Professor Dave Destroys Kent Hovind (Young Earth Creationism Debunk)

Hi everyone, some of you may be aware of my flat

earth

debunk

ing videos and a channel called modern debates contacted me after watching them to see if I wanted to come on the channel and debate a guy named Kent Hovind about

creationism

. the

young

Earth. versus evolution, so I looked it up with his guys and it turns out he's like a slimy car salesman, a guy who introduces himself as dr. Kent Hovind and claims to have multiple doctorates has no decrees of any kind not even a bachelor's degree claims to have taught high school science for fifteen years never taught in any school was basically homeschooled some kids in a church actually went to jail for tax evasion for ten years, so this guy is like a big bastard, so naturally I wanted to take a bite out of this guy, so I looked up a lot of his discussions and it turns out he has the exact same ridiculous talking points as they. they are all blatant lies or at least outright misrepresentations of science.

He doesn't understand science and deliberately misrepresents it. That's how he makes a living. He lies and any university I know brings donations that way, so I want to. He III decided that he wanted to do it. I want to make it clear that no, I do not attack religious people in this way. I usually saw in debates how much he dodges direct questions and how he just changes the subject when he knows. that he doesn't have the ability to argue and eat science at that point, so I knew I was going to have to intimidate him a little and again, I don't do this to religious people, it's usually fine, this guy is a scammer who lies . to people for money, he would normally never go and attack someone's religion like this, so he just wanted to offer it to them in advance.

I was definitely very aggressive in this. I didn't do as well as I expected. I'll chalk it up to lack of experience, definitely, every time I'd knock down one of his points, he'd just be like a greased pig, pin him down and then just squeal and squirm out of the corner, evade direct questions, I mean, we really has. He has a script that he's been running for about 30 years and this is what this guy does and this is how he makes a living and apparently he spent ten years in jail, right? He didn't learn his lesson and keeps doing the same shit.

Anyway, this may or may not interest you, it's about

debunk

ing

young

earth

creationism

and there are definitely some good moments here, there are definitely some funny moments, so check it out and see if you enjoy it. Thank you so much. Hello everyone, today we are discussing. an evolution of creation and we are starting right now we are going to start rocking and rolling thank you very much gentlemen for being here as mentioned we will have these eight minute openings so it is a pleasure for Professor Dave to have you here as well and I have already you set the timer earlier, it's all yours, okay, here we go, let's start by stating that evolution by natural selection is an observable fact.

He exposed some bacteria to antibiotics. It is possible that mutations lead to resistant bacteria. The rest die and soon all of them descend from the resistant ones. that is evolution by natural selection speciation or the production of new biological species is also an observable fact we have observed the emergence of new species of microorganisms plants and animals we know so much about it that we have new terminology to describe the different types of speciation that can occur if you understand the biochemistry none of this is surprising at all DNA undergoes mutations new genes means expression new proteins with the potential for new functionality eventually completely different organisms this happens faster than one might think even a single point mutation can produce legs where the antennae should have extra pairs of wings and other notable changes, Kent will respond by saying that these are never different types of organisms, well what type is this word in the Bible, but it is incredibly vague?

We can read about cattle, a creeping type and a crawling type beasts what counts as a beast who knows science is not as vague as this a species is a group of organisms capable of interbreeding, so if the organisms They can produce viable fertile offspring, they are the same species, so is a type of species. Well, then the argument is false. Speciation occurs. There are new types. He's a guy. Some other taxon. A category like a blade or something else. So that's not a problem because new species always belong to the same clay as eukaryotes, in the first place, every descendant from then on was a eukaryote. no matter what else they became, animals always produce animals, mammals always produce mammals, etc., so if a species is more than just a species, this does not contradict evolution in any way, rather than defining the Kent term, you will perpetuate the ambiguity of the Bible because you need to blur its meaning to suit your argument now that speciation occurs today it is logical to extrapolate that it has produced all the species that are already here if this is the case there should be some evidence e.g. , if there had been some intermediate species.

