development of smartphones. Imagine how those previous advancements are only considered advancements in the context of the smartphone (you wouldn't consider the invention of capacitive touch screens an advancement in the development of shoes, for example). Realize how many other things have changed in the past that had no impact on the phone. Think about how many changes had a negative impact on the advancements. Wrap your mind around the fact that the smartphone is not the end of the line and that technology will continue to advance and, eventually, the smartphone will be viewed as just another step in the advancement toward something else. Now apply that to biology.

[@davidoliver7510]

@@JeremyWinfreeDev spot on I would never have thought of that but now you said it I clearly understood that and understand Dave's argument a lot better thanks 👍

[@thercanonlybeonewotblitz7670]

Brilliant lol

[@GivenFailure]

@@ChildOL There is plenty of evidence of a kind changing to another kind over time, regardless of your definition of kind. I don't know what you mean by on its own, but evolution doesn't claim that populations "on their own," so I'm going to ignore that bit. I not sure Kent even says that directly, because he knows that this is easy to demonstrate. What Kent argues there's no evidence for is is that a kind begetting(a subtle but extremely important different) another kind. Which is true, and if it were evolution wouldn't be. He's banking on this double bind. If an individual can't change a different group, how can a population? He uses this dumb word game to then suggest that populations changing "kinds" is so absurd that evidence is basically irrelevant. He's using the fact that discrete categorizations of individuals into populations over time is impossible. Taxonomy will never ever have clean boundaries, *especially* between individuals. The problem is the names we give "kinds" and the categorizations of those names isn't evolution, populations changing don't care about what we call them. Ring species are a great example, but Kent, of course, will say that they are all still the same "kind." Which will lead the person to either: A. Ask what a kind is, starting this circle again B. Or extrapolate the process over a longer period of time, further demonstrating evolution through natural selection. In which case Kent will say that they still never produce a different "kind" again using the word game between populations and individuals. Which will again lead to either A or B. This is why he brought up individual humans who are sterile. Individuals, not populations. It's a clever tactic because it gets the knowledgeable aggravated and flustered because it's a mind numbing argument yet still makes enough sense to the ignorant.

[@JoshuaWillis89]

Kent: You can’t create life from non-living material. Also Kent: God created Adam from dust.

[@qhviananan-laul5159]

But the dust was alive , Kent showed me in science class, or a bad dream I had about the world getting dumber

[@skoulikiagamwtanekrasas]

@@qhviananan-laul5159 hahaah i hope this is troll

[@qhviananan-laul5159]

@@skoulikiagamwtanekrasas why would I be a Troll ? , I like billy goats . Plus it is too difficult sleep under bridges and no room for the entertainment center.

[@skoulikiagamwtanekrasas]

@@qhviananan-laul5159 you are it's difficult sleeping under bridges

[@qhviananan-laul5159]

@@skoulikiagamwtanekrasas mostly with all the damn goats constantly crossing over . I should have listened to my mom and went to Troll University. Got myself a degree in trolling from Troll U. and a trolling job in a tech company trolling, where I would troll you, but no degree you see for me so I have to let the trolling be, I'm tellin' ya G, it's not easy up this tree, for me or the, but sold out cheap, like my name was Lee, now life dips its nutsac top my head, like a bag of tea. Soon a turn for better, strike swift and silently, a pig, chanced on its way home, ham steak, anyone as I end this tome. It's on a swine I dine, you know the one that went Wheee ! Troll time peace out , didn't need Troll U. Doin' fine with a Troll G.E.D. ~ Q.

[@UnableToSquat]

It’s infuriating that Kent was constantly using the bible to back his points, however when Dave challenged the bible it was somehow irrelevant to bring up.

[@cloudchaser8650]

Its because the bible is apparently "above all human scrutiny" according to some people.

[@thatwaffleguy4958]

That is because Kent uses the "one for me, but none for thee" way of arguing, where he brings up a point that is invaluable to the argument, until it's brought up against him, then it's valueless. My brother used to use the same way to argue with me, and it'd get me in trouble because it'd piss me off and I'd start hitting him (we're far older now and no longer violently resolve things). My brother would use it because he knew it'd piss me off, and that's exactly what Kent is doing: pissing Dave off with blatantly false and circulatory arguments so it doesn't progress or resolve, stalling until the time runs out.

[@mmaxmax6]

"im allowed to use the bible but you arent!"

[@Fairburne69]

Evolution doesn't exist? But all humans evolved from two people with millions of variations. Asians Mexicans, White people etc etc.. So two people who were of one possibly 2 different ethnicities produced all the other ethnicities over time without evolving? How blind can the creationists be? Edited this post to hopefully be a little clearer.

[@mmaxmax6]

@@Fairburne69 ah so you are going to disagree with practically every biologist on earth? with what qualifications?

[@DM-kl4em]

I believed in YEC when I was in high school and didn't know any better. I had grown up in a very religious, Puritanical household. I was homeschooled, and literally forbidden to read any books about evolution. After becoming an adult, I finally had access to that information and changed my views accordingly. This debate was hard to watch. Kent Hovind's arguments remind me of when I was still trying to convince myself that evolution was false. The data was all readily available when I became an adult, but it still took years to finally accept it. A childhood of cult-like indoctrination will do that to you. Some people, like Kent Hovind, will never accept it, no matter how much you try to convince them. I almost felt sorry for him, until I saw him hitting Spongebob on the head with a tack hammer. My daughter and I are huge fans of Spongebob Squarepants, and Kent Hovind has officially crossed a line.

[@phillipharrison886]

It's hard to win an argument with a smart person but it is impossible to win and argument with a stupid person

[@hadrienlondon4990]

Chess with a pigeon

[@romanprekop6613]

1) if you argue with an idiot for more than 2 minutes, there are 2 idiots arguing 2) never argue with an idiot, he will drag you down to his level and there he will beat you with experience

[@brianallen2766]

@@romanprekop6613 love that first quote haha

[@ryan-el9er]

@@perfectstormx3107 it is also possible that Kent isn’t actually stupid. he may very well know exactly what he is doing. he may refuse to believe the science, despite knowing there is a possibility the science is correct and that there is no god. even Dave admits to how challenging it was to debate Kent because Kent has decades of experience doing this and quickly moves discussion into the direction he wants (not saying he was successful in all attempts). Kent may simply not want to accept anything besides god, but knows the science well enough to know how to argue against it without making it appear as though he believes the science.

[@The_Other_Ghost]

Hovind isn't stupid, just not honest.