Fortunately, fossils exist and after we found enough of them, we were able to identify more transitional species than you can imagine. We have fossils that link fruits, fish, tetrapods, from land mammals to marine mammals, from dinosaurs to birds and every other transition. You might think about how we also see that fossils deeper in the ground that are older are less similar to currently existing life, supporting slow change over time. This is such strong evidence for evolution that Kent will have to resort to claiming that the geological column does. doesn't exist, but this is a baseless lie, plus we can find out how old these things are with radiometric dating, another technique that Kent will desperately accuse of being invalid without any basis, it's a thing, the decay rates are constants and measuring their levels reveals their age.

We can corroborate these ages using multiple nuclides and when we get the same age using uranium dating as we do potassium-argon dating, the notion that these coincidentally give the same result not once but thousands of times is a statistical absurdity that we can also compare with unrelated methods. Like tree ring dating or referencing documented historical events, radiometric dating works, so with biogeography we predict the locations of fossils based on the configuration of prehistoric land masses and guess what we find there. You can't be more empirical than I bet. find this here and then you look and you know, you will say that none of this is proof of anything, well proof is exclusively for mathematics and logic, so anyone who asks for proof and science has no idea how science works, in In science we just say that something can help beyond a reasonable doubt, for example a very old Earth is consistent beyond a reasonable doubt, as literally all geologists agree, the people who study the Earth for a living, so that when someone uneducated like Kent says something to the contrary, it is totally unfounded and can only be traced back to supposed evidence some books say something similar all biologists agree that evolution by natural selection is consistent beyond a reasonable doubt but Kent will say some books as a thing Kent also strangely proposes that many unrelated fields are somehow part of evolution most people would refuse to discuss these topics in a debate about evolution, however I am very interested in demonstrating Kent has no idea what he's talking about in virtually any academic field, so I'm going to allow discussion of these topics. and I very much hope that you will want to discuss them, in fact, let's introduce them now.

Kent wants to know about what he calls cosmic evolution, which he believes is the origin of time, space and matter in one big bang, the Big Bang was actually the origin of space, time and energy are not matter and it was not an explosion. Uneducated people like Kent imagined the Big Bang as fully formed planets and galaxies falling off a kablooie graph. This would be quite absurd; In reality, the model describes the universe emerging from an initial. singularity and then progressed through a series of epochs that require a lot of knowledge and particle physics to understand.

Adams took 380,000 years to form and stars and galaxies took 150 million. There is overwhelming evidence to support all of this: galaxy recession speeds than expansion speeds. of the universe to the cosmic microwave background radiation around another recombination event predicted by the model and confirmed observation 3 the ratio of hydrogen to helium predicted by the model and confirmed by observation of hypothetical particles from early times that are confirmed in accelerators particles astronomers unanimously agreed that this model is consistent beyond a reasonable doubt, so Kent disagrees once again. He can only respond with some books. He says something next. Kent doesn't want key and no one else calls chemical evolution.

He wants to know where all the elements come from. they are made in Stars Kent, this is perfectly understood, the process is called nucleosynthesis, it is very hot in those stars, so all those nuclei hum around and sometimes they fuse two protons, which gives us helium, four is beryllium, six is ​​carbon , eight is oxygen, etc. Go ahead this reaches the iron inside a star heavier than iron requires high energy events like supernovae and the heavier ones are synthetic Bruce only in particle accelerators there are all the elements no problem next Kent wants to know about the evolution of stars and planets again no mystery here hydrogen collected by gravity to form stars stars fuse all the elements eventually explode all that and that clicks to form another star and now with all those other elements there will be a protoplanetary disk from from which planets can form.

It is understood exceptionally well and we can see nebulae and protostars throughout the galaxy. There is ZERO controversy about any of this in the astrophysics community, so if Kent has an objection, it will no doubt be based on the fact that some books like something, fortunately, the head wants. We know how life arose on Earth, this is called abiogenesis and a lot of work has been done here in the 1950s. Amino acids were shown to form spontaneously in early Earth conditions and the same has been shown for nucleotides. Ribonucleotides are polymerized in hot clay to produce.

RNA and we have observed ribosomes that have catalytic function and therefore offer an early mode of self-replication. Amino acids must also polymerize to form proteins and there are several viable hypotheses as to how this happened. If Kent is interested in discussing organometallic catalysis, I would do so. I will be happy to elucidate further, Finally, amphiphilic molecules spontaneously self-assemble into ordered structures like my cells and bilayers, which makes boundary formation the least mysterious aspect of abiogenesis only with knowledge and biochemistry because abiogenesis becomes quite sensible, so it's not surprising that Kent rejects her because he has zero knowledge of biochemistry, the only evidence Kent can cite is some book that was supposedly written by an omniscient deity but doesn't bother to mention anything scientific anywhere, Why doesn't it refer to bacteria or DNA or the laws of physics?

That would be quite important. and also trivial to the God who created the universe and yet there is nothing intelligent in this book, that is because in reality the book was written by an ancient and ignorant amoral and is not evidence of anything at all. I hope to demonstrate this repeatedly throughout the debate. I bet thank you very much from Professor Dave, that was his opening statement, if you're just tuning in and now we'll hand it over to Kent Hovind who will give his opening statement and it'll also be eight minutes, we're just going to switch. the boxes, the old change happens in a second, so tenth.

I have the timer set for you and I'm glad to have you here too. The word is all yours. Thanks for inviting me again. Dave. I mean I just heard about you today. and I was able to watch a few minutes of one of your videos that you made and I really appreciate your style of trying to keep things simple which is commendable your goal your images are excellent you sound very angry with some book that I don't I don't like it I think I suspect I know why, according to second Peter chapter three, I think we should put your name in there anyway.

I'm surprised you gave some of the supposed evidence you gave that has been proven wrong. It's been over a century that you're still holding on to, you were in the video I watched that there's a mountain of evidence for evolution. I would like to see that you said that there is evidence of homologyof similar structures. Don't you understand what this is? evidence of a common designer with a comment, there are many commonalities between Chevy trucks and Chevy cars. I mean all the nuts are interchanged, it doesn't prove that they all came from an explosion or a skateboard there and it really made me sad to see. that you are still teaching that there is evidence of evolution from homology that vertebrate embryos look the same Dave, this was proven wrong in 1874 if you are destroying children's faith by using something that was proven wrong ago one hundred and forty years old, so you could be a child molester.

It is certainly a mistake to teach this, the embryos do not look alike, they are very different, they are not gill slits. I'm disappointed that someone with your level of knowledge is still using something that was proven wrong one hundred and forty years ago one hundred and forty-five years ago, okay? I need to stop using what in my opinion this is criminal behavior to teach children something that is just a lie that will lead them away from their faith and the obvious thing was that there was a creator, you are still saying that there are vestigial structures that in the earth a vestigial structure, how could there be any evidence of evolution?

It's an example of losing something and not gaining something that you lose everything and that's how you understand everything. I don't understand. I would like you to clarify that for me, as you mentioned. Okay and you said snakes have pelvic bones. You got to be kidding. I'll cover all of this if you want. I like it in great detail and I might have to add you to my list. I just found out about you today. I have a long list of smacking an atheist that I do every Wednesday night, so I would be honored to hit you with a little science and knowledge and we use SpongeBob SquarePants and I'll put your name on there and I'll try to include a little science and knowledge there and bring you back to common sense.

No, none of these are evidence of evolution. The title of the debate is: Does the evidence support creation or evolution? Well, some book that you referred to in the Bible claims that God created two heavens and a new earth, that's what it claims, you claim it's singularity, whatever occurred, all in the Big Bang, that's ridiculous on many levels, it doesn't explain where space, time, matter or energy came from, where laws came from, like the law of gravity, centrifugal force, these various laws, where those laws came from. We will cover that sometime the Bible clearly states that Jesus Christ is the Word of God and he created everything in John chapter 1, you can read that for yourself Jesus created everything that is what it claims because Jesus is Almighty God in the flesh and one day You will stand before him, Dave as your judge, whether or not he will come to a city near you Jesus claimed that the creation of Adam was the beginning when he made Adam and Eve Matthew 19:4 and Mark 10:6 and the Bible clearly states in the Ten Commandments in six days the Lord made heaven and earth good that real word explains very simply all the symbiotic relationships that we see plants that emit oxygen take co2 animals take oxygen emit co2 they correspond to the gases that A symbiotic relationship There are millions of symbiotic relationships in nature, certain plants require certain animals.