[@meusana3681]

Kent: "you say this book has inaccuracies, I'd like you to show me one." Dave: Tries to bring up a single passage. Kent: "No, we aren't talking about the bible right now." Yup, that's Kent Hovind, the great defender of creationism.

[@jamesgaston2745]

Yeah he gets away with that garbage because James coddles and protects him. He's usually a decent moderator but never with this clown

[@albuseisenhorn3385]

He also has a bridge to sell

[@johnlawrencebello93]

Kent tryna dodge it like in the matrix

[@scvboy1]

Creationism in a nutshell.

[@bilyanavelikova5584]

And the thickass brick wall poorly disguised as a human

[@Durzo1259]

My favorite moment was Kent: "There's not a single scientific error in the Bible." Dave: "Okay, well let me read you a scientific claim made in the Bible..." Kent: "Whoooa there! We're here to talk about evolution, not the Bible." It's almost like he was afraid of something 🤔

[@zippytheatheist]

It is fascinating how at least half the time his response to any criticism ends up with "You think you are related to a watermelon" or whatever because he simply doesn't KNOW anything and his cult can't imagine that maybe scienticians know something Hovind doesn't.

[@joshbrz8902]

Dave can't even have a civilized conversation I can see the smoke coming out of his ears and I can hear the stress in his voice typical Democrat

[@6maniac6metal6]

@@joshbrz8902Hovind can’t win a straight debate so he uses the most annoying tactics possible to antagonizing a reaction out of Dave because idiots like you can only process the simplest of physical cues, I.e. Ken make opponent mad, Ken winner! Yay Ken yay!

[@michaelawford7325]

Kent is very very dumb and happy to be so

[@JwalkngSeal]

It’s hard to have a civilised conversation with an idiot suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect. @@joshbrz8902

[@JeanCorssair]

Dunno why Dave doesn't counter with "God kissed mud and mud turned into humans."

[@JeanCorssair]

Turns out he did. And Kent says it isn't an issue. Because, magic. A fairytale. Damn. Does he even realize he's a hypocrite?

[@DrDeathpwnsu]

Kent gets in a car in California and drives for 5 minutes: "As you can see I'm clearly still in California the idea that I could drive to New York this just absurd."

[@DrDeathpwnsu]

Kent begins singing the ABC's: "A, B, let me stop right now because there is no way there is going to be a Z at the end. And they teach this to children in schools?"

[@pjdj]

@@DrDeathpwnsu they’re brainwashing children!1!1!

[@pjdj]

Theyir*

[@Railfan105.]

@@DrDeathpwnsu Kent walks into a room and sees a cup on the ground, well obviously the cup just appeared there right before he entered the room and was definitely not set down by a dude that had to go do something real quick.

[@DrDeathpwnsu]

@@Railfan105. I'm flattered. I think you could improve that one though. What you need is a premise with a built-in expectation, then you can circumvent that expectation. Like put something that people know at the front, that way you're not explaining what happened the end, because you need to end to be like a surprise that pops out not one that trails off.

[@frenchtoast9972]

I feel like I'm both gaining and losing braincells simultaneously while watching this-

[@RedRanger-ll7hx]

Its kinda hard to listen to

[@m41a-vawv3]

A small cost for a small amont of brain cells

[@silas0757]

So your net amount of gained brain cells are 0? I see that as a win

[@raingerdiesalot]

See. I’m in full support of religious belief (as long as it’s lifting and connected a community whilst making sure people are accepted) because I feel as though for many who find themselves lonely even with people around, it is stabilizing. And for those suffering in a hard place, it gives them someone to believe in. And it makes me sad, that people like this religious scumbag make tools such as Faith and Religious Belief non-accessible/shunned for people in my generation because they fear judgement by association with people like him.

[@GutsEnthusiast]

@@silas0757 i see this as an absolute win

[@paradoxxis8612]

21:12 "this is my evidence" "your evidence is wrong" "well the point of this debate is not to disprove my evidence" Uh? Yes it is? That's literally the entire point of the debate. If you have one piece of evidence, and your evidence is proven incorrect, then you have lost the debate.

[@michellejirak9945]

And this is when I stopped watching. I wish the rules had been better defined so he couldn't get away with this.

[@fissanfjap]

If the point is to weigh the evidence for evolution, then this is in fact not achieved by falsifying some other hypothesis.

[@sheepketchup9059]

@@fissanfjap the point is him trying to show that you can't use bible as an evidence against Evolution and dismiss Kent's proposition. Then anti-Evolution proposition will be dismiss and make way for pro-Evolution proposition. You have to falsify other proposition and provide evidence for your proposition to win the debate, you can't just provide evidence for your own proposition and win the debate, you have to do both.

[@giardaphslaw5572]

@@fissanfjap Kent was saying evolution is wrong, Dave was saying evolution is correct. That was part of the debate and that's grand. That was debated Now Kent was saying creation is correct and Dave was saying creation is wrong. This wasn't debated properly as Kent refused to go into his 'evidence' of creation. He was afraid of his evidence being torn apart. And so he kept throwing irrelevant comparisons at Dave, looping back into statements he said countless times and going to the moderator to change the subject. He literally ducks a question by saying to James 'I think Dave is hogging all the time' just as it was his turn to speak and then changed the topic.

[@svampebob007]

"this is my evidence" "your evidence is wrong" "well the point of this debate is not to disprove my evidence" And this is how he got 10 years in federal prison for fraud :)

[@chuckyxii10]

Never debate a stupid person, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience

[@existenceenjoyer1]

- Mark Twain

[@AlbertGuilmont]

It's mind blowing how Hovind says "your religion of Evolution" as if "religion" is something bad, or as if "making a religion out of a lie" is bad... fuckin' irony is so thick there.

[@Broomful]

Not sure what hovind could be so frustrated about since evolution isn’t against religion.

[@connorcoultas9629]

So I’ve heard this from other religious people…. I think I’m their heads we believe in science with as equally blind faith as they believe in the Bible. They don’t understand the science, data, and evidence behind what we believe so they are trying to make an argument of “we both have faith based belief.” Obviously that’s front, but I think that’s what they’re getting at…

[@fivehivemind805]

@@jamesj2022 Okay. What specific problems do you have concerning evolutionary biology/modern synthesis? What are you aware of that geneticists and other biologists are not? What are the professional, working scientists of the world missing? You are aware that evolution is not some 'American atheist' thing, right? See, unlike religion, there are no denominations in science. It's conducted in the same way all over the world, regardless of religious beliefs, culture, language, etc. Do you know the definition of 'science'? How about scientific theory? Do you know what that means?