I think that defies an evolutionary explanation, but God said he just did it all in six days. Now you can choose to deny that as I'm sure you've chosen to believe it didn't happen that way but you can't possibly know that it didn't happen Jesus said creation was when God made Adam and Eve and the Bible clearly says that man brought death to the world Romans chapter 5 first Corinthians 15 man presented the reason why the world has problems today in death and suffering on all levels is due to man's sin, yet his religion of Evolution teaches that death brought man into the world.

Billions and trillions of things had to die for man to get here, the exact opposite of what the Bible teaches, just so you understand. You are welcome to have that religion, but in fact it is a religion and in fact it is completely contrary to the Bible. Did man bring death into the world or did death bring man? So Jesus said the creation of Adam was the beginning, of course, you're calling. he is a liar at this point the bible says that nothing died until man sinned and you are calling the bible a liar and the bible says that Adam was the first man that is what it says and Eve was the mother of all living the Bible says we all came from Adam and Eve, I think you could scientifically trace it back to the mitochondrial Y chromosome, even Adam if you want, but the dates in the Bible add up to roughly, it says Adam was 130, Seth was 105 and eNOS he was 90 if you add If we check the dates in the Bible, we get what everyone else assumes: the Earth was created about 4000 BC.

C. or 6000 years ago, that is the clear teaching of the Scriptures and obviously they do not believe it because they need billions of years for its creation. frog to become a prince you see Dave when a frog becomes a prince by kissing it that's called a fairy tale but replacing the kiss with billions of years still won't talk turning the frog into a prince is still a fairy tale They say that you are teaching, believing and teaching others that the Bible dates back to 6,000. All the evidence we see and the purpose of the debate is what the evidence shows.

The evidence shows that a single cell, a single cell, is more complicated than a space shuttle. Darwin thought that a cell was a blob of gelatin doesn't mean much now that we know it is a more complicated cell in the most complex machine ever built by the world. man all the evidence shows that design demands a designer at every level design demands a designer the evidence shows that information doesn't arise by chance, it just doesn't happen, so let's see for 1402. I won't have time to cover all of this, so so let me add this. I take the hit, an atheist here, let's see.

Will be the king v4 Oh, what's going on here? Steve, it's not working. Hi Steven, I have it in this race. Oh, there you go, okay, Dave. I was a vision. I think your camera might have stopped just like that in case you didn't. I don't know, no big deal, oh okay, are you pausing time here? John James, yeah, okay, okay in the movie Tom with Tom Hanks The Green Mile was a fact, there was evidence that two girls were missing, there is no doubt that the girls left, there was a massive manhunt. organized is a fact in the movie at least John Coffey is found holding the two dead girls that is a fact the evidence clearly showed that they are good they are missing when it is discovered that he is holding the two dead girls it is a fact that he was arrested and executed for the crime in the movie at least, that's the fact that the evidence proved that he did it, it was also a fact that he didn't do it, that's the fact that this guy did it in the movie, so I think what you're seeing is that you're completely misinterpreting the evidence, you're seeing similarities of different creatures and, assuming you're concluding that you're concluding that you're a common ancestor rather than a common designer, you're doing the same thing as the people did here in the movie with me. executing the wrong guy you are executing the wrong guy you are claiming this book right here that you obviously hate quite a bit for some reason you are claiming that this book has errors in I would like to see some of those errors I am claiming that it is not a science book and that there are no absolutely no science in it.

I really believe that I can show you thousands of scientific facts in this Bible. It says in this book that all animals will produce according to their kind, cows produce cows, dogs. produce dogs, that's a fact, Dave, this book says they will always give birth according to their kind. Could you show me where there is an animal that has ever given birth to something other than its species and no fossil could tell? I can't believe you included as Evan. like fossils, as you well know, fossils don't count as anything except something dead, bones in the ground don't indicate that something has changed, why no animal today has the ability to change into something else, but you think that a bone , then the earth could do it.

It's not science, son, bones can't speak, they don't have a date stamped on them, we're putting our interpretation on them. No plant or animal today can produce anything other than its species, and if you object to the word type, I'm sorry. The word species is also quite difficult to define exactly. I covered it the other night in my Bible study here. Hit an atheist. What exactly is a species? If you search for species, it will give you one of the definitions of species as a species, I think in 99% of the cases. the cases it's obvious where the guy same guy okay I think my time is up anyway I love your style I love your goal you're completely wrong Dave I'll try to convert you tonight okay go ahead okay ready to discuss your bet changer Okay, apart from the same ridiculous spectacle you put on in every debate where you talk about frogs becoming princes and cars being assembled from tornadoes, all of which had nothing to do with evolution at all, but you used to fool naive people into that they believed your lies.