[@LeSarthois]

@@connorcoultas9629 Yep. Some people are actually incapable of imagining "no religion" so they come up with "Science as a religion". It probably doesn't help that Scientism was a thing in the XIXth century. This is why you see Creationism often talking/discussing and quoting Darwin and pointing at errors in The Origins Of Species. They think it's a sacred book of sort that Evolutionnists believe from A to Z so if things are wrong in it, then it's a false religion.

[@fivehivemind805]

@@LeSarthois Good points. They also project in other ways, like thinking that Darwin was some kind of messianic figure or something.. Weird. Also, I'm betting that very few creationists know that Darwin thought God created everything; he wrote something to that effect on the last page of 'Origins...'.

[@himhimmington]

"You say the bible has errors. I'd like to see some of those errors." "Alright, let's talk about the errors in the bible" "We can do that another time."

[@jianth]

Yea it's better to talk about that next time.evolution vs creation is important

[@mr.liddie9479]

What's wrong with sticking to thr topic.?

[@unpopularopinion4638]

@@mr.liddie9479 the point is that Kent’s only evidence was the Bible, which he asked Dave to disprove, then didn’t allow said requested disproval of his only source.

[@mr.liddie9479]

@@unpopularopinion4638 did we watch the same debate just now, either you don't listen very well, or you already established that Kent had nothing to offer before the debate got on the way....

[@unpopularopinion4638]

@@mr.liddie9479 yes, we watched the same debate, but I have no idea what you’re saying, all I’m saying is Kent’s only argument was “the Bible said this” and didn’t allow Dave to point out the many inconsistencies in Kent’s only source of evidence

[@melanyebaggins]

I love every time Kent is talked into a corner he brings up a completely unrelated subject to distract from him losing the argument. Poor Dave is like a professor trying to explain trigonometry to a toddler whose new favourite word is 'no'.

[@MischievousMan23]

That’s how snake oil salesman work, smoke and mirrors, gaslighting, and general stupidity. I don’t remember the exact quote but it has to do with not debating idiots because they drag you to their intelligence and then win from experience at that intelligence level.

[@KNylen]

sadly, when prof dave moved on to fossils (around 40 min) it seemed he did the same, but we know he was just tired of listening to the same kent spiel over and over. if he had just realized kent didnt know evolution happens over generations of many individuals, so a protist doesnt literally pop out a tree, he couldve gotten him, but instead we got this mind numbing repetitive back and forth.

[@vulpusgenius]

you are completely wrong, kent doesn't know how to say yes and no, he can't answer questions

[@donkim3493]

Hovind did get Dave to go back on what he said. And dave doesn’t want to answer Kent either. Just being objective.

[@vulpusgenius]

@@donkim3493 thats what annoys me so much about this, just say yes or no like come on

[@ragnarok343]

"Sandstone is made from sand." Is limestone made out of limes, Kent? This man is mentally impaired.

[@gavbarker8689]

limestone is made of lime (calcium carbonate) not limes, and sandstone is made of sand! Not sure what your point is!

[@ragnarok343]

@gavbarker8689 It's been 6 months. I was probably pointing out that Kent Hovinds sole argument is dishonest semantics and word games.

[@ethanglasgow7612]

Dave saying repeatedly Kent’s only evidence is “some book says so,” only to be followed by Kent quoting multiple passages from the bible was the funniest part of this debate

[@freddyguy8582]

The most funny part of the debates is James thinking he's a moderator.

[@KartikSingh540]

​@@freddyguy8582agree😂

[@christopherciolko2401]

"You're calling the Bible a Liar"

[@tinstrings6312]

The worst thing about Kent is how as he's talking as fast as he can, he peppers in little mocking jabs, and outright insults, like accusing Dave of child abuse. He tries to make you angry at him so you snap at him and he can accuse you of being an angry atheist who actually believes in god and just "hates religion" and "wants to sin" so he can claim a "moral" victory. He's a bad faith debater, and a troll, not a "Dr.", and certainly not an educator. For example: @ 31:12 Kent realizes that his usual tricks aren't working and Dave isn't getting bogged down in Kent's circular illogic, so he says "In your simple mind, blah blah blah." He's trying to make Dave angry so his arguments become illogical, because Kent's entire hustle is based in anti-logic.

[@michaelcrossley4716]

Kent is a Huckster. Even his debates are scripted. If you've seen one, you've seen them all. That's why he's scared to speak outside the realm of the topic. You'd think someone making a claim about the Bible being un-foul-able, would actually talk about it.

[@damofx]

That’s a brilliant analysis

[@aidanmatthewgalea7761]

wife beater, tax evader, ponzi scheme perpetrator, legally not a US citizen, and currently owes several million in debt due to the aforementioned arm of the "greedy corporate government" as he said on fox, and yet a man saying that a ball of oil with pre workout powder somehow makes a pile of pre workout soup with tapioca pudding running off the power of a lightbulb with its own nerves winding and strangling themselves due to the fact spicy oil managed to multiply, makes more sense than a sky man who hates aforementioned powder piles touching their wands and reincarnated his son as one of them, revived him, and caused magic tricks, is somehow right.

[@tinstrings6312]

@@aidanmatthewgalea7761 HA HA, what? Pre workout powder? Tapioca pudding nerves? I'm reading your comment over and over and I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but, it's really creative and hilarious, whatever you're saying.

[@aidanmatthewgalea7761]

@@tinstrings6312 look it up, the brain is by volume mostly water, fat and some salt, and if not preserved with formaldehyde, looks, tastes and feels like tapioca pudding. our nerves are roughly the strength of the "pudding film" and most of our nerves only schematically make sense in a fish. the nerves for speaking, swallowing and chewing are all one nerve that wraps around our Aorta and can strangle itself if it shifts even a millimeter too far

[@C_Crow]

Kent repeatedly calling Dave "son" made me want to scream. He was trying so hard to humiliate and belittle Dave

[@cheezunriceramen8995]

Classic tactic used by those that are older and by that virtue alone think that they are smarter/better/wiser. My grandpa likes to give a smirk and a chuckle to try and dismiss me when I use logic and reasoning with him. He hates it, but I know what he's doing and I won't let it dissuade me.

[@HardHardMaster]

It's a fallacy tactic to compensate for not being able to win on facts and valid arguments. Works on gullible followers. Favorite tactic of cult leaders and other conmen.

[@patrikengas6479]

would'nt dave being his son prove dave's point? 😂

[@Commander_Appo]

If you’ve heard some of the “parenting” (abuse) Kent has told stories of in the past, Kent calling Dave “son” is so much worse.