Most of what you talked about in your eight minutes was based on the Bible, not science, so you talked a lot about the Bible, so let's get to the Bible first, number one, why do I care what the Bible says? Bible? And number two, you mentioned something about there's nothing wrong with the Bible or something like that is what you're saying. I have read it for 51 years. I am not aware of any scientific errors in that book. I have some passages that I would like to share with you. Well, first of all, this is the purpose of this debate tonight to show that the Bible is wrong.

You're supposed to present evidence that evolution is true, but the Bible is just the Bible is your only evidence for creationism, so I. I'll show you then it's not evidence Craven my baby I can see that animals produce after their kind cows produce What's the Kent guy? What is the type? You're missing the point. What is type? Well, originally they were those that could originally reproduce and it is possible that they have diversified now where each species to produce its species in its time, you mean species, it does not use the word species, that is carolus linnaeus this term, I think it does not I compensated with species, but, but you.

We are talking about producing species like organisms that can produce viable fertile offspring, so was it okay if a man or woman today is sterile and cannot produce children at all? If they are, they are still Homo sapiens in general, they cannot reproduce. We're not helping the zones anymore, so it's not a copy, it's not a species, you're saying the guy is not a species. I think the word type and species are probably synonymous on many levels, but I wouldn't, you can't. you have it both ways you can't have it both ways you have to say what a species is if a species is a species then you are saying that they are not new species and you are wrong because the equation occurs if saying that a type is anything other than a species, then that statement doesn't contradict evolution at all because every time organisms arise, the organisms are part of that type, which is a clade that you were talking about, whatever else you're talking about mammals.

Whatever you are talking about, evolution does not require new types to occur, they will always be necessary within that type, so either you are wrong or you are not contradicting evolution, which is it? James, I would ask you to more or less keep track of the time, it seems like you are trying to monopolize all the time. I'd like half the time please, so if you can moderate like you're supposed to, okay, Dave, could you tell me what's the best example you know? any creature that produces something that is not of the same species, what do you know what polyploidy is?

What is it? Polyploidy is a doubling of the number of chromosomes. It doesn't add any new information at all if I copy a videotape and do, oh, I have two. video tapes are identical it's the same information Dave why the organism is not able to integrate with the parent organisms polyploidy produces things that are generally infertile and cannot reproduce at all that is not true at all that is not true at all so many plants you eat I can't stop when you say something wrong I'm going to correct you I'm not going to interrupt you when you say something wrong who corrects you what you just said is demonstrable we're going something wrong many of them yes they are busy hexaploid tetraploids many plants have evolved through of them and when you are wrong I will correct you Dave, this book is the book that God preserved for us to read, you will be judged by this book, well, you talk about the Bible because I had some pastor, surely we can do that, okay, polyploidy So, employee, any of those, they're all, as I think I pointed out earlier and I already answered the question, it's a doubling, tripling, or quadrupling of information.They were talking looking at a whale swimming in the water they would say you know it could be in the fish category no problem how come God has so little? understanding of his own creation that he thinks we have a backbone for the questions here, so sorry guys, you just got a lot of stuff here.

Duane Burke, thanks for the question I asked Professor Dave, how do you know something is objectively true when nature is? evolving, therefore your tests and answers change until heat is mortal nature, what is heat, what do I think perhaps heat means, death in nature as the end of a minute of the universe, the laws of physics are constants, so I don't know what. What does that mean? I don't understand what the question means, like how do we know that radiometric dating works, because nuclear decay, nuclear decay rates are constant, which is something we don't get to because Kent knows that he doesn't have the ability to explain that.

You're dreaming, son, I can explain all that to you, yes, yes, you can show me Brad. Thanks for your question, said Kent, if man walked among the dinosaurs, why are there detailed cave paintings of lions, horses, cave bears and other mammals, but not a single painting of a t-rex Apatosaurus or Triceratops well , I think you need to see my video number three about dinosaurs living with man. There are many paintings, stories of cave paintings. There have been missionaries in Africa talking about the Congo swamp, which is bigger than the entire state. from Arkansas talking about the Apatosaurus called only 20 feet long now but still alive there have been thousands of reported sightings that certainly appeared to be dinosaur type creatures still alive there have been hundreds of sightings of what appear to be pterodactyls in various places around the world observe my video number three about dr.

Dino is calm, so the person who asked the question doesn't know what has happened, there have been many cave paintings, ancient works of art, Roman pottery showing dinosaurs, Egyptian pottery showing dinosaurs, so I think the question is invalid . God, thank you so much, Steven. Steen, thanks for your super set, this is the message block. I don't know what you wrote Aunt Regina, thanks for your super charity, Ken said, why do you keep ignoring new material and evidence to maintain the illusion that you care about the truth? Look, Oh, what am I ignoring? I'll look at any new evidence you have.

I asked Dave if he knows of any evidence of how life began. He gave a lot of hypotheses, but no one has been able to do it, so nothing has changed and I look at Venter, the salesman did not make life, you took the brains of bacteria from the water, it has nothing to do with biology, it has nothing What to do with that, of course, the evolution of life has to do with biological evolution, which is what you say. What do you think you're talking about when your connection has nothing to do with science Dave, evolution has nothing to do with science, science is things we can observe, points studied, we can't make mice on the earth I'm on seeing, but you admitted that you can't see atoms and atoms at the base of chemistry, so there's really no basis for this argument that we have to see things, so you're wrong, if science has never been capable of producing life, then it is part of science because without anyone's help.

I've once said that we've never been able to produce a universe, so what we have, Dave, is why things like that stuff shouldn't be included in science. Biology should teach biology in a strong class. I shouldn't talk about the origin of the universe for which we have tremendous knowledge. almost empirical evidence Ronna told me that you didn't want to talk to me about cosmology because you don't understand physics. I don't speak physical scientist being here if you want to have proof, you know you did it. I don't know you, sorry people, we also want to debate, if you are watching and enjoying this, by the way, Kent and Professor David, guys, I have to let you know that this is the third largest audience we have had in a modern world . debate of the day people have loved this, honestly, they are there, maybe two clapping, they are just excited, so I want to let you know that the live chat stopped roaring, so it's like my attention is divided, and Yes, however, they are watching it and enjoying it.

Hey, feel free to like this video to let us know and we'll try to hopefully get these gentlemen in sooner because I have to say you guys are. Very good debaters, they are very fast, they are very, it's like you guys, eh, it has been a very lively discussion. Jason, average, thank you for protecting yours truly. They sent Kent. Don't you think you should learn what the theory of evolution is and what? actually says before debating it a hundred times there have been two hundred two times two hundred three debates tonight I think I clearly understand the theory of evolution it says that everything came from a point of almost nothing that exploded for some unknown reason thirteen point seven seven, two ago billion years ago, a lot of it cooled and created the Earth as a ball of hot rock.

It slowly began to rain on the rocks for millions of years and finally turned them into soup and the soup came to life and that first form of life. I found someone to marry and something to eat and slowly evolved from a single-celled organism to humans, pine trees and whales. Let's see, the problem is that I understand what the theory says, no, that's why you say things like dogs always create dogs, which has nothing to do with science and then just leave it aside as if there aren't thousands of scientists. I'm against textbooks that put this kind of stuff in here and say that everything, dogs, pine trees and humans have a common ancestor that was a Protista or an amoeba or something like that this is what is taught this is not it is science yes biology is science you could teach children all biology okay boys and girls this is a radius everyone knows the carpals and metacarpals the phalanges physiology not biology and then you will teach biology but you don't want to talk about how all eukaryotes They have the same cellular organelles and you don't want to talk about how all eukaryotes use the same ones.

I will be happy to talk about the fact that all eukaryotes have the same type of cell structure, although there are actually some important differences. I think you'll admit that all eukaryotic muses means is that the nucleus is bound together by a membrane and then by a group of other organelles that are doing certain things. things, why does that prove a common ancestor? Why doesn't a regular designer try that? Do you refuse to answer this before? Do you believe in a paternity test? Do you believe in the validity of a paternity test? I think I think there certainly can be some errors, but I think it's very precise, yes, paternity tests are very precise, ultimately they are accurate, here's the genetic similarity because intensive ancestry through the genes, oh yeah, I think that we can be.