[@AqualungsBreath]

I am only at 16 minutes but already i want to bang my head against my Dawkins collection. What is he talking about? He thinks the bible is a scientific book? And his "jokes" are as lame as a creature that wasnt fast enough for Evolution.

[@todds.6028]

Fun fact: Kent was convicted of domestic vioIence in 2021

[@ehougen82]

“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain. I believe this debate epitomizes this quote.

[@jsimm4571]

Twain was absolutely right, and yes by golly, so are you. I also wonder (as do so many of the commenters) how (or why), Dave can keep doing this. I think Kent Hovind has all the skill and experience of a carnival barker, and is very well-practiced in the art of baffling brains with bullshit.

[@starwarriorterra8373]

I will not lie, I had trouble not shutting down when Kent used his OPENING STATEMENT to call Dave a child abuser, just for using misinformation (which he isn't, but even if he were this is a desperate reach). I don't think I would have had the patience to take a debate seriously if that was how my opposition opened.

[@Wh40kFinatic]

He's not an idiot. He is a deliberate con artist. He *knows* the stuff he is saying is false.

[@GeoffRosenstein]

No, expose frauds for who they are. Argue with them and embarrass them. It's your civic duty to look out for gullible people.

[@martinhead3731]

"I. have learned to never wrestle with a pig: you both get dirty and besides, the pig enjoys it." GBS.

[@jafshrimp7322]

I can literally see the PAIN in Dave's eyes... he was martyr for science. My condolences.

[@jafshrimp7322]

@@michaelszczys8316 If he has a base on things that most of the researchers say, with evidence, it is most likely true. Also, if Kent brings up a point that doesnt fit in with what he just said about sceince because sceinece doesnt play a role, its justifiednto ask such a question.

[@owli9366]

I CAN SEE THE HYPOCRISY OF KENT. 6000 YEARS OLD MY ASS.

[@sniperpupper616]

I swear I was about to have an aneurysm just listening to Kent, the amount of patience Dave must have had to not hang up after 20min must have been immeasurable

[@好吧-h6k]

???? Dave was not killed

[@BadBrassProductions1]

@@sniperpupper616 L))>754#$ lol

[@applicableapple3991]

"This is criminal behaviour in my opinion to teach children something that is just a lie." Ah, the irony.

[@bobdull3148]

Lol

[@alierenko]

@@comanche66100 you know.. There was said a lot of things you can look up....?

[@Bigfoottracker89]

Most things in the bible are made up? Lol there are tons of things that are not made up thats in it. I dont know if id say most

[@Bigfoottracker89]

@BladerNation thats only a few not most... not saying i disagree with you just dont like people who hate on christianty for whatever reason and if you do make sure to say accurate. Alot of things in the bible a actually happened. But prob alot didnt or didnt in a way its taken idk there are therioes on mistranslations of dates or the the idea that god is out side time so a day to him = ? To us arguement. Im more fasinated by the nephilim and the flood. Lol

[@Bigfoottracker89]

@BladerNation yea i know this well. I was raised sothern baptist. I just serperate my experience with the religon from researching it and other interesting stuff like science other religons myths phrophecy. Um i dont thinking people should have a problem with the christians who have used this religon to enhance their lives but maybe find problem with god bc he says he is alpha and omega but says most will go to hell and creates us all anyway. If he is all powerful he could have done better? Thats my issue dont take ur anger out on christians but god perhaps idk .

[@kylejhartman]

Moderator calling them both “good debators” is WILD

[@jordangreyling8820]

i couldnt imagine a more frustrating situation than talking to this guy

[@abusedcow987]

@FilthyDankWastemanFabuless Me yes, I have a lot debates like these where all they do is beg the question. its a pain in the butt

[@ForgedinPrint]

talking to him, his son, ray comfort and his puppet..I mean matt powell at the same time. If you can't think of anything worse just stack it.

[@elhabto]

Its impossible to win a debate win an idiot because they can make shit up considering they don't have anything to stick to

[@55Quirll]

I haven't been able to listen to the whole video without having to turn it off and give my brain a chance to recharge and replace all those brain cells that were destroyed trying to fathom what Kent was saying.

[@diamentus3774]

Proffesor Dave: *Something Scientific* Kent: A - Its a lie! B - Bible says... X - Repeat same question multiple times -Y- - -Give up- Ego is to high to proceed - ...

[@AnnoyingOrange420]

If Dave filmed himself attacking a literal brick wall for an hour straight, there would be more constructive debate there than in this video. He’s a brave man for even attempting to reason with Kent

[@stefanlaskowski6660]

It's impossible to legitimately use reason and Kent in the same sentence. Heck, maybe in an entire library.

[@user-vt3vo1yd3v]

@@stefanlaskowski6660Because Kent knows he’s wrong. He’s a conman. He is as much as an atheist as anyone he’s debated. He doesn’t actually believe the shit he says. He clearly knows he incorrect because he knows exactly which questions to dodge.

[@ktwhimsy6946]

I’ve known people like this who are impossible to reason with, or even have a single meaningful conversation that leads both parties to a better understanding of the others’ perspective … it’s exhausting to even try. It’s draining to even watch this … I need a nap 😅

[@irenafarm]

It’s a little uncomfortable to watch because I grew up exposed to the exact style of gaslighting that Kent utilizes. I was unsurprised when he was convicted of domestic abuse.

[@obiechinaejiofor124]

@@irenafarm which gaslighting

[@SlappyJack]

Dave, I applaud you giving this a chance, but you just spent 80 some odd minutes playing chess with a pigeon. Kudos to you for trying.

[@mistylover2082]

😆😆😆 agreed.

[@elcarpe9186]

He was teaching a pig to sing.... Frustrates him and irritated the pig

[@Longtack55]

Thanks for the warning. I'm outta here after 2 minutes.

[@parktol02]

Kent Hovind is a lolcow.

[@pizzaface117]

Don't insult pigeons like that.

[@xPoemi]

This debate reminds me of the domesticated foxes situation, which beautifully illustrates how evolution works - even when human intervention is involved. Kent's argument against selective breeding and spontaneous traits in dog breeds is undermined by the foxes' story. Over generations, breeders selected the friendliest foxes, and in doing so, not only did their behavior shift dramatically, but unexpected physical traits emerged as well. In the wild, mutations like unusual coat colors are naturally weeded out because they don't aid survival-after all, a white fox in a forest isn’t exactly stealthy. But when natural selection is removed, these mutations thrive. The result? Foxes with spotted, grey, or even white coats began to appear, showcasing how mutations are constantly occurring but are typically kept in check by environmental pressures. So, the next time someone claims mutations don’t lead to observable change, remind them that evolution doesn’t work on our schedule-or theirs. It’s constantly happening, even if some mutations don’t survive the test of natural selection. Science is full of surprises-creationist arguments, not so much 🦊

[@fin3662]

It's incredible how a man with literally only 2 talking points can fill so much air time...

[@jakobl5038]

It is so frustrating

[@RCKola281]

Did either of those two arguments get refuted in 1 and a half hours of airtime?

[@miraqen7801]

@@RCKola281 _they are non-arguments._ i can see that you are either willfully ignorant or just ignorant or that you just didn't watch the video. he thinks evolution demonstrates that a dog can interbreed with a whale and produce offspring when it doesn't even remotely demonstrate that. he is charlatan, and if you cannot see that; it's not our problem. learn basic critical thinking to avoid embarrassing yourself in adult conversations.

[@jlr3636]

His followers don’t require proof, they are a CULT. Exactly the same as the present day GOP and tRump cult followers, … to quote Jim Jones “pass the kool-aid please”

[@andrewdavidson1434]

@@RCKola281 Yes, definitely.

[@mauri-mattiaslaanesaar5305]

Kent: so this book... Dave: yeah actually about that bo- Kent: *OKAY BUT THAT'S NOT THE TOPIC WHY ARE YOU BRINGING IT UP NOW???*

[@3LeagueSos]

Lmao

[@chevysears4548]

Has either party made the connection between the scriptures and ancient mythologies?? Many of the book's stories resemble those of many myths such as Sampson and Hercules (insert mythical strongman here)?

[@ralphenstein9105]

@@chevysears4548 Good point. The Bible is a badly put together compilation. I believe the whole thing was edited at some point, as well. Some of the more controversial and far-fetched parts were cut out, like a young Jesus turning his friends into pigs.

[@AFantasticCat]

Plus these fundamentalist beliefs Kent keeps bringing up from the Bible also includes the flat earth theory. Kent definitely stated that the earth is round and flat earth is not true but the Bible states that the earth is a disk and there is a “dome” covering it. So obviously Kent picks and chooses what he wants to acknowledge from the Bible.

[@lpawowp]

@N S girl i-

[@gabrieljordan8015]

You will never win an argument against a stupid person. We might as well just stop trying.

[@pancakes8670]

We should at least keep correcting him in the hopes of preventing more people for falling for his lies

[@reaverfang377]

The idea is to convince the misguided away from the stupid.

[@RHMR621]

Two reasons not to stop arguing with stupid people: To guide others away from them and to laugh at their stupidity.

[@reaverfang377]

@@RHMR621 I also say this as someone who was very stupid and misinformed as of last year.

[@RHMR621]

@@reaverfang377 What's your story? Saying this out of pure curiosity for the deconversion (Right?) of somebody else.

[@KenVermette]

Dave, I feel your statements about Kent are dishonest and wrong. Comparing him to a used car salesman is insulting; at least with a used car salesman their product has a chance of getting you somewhere.

[@inkchariot6147]

Kent: But why can't a car turn into an amoeba?

[@tuwuesday]

They had us in the first half, not gonna lie

[@romamoran1337]

Also while a used car salesman sells proven usable cars, Kent sells a manual that's not even applicable anywhere.

[@Crazyape69]

Insults are signs of internal struggles within yourself. You did a terrible job with very lacking info. Opinions are not science so are also a con man in some form or another. You never demolished anything. It was a simple debate, you explained nothing different than anyone else. Nothing special by far....... 😂

[@romamoran1337]

@@Crazyape69 1. Nobody asked for your uninteresting input, 2. It's a joke, which doesn't need to be informative or factual, it just needs to be witty, 3. Trying to refute a joke as a serious argument shows nothing but your lack in humor and the bitterness of Kent's audience, 4. Explain how insults are 'internal struggle', and how taking insults from a joke seriously isn't, or did you just make that claim up.

[@jonjonsson4270]

My god. Chevy trucks and Ford trucks having similar lug nuts to counter-argue evolutionary science...

[@nuclearglory0363]

“Singularity, whatever that is” And with only a few words, he has proven he doesn’t know what he’s discussing

[@awung11]

The thing is plenty of theists believe in the Big Bang singularity. Specifically, God could be the one that caused the singularity in the first place. Kent, on the other hand, is unwilling to concede anything to modern science because it contradicts his narrow young earth viewpoint. He opposes any idea that might agree with the Bible, but disagrees with his pseudoscience. Two such ideas are old-earth creationism and theistic evolution.

[@henrytims4745]

awungsauce exactly! The Big Bang is imperially corroborated. Theists just believe it was caused by a creator

[@thewatermelon3831]

@@henrytims4745 yeah, the Big Bang theory and theism are not necessarily mutually-exclusive :)

[@Wittgensteinism]

It was a catholic priest that first proposed what we now call the Big Bang theory. Clearly it’s not incompatible with theism.

[@d_fendr6222]

@@81monkeybone Well you could just say that something was God causing the universe to exist.

[@mikeydudek2885]

I’m sorry I can’t watch this anymore, this dude is so ignorant it’s literally making me mad.

[@ooo_Kim_Chi_ooo]

Same.

[@davewilliams5102]

Don't him make you mad! Enjoy Kent's stupidity!

[@OldMGaming]

Yep, I share the feeling. It’s similar to how I feel when I hear William L Craig attempt to explain God through cosmology and physics. Gets me so angry

[@krisbest7846]

Breathe, he,s hard to listen to but it,s so comforting to know this clown spread his ignorance to get us all to learn more biology etc.

[@KarmaWalker]

Not just ignorant, but ARROGANT in his ignorance.

[@alexquinn3148]

The fact that Kent said “this is criminal behaviour, in my opinion, to teach children something that is just a lie” is just too funny to me

[@elampro]

Just through my bible away. Thanks Kent for educating me.

[@sharkgrenadevr]

It is indeed ironic

[@Faint366]

Him accusing someone else of child abuse when he’s a convicted domestic abuser and allowed his friend to abuse children at his resort is… awful

[@katiebarber407]

every accusation made by right wingers is secretly an admission of guilt

[@SeanMahoneyfitnessandart]

It would be funny if their indoctrination wasn't so dangerous for the good of society.

[@xoliswamphuti1320]

People who do not believe in science should stop using the technology that we benefited from science. Period. Then they will know how life will be like without the contributions of scientific studies.

[@xboxandmacgamer]

"I have a rule in my debates that we only talk about one topic at a time, so if you want to talk about fossils we can" *Talks about fossils* "Okay but has a protista ever made a dog?"

[@gamgam7979]

@Bradley Sica because protistas dont make dogs, they make slightly different protistas. (to be more accurate, 30 generations later their "grandchildren" make a slightly different protista) and then those protistas repeated the proccess until there was different protistas, so different they werent protistas anymore. and so on.

[@s4mu1l_ssg64]

@Bradley Sica aaa yes, the aliens have created us

[@gamgam7979]

@@evolutionismrequiresfaith4974 with the oxygen that was created by the big bang? there's oxygen at the center of the sun, there's no plants there either. if no one has given you the answer you havent asked the right people.

[@chaosincarnate7304]

@@evolutionismrequiresfaith4974 We got our oxygen through the rise of micro organisms that had photosynthesizing abilities. Which is to say they took light and carbon dioxide which was abundant in a young planet and turned it into food aka glucose. The byproduct of this was that it released oxygen in the air, so as the carbon dioxide was being used up oxygen was getting released into the Earth in what we know as the Great Oxidation Event. They used photosynthesis to get energy from eating food they made which is much easier than to waste energy in moving to find food. Even then they didn't need Oxygen to survive, we do however because we have adapted to the oxygen rich environment and used it to fuel our living processes. Which is to say that without oxygen we will not be able to get energy. This is because some of our body cells have a mitochondria, which is a organelle that breaks down sugars USING oxygen to make energy. And on the topic of there being no oxygen in the Sun, sure you could say we haven't seen or taken oxygen from our Sun. But, we can be sure. This is because our Sun like many other stars have an internal process that create different elements called Nuclear fusion. They do this thanks to the universal force of gravity, which brings molecules and atoms closer and closer together. It is called "Nuclear" fusion because it relates to the nuclei of the atoms. Not every massive object makes a star, if there is not enough mass then we get planets and rings of interplanetary dust. But if something is massive enough that meets the requirements of making a star it will form. Nuclear fusion squeezes the nucleus of atoms together to make a new atom. one Hydrogen atom has 1 proton and electron, when 2 hydrogen atoms get combined together they make a Helium atom which has 2 protons and 2 electrons and so forth. This process also generates LOTS of heat due to the pressure in the core, which prevents stars from collapsing under their own weight (from gravity). This is why our stars don't instantly turn into blackholes, blackholes are formed when the celestial tug of war between the forces ends with gravity winning.

[@chaosincarnate7304]

@@evolutionismrequiresfaith4974 You are right, there may be tiny errors. same with everything we theorize. But to assume that somehow our theories are wrongyou should atleast disprove them, the only argument you bring is "BUT BUT SO LONG AGO HOW WE KNOW WE HAVENT SEE" Hell the great oxidation event is still being debated by scientists. No, we don't just dig up some fossils or look at the stars and say "Wow! I know everything error-free" You may think that based on your limited understanding on the scientific process and scientists in general but we don't. We create papers and models and build theories based on data AND EVIDENCE we collect from experiments. We do not gain information only by observing, if we did you can say we haven't seen air or we haven't seen God or been there when they were created so they don't exist. We learned what air was by analyzing our atmosphere and by performing experiments and using tools to identify data. And no, we aren't taught science like the bible, ALL science students are taught different curriculums from different countries and are ALWAYS taught to make their own hypothesis, the reason that we believe similiar things is because they are based on fact and not faith. If I showed you a piece of wood and said it was not wood you wouldn't just believe me, you would try burning it, cutting it and testing it wouldn't you? There would be no way you could prove it was 100 percent wood , you would know however it is extremely likely to be wood. You could say ALIENS created the STARS!!! and it would be impossible to explain, how and why? With our nuclear fission it is easy, if we base our theories on the laws of physics which are based on fact then it will be accurate. I already explained Nuclear fission so I won't repeat myself. Unless you have a better theory than the hundreds of thousands of other scientists than please enlighten us. I never said I EXACTLY know everything that happened way before anything, I am just using my critical thinking, evidence and analyzing skills to come to the conclusion. Actual scientists constantly try to disprove themselves instead of thinking they know everything because they think are much smarter than other people. Why do you think we constantly send probes to space? To waste billions of dollars and to pay thousands of people full wage for them to just use resources? We send rovers and probes to test our experiments. Currently we have sent a probe near our sun to analyze it. Hope it clears and doubts, and if you still don't believe me maybe you are just allergic to thinking.

[@thecatattheend2250]

"Well *here's* the proof! It says right here: God Did It. Stupid." Dave: "Can you prove any of these points?" Kent: "Sandstone is made of *s a n d"*

[@deathchilde]

@@reubenmanzo2054 not surprising. My father made me in the dark too. Of course, I'm pretty sure mom was in on it too

[@好吧-h6k]

this comment reminds me of the sandcastle argument some Christians use

[@好吧-h6k]

@@reubenmanzo2054 I’ve seen a lot of people who do that

[@StarSong936]

@@deathchilde Maybe that explains why I never had children. I always did it with the lights on. No I don't believe that, I'm sure there are others out there who did conceive children with the lights on. Wouldn't it be grand if we had such a simple solution to birth control.

[@yasselpupo6688]

50:37

[@kerorogunso961]

Kent: "Lets talk about the bible shall we"; Dave: "Ok let me share some passages with you then"; Kent: "No, you arent here to debate the bible" This kent guy is off his rocker man XD

[@matthewlong3716]

In Kent's defense he is correct that Creation should be proveable outside the bible.. but the bible, if true should uphold that evidence. Problems with the bible should be in another debate but Kent brought it up and quoted it so he opened up the door a bit ..and quickly closed it.

[@IIDEADBIRDII]

Lol off his rocker and those years in jail helped his future bowel movements

[@jarrattripley4603]

Look, Kent did a good job explaining that he respects freedom of religion. Being spiritual doesn't = moron. Some of you are jerks. I can love science and God. I believe they support each other.

[@jarrattripley4603]

@Scott Coulson Exactly I agree with you.. My choice to believe in God is based upon faith. I realize I claimed that science supported God and that was a mistake, however faith in God is not irrational. And I'm not one of those who chooses to believe that everything in The Bible is literal. There are many many great scientists and physicists that had extraordinary faith in God.

[@raym444]

@@matthewlong3716 no, the problem with the bible should be in another debate is that the bible is Hovind's only single piece of evidence for creationism and he won't let Dave address it. It's like Dave saying "evolution should be in another debate".

[@Gdafu866jds]

Everything has an intelligent creator, except the intelligent creator 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

[@PerennialQuest]

How convenient!😂😂😂

[@tanneraustin9071]

The fact that Kent said that “whatever that is” about a singularity is terrifying.

[@100th_monkey]

I would have told him that perhaps the singularity was the creative act of God that brought the universe into existence, and just watch him melt down

[@tarrahrogers9933]

But he has “multiple degrees” and “taught science for 15 years”

[@notrecyborg5492]

Because no one actually knows what a singularity is, it's something that transcends known science, where all measurements meet infinite values. So I'm not sure what you're getting at.

[@AverageNecronEnthusiast]

@@notrecyborg5492: "it's something that transcends known science, where all measurements meet infinite values" Kent: "whatever the singularity is" You know the definition of it, you just don't know the details. Kent, meanwhile, demonstrated that he came to a debate without even a shred of understanding of his opponents argument, foreshadowing that he's not here to argue but just to yell.

[@yinnakatomi]

If you took a crocodile and made it listen to Kent for 2 minutes, the poor creature would kill itself

[@zainrei4917]

Hahaha

[@pavel9652]

I would rather listen to Justin Bieber ;)

[@its1899]

which is impressive because i dont even know how a crocodile could kill itself in the first place

[@coffeeguy.3438]

it would eat kent alive. look up king crocoduck vs kent debate.

[@wickedguppy3715]

Personally I'd prefer the crocodile eats him...quickly.

[@milkenobi]

Kent’s entire argument: why frog not become horse? Literally. He barely says anything else.

[@edluckenbill8363]

He knows better. Conman is correct.

[@papkenation653]

I trust scientists when i see that they have the education. People that specialize in something is someone i can trust. I cant trust the bible. It has been changed by humans way too much to be worthy to be used in this argument. Its all well documented and described with evolution. The bible is a fairy tale. And it sucks.

[@thomasneal9291]

Religion itself has become little more than an argument from ignorance. Hopefully, people will someday stop thinking ignorance is strength.

[@milkenobi]

@@andrewralte1533 not sure, can you explain what an evolutionist means? I hear it a lot from religious people but it’s not something I hear outside of that context.

[@oanhienlong7264]

@@andrewralte1533 that's not how evolution works.....

[@3122-t6h]

Fossils are not bones, if Hovind had any kind of science education he'd know that.

[@Mouth-of-Spaghetti]

l have a small fossil collection , about 30 pieces. "its not a bone" is a sentence l say far too much

[@Mayhem_The_Red]

Dave: *Explains evolution* Kent: This coffee cup was made

[@ded__]

That's not comparing apples and oranges, it's literally comparing 2 different timeline.

[@Mayhem_The_Red]

@@serbeo5749 I do not hate Christianity. You can hold belives in God without denying evolution.

[@bubla2659]

@James Hagan I think that’s because it was made to be like that

[@MrWoodWork18]

Imagination I swear if Kent got brain damage his iq would go up

[@laurencerosenthalwinckler4439]

AHHHHHHH... Seems like this debate turned into domestic violence later in 2020 "Hovind was arrested in Alabama on July 30, 2021, for allegedly throwing his estranged wife, Cindi Lincoln, to the ground in October 2020. Additionally, she petitioned for a protective order in Conecuh County, Alabama, saying that she had to go to the emergency room after being "bodyslammed". She has also stated that she had been threatened by one of Hovind's associates.[185][186][187] At a bench trial in the Connecuh County Courthouse on September 20, 2021, he was found guilty of domestic violence. He was sentenced to one year in jail which would be suspended following 30 days in the county jail to start by October 18, fined $500, and ordered to pay restitution for medical expenses.[188] A request for a retrial was denied, and an appeal triggered a jury trial in the Alabama Circuit Courts.[189] "

[@anubarak9184]

Dave: _defines species_ Kent, mere minutes later: "species is really hard to define, you can't define species" oh god, what did I sign up for...

[@anubarak9184]

i can't. i really can't.

[@anubarak9184]

i quit. I thank you for doing this Professor Dave, but I can't watch this

[@ultrainstinctvegerot4946]

It was like He was arguing with a five-year-old but I can't stop laughing

[@Andy-ej4bb]

It's true, it is hard to give "species" an absolute non arbitrary definition. This fact only serves to reinforce the idea that species are related and the biblical notion of "kind" is inaccurate and useless. Hovind actually undermines his own cult belief but cannot see it for himself.

[@Andy-ej4bb]

@@anubarak9184 I couldn't watch past the bit where Hovind accused the other guy if child abuse.

[@mach2223]

"the bible is never wrong" "okay, let me tell you about the instances when the bible is wrong" "no, only I am allowed to talk about the bible" "so you are allowed to praise the bible but I am not allowed to criticise it" "exactly correct" edit: i didn't check this comment for 2 months and now the replies are a shitstorm so enter at your own risk

[@arsenal4444]

you can't make this stuff up 🤣🤦‍♂ pain, agony even

[@jasonnelson5745]

It's really funny that Dave lets Mr. Hovind criticize evolution textbooks but when Dave tries to criticize the Bible Kent says "we're not here to talk about the Bible" Smh

[@zesu09]

half the people tht say this dont even read the bible, lol. it says to not eat pork, get christians still do

[@forickgrimaldus8301]

@@zesu09 actually thats for Hebrews and Muslims as Christianity has different values from the 2 other Abrahamic religions and Modern Christianity is a decendent of just one sect mainly Nicean Christianity, there are others like Arian Christians, Gnostics, Cathars ect that have been in one form or another simply disappeared either violently or peacefully converted, in fact the 1st Christians are likely just hebrews that just believe Jesus is the messiah and still practiced the Hebrew traditions and practices.

[@forickgrimaldus8301]

Criticising and Interpreting the Bible is literally what Priests and Preachers do. In fact literal sects form based on certain interpretations.

[@Johnnye-r6r]

Kent's Sponge Bob doll has more brains than he does.

[@timfehr8236]

you got to admit that Kent has mastered avoiding questions

[@JohnV170]

He should have been a politician. Actually, no, that would be horrible.

[@phlyweekly6822]

Don’t really understand how he was dodging questions, but Alr

[@Pajamas.Tepanek]

@@phlyweekly6822 -Talking about protista - Kent asks why rabbits haven't grown wings (Unrelated) just one of many examples.

[@phlyweekly6822]

@@Pajamas.Tepanek Can you send the time stamp? When I watched it, I found no problem with his comments or rebuttals.

[@knobgoblin9237]

@@JohnV170 hes too overqualified, he avoids paying taxes, hes physically abusive, and he cant wrap his head around anything that doesnt enforce his worldview

[@tobiasjones-worth4229]

Kent: *immediately calls him a child abuser*

[@stephenconnolly3018]

That's rich coming from a religious Preacher.

[@bobbybird9433]

Yeh classic. Then aligns himself with the church who are the biggest group of child abusers and murderers ever to have lived

[@lemonroaster2475]

Probably calling him that to fuck his reputation, and his credibility

[@affirmingtoe15]

In July of 2021 Kent was arrested for beating his wife back in 2020

[@gasc0ny]

"hey kid, god watches all of your movements, and if you do anything wrong you will be sent to a fire pit for all eternity" *new ability learned: anxiety!*

[@kahbn]

"all your arguments boil down to 'a book says a thing'." "You're wrong, because a book says a thing."

[@Plutario9715]

He's right because a book doesn't say a thing. Ever thought about that?

[@clarion-z2929]

Imagine the world without Kents kind... How far would we be already...

[@dotoda5695]

It’s funny how Kent says repeatedly that they weren’t here to talk about the Bible, uses the Bible as one of us only sources during this debate.😂

[@coldclearkt]

@@jonquebyrd3105 but he didn't want to argue and defend it

[@elementalpug7457]

52:00 is a good example

[@pmanha]

"One of"? It is his ONLY source. He believes (or claims to believe) that the Bible is fact and the accurate description of the possible actions of God. Ofc, he only accepts the KJV of it, which had some....edits...put in to it when comparing with the previous version. Some of the books in the bible where Jesus' life is depicted were written by people that didn't live at the same time as Jesus. Now, I was raised Catholic. That does not mean that I deny science. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The insistence on depicting Science as an adversary of religion (in this case Christian religion) is baffling to me. The Bible is a set of allegories used in an ignorant time, written by ignorant people, to try to explain what was going on to other ignorant people. We can explain today, **scientifically**, some of the events described in the Bible. I think of it like this: the Bible is what you get if you ask for a primary schooler to describe more advanced scientific phenomena than he/she is prepared to explain. The primary schooler will resort to "its magic" explanation more often than not. Sorry for the wall of text, but this guy (Kent H) really annoys the crap out of me.

[@apackofhoboes]

That is like his whole shtick

[@kerminator1225]

He uses only the bible as his proof and randomly throws around big words to sound smart.

[@pbmdh]

If nobody heard, Kent's lawsuit was laughed out of the court room and dismissed 'with prejudice'

[@mrphilippus979]

Is that actually true? That is hilarious, I love you for this information right now. XD

[@moelester4165]

I laughed so hard when i heard that. The scammer was scammed by his own son bwahahaha! His son also remade all of kents videos 😂😂😂

[@pbmdh]

@@johnnyapplesmith Some people get away with murder too, does that mean everybody should?

[@bermafit6884]

@@johnnyapplesmith random, john apple ive seen ur other comments u seem like an intelligent individual

[@treyjennings0915]

Saw telltale's video on this. Good stuff lol

[@DennyPittman-w6g]

Roughly 25:00 to 40:00 : Dave repeatedly tries to pound the fact of evolution being gradual into Kent's thick skull, but he still doesn't get it and interrupts him constantly to ask dumb questions.

[@TheCadman069]

Dave's opening 8 minutes: *high speed science presentation* Kent's opening 8 minutes: *rant from the crazy guy at the Golden Corral buffet on Sunday after church*

[@katieanikh]

Liar

[@TheCadman069]

@@katieanikh Dumbass

[@pineapple3832]

Ahhh! Kent definitely eats at Golden Corral and gets all his knowledge from the menu and other customers there after church XD

[@joeljo2637]

With an added side of gaslighting

[@Zoms101]

"You cannot get more empirical than 'I bet if I look here I'll find the thing' and then you do and you find the thing." Definitely saving that one.

[@WhiteWolf-lm7gj]

@@jennpostlethwaite3319 good for him

[@sgregory0753]

Theists be like: then it’s the work of gOd

[@glasscardproductions4736]

@@sgregory0753 *Theists

[@sgregory0753]

@@glasscardproductions4736 changed it

[@Whoami691]

Kent: I wanna talk about the bible! Dave: Ok lets talk about the bible. Kent: I no longer want to talk about the bible.

[@mihaiciornei5648]

thats so true!!!!!!!

[@GeeBeeOhThree]

If the opponent is prepared, then they're dangerous

[@trulahn]

Because many evolution biologists actually read the Bible and find the entire creation stories ridiculous and self-contradictory. Without leaving Genesis, you can already find 2 separate accounts of creation with different orders of events and different descriptions of events. If you go beyond that, there are even more contradictions. Creationists cherry pick their Bible verses like the average Christians do.....that is to say all the time.

[@MrMild-sv7is]

Pretty sure Kent doesn't know as much about the Bible as he lets on, considering that he has said before that he doesn't know who Yahweh is and that there's only one God of the Bible. Granted, he's a KJV only-ist, so maybe he doesn't know that Jahvova is just a German translation of YHWH.

[@Whoami691]

@@jamesj2022 What needs cleaning up is your grammar. I'm a Dr too you know, granted i Paid a few hundred for the peice of paper but I am just as qualified as Kent and got my Doctorate in the same way. IF god was real he wouldn't need you to peddle his rehtoric, he could do it himself. Alas, if he is so threatened by his own creations for discovering fact in the universe he made he's not much of a god.

[@spicedrat7615]

Kent Hovind disgusts me.

[@Evidence1]

Kent Hovind: Have you ever seen a broccoli giving birth to a squirrel? The World: No Kent Hovind: Evolution is false.

[@kaejude9915]

😭🤣

[@megamortonx]

As a Christian, this is completely accurate

[@rtmcdge]

The thing is, all plants have only been observed to reproduce more plants. All of the different kinds of organism have only been observed to reproduce more of their own kind. Dave has never shown that in any amount of time will cause one kind of organism to have descendants that go one to become new kinds of organisms.

[@gl15col]

​@@rtmcdgeSo, what's your explanation for fossils? Many of which show how separate organisms change over time, but not that they change into completely different organisms. Dave never once said anything about "plants evolve into animals". Thats a deliberate misrepresentation by you. There are fossils of animals that adapted to survive better in new conditions, but not one fossil has ever been claimed to show a rutabaga gradually turning into a snail. Only you said anything about such a thing happening.It makes no sense and you need to stop twisting the facts to suit your beliefs.

[@Evidence1]

@@rtmcdge You just showed the entire Internet you have no clue how evolution works.