I think we could try Microsoft PowerPoint and Microsoft Word, we have thousands, dozens of Manzi, they are not valid. analogy I didn't like talking about how we can't do routines correctly and compromise your child is your child through genes, right? So how many tell me how many generations must pass before I don't trust genetic data? How many generations must pass before you? You say that no lineage can be proven through genetic similarities. You think a paternity test would show that you are related to someone in China. I mean, yeah, okay, we all have a common ancestor with the Chinese.

I think her name was Eve and her name was Adam. Not now, yes, so how do you say that word? By the way, Noah has three children and one is Asian. Hey, what's the genetic code of this rock you came from? Without any genetic code, although you want to do the rock thing. what we just did you think you see from the rock you admit molecules but you believe in the rock something that no scientist has ever said that life comes from the rock he even corrected this a thousand times and you keep saying where is the baby the work where do the molecules come from her?

She rained on the rocks for millions of years. Can. If your mother is a village while you are in the womb. Are you made of pizza? Are you made of pizza? Are you a pizza? What a straw man argument Dave, do you think? you're saying that because chemistry happens near rocks near rocks we come from rocks no no what is this nothing good chemistry let's talk about chemistry what molecules are in this water where do those molecules come from I want to give you a chance I'll give you a chance to answer these questions, but I'm under pressure to get back to the question, sorry guys, so what I'll give you a chance to answer can't, but after that, we have To get back to the questions and answers, I'm completely lost on which was his question.

Now I would say: What was a paternity test? Yes, I think the Trinity tests are fine. I don't think they show that we all came back from a rock. I don't think paternity tests that show that no rock because rocks don't have genes can't be okay again, you're getting it I don't understand anything about what you're saying right, you're probably right, you're not understanding anything because you don't think about rocks and cars, tornadoes and ridiculous things that have nothing to do with anything at all, look Darwin, thanks for watching. I'm trying to make sure I get ones that ideally address the content of the debate, some of these are related.

Well, give Kent a chance to respond, clarify this in case he disagrees. In reality, Rihanna can't see that she is leading people away from the gospel. People think you have to believe these things to be a Christian, you have to believe in young earth. creation by the way 6,000 are not young six thousand a long time ago billions it is pure imagination but six thousand is not young but no you don't have to believe that to be a Christian any baby believe me many people love the Lord believe they have been safe , they go to heaven, but they are Christians and they believe that the earth is billions of years old, they are wrong, but Jesus simply preaches the truth, you all preach it and some walk away because of that in John chapter six at the end of chapter six almost everyone turned away from Jesus simply for preaching the truth, it has been the story of the entire Bible, the prophets would have preached the truth and some would get angry and stone him to death or kill them or do bad things to them. so preaching the truth sometimes makes people angry.

I think Dave is pretty angry tonight. Radiometric quotes in verses from some books. Thank you for confirming what I said in my opening statement. I guess I don't care what your book says. It's a muscle and some rot. I'm alive I don't care what you are about Harry Potter, there is a guide named Harry Potter, he doesn't magically fly around him, that happened to him, it's true, you're the one with the imagination, you think you're a protist. he became a whale in a pine tree that's imagination Dave that's not science argument of disbelief I'm sorry you don't understand it's it's incredulous it's completely incredulous to believe a scientific background and doesn't understand science at all go on to demonstrate oh I think I get it, you know?

Did you know that you have to learn science to understand it? I'm sure I've learned a lot of science, okay, and I understand it at Anderson Genesis com, where did you learn science? The question continues. Kent and then you have to go back to Q&A. I have been studying science all my life. I love learning new things. I have studied a lot in many fields of science. I'm not the world's expert on any of them, but I have enough common sense to know that dogs make dogs and cows make cows and if you want to believe that dogs and amoebas are related, you can believe that, but that's not science, The word science means knowledge from the Latin word seer, to know. we know that dogs make dogs we don't know that dogs came from a protist you don't know you can believe that but you'll stick with the dogs that make dogs hey it's true ask any kennel ask go to any kennel call them make your dogs Have you ever have you produced anything more than a dog?

I wonder why you think it might be because we raised them. Do you think it could be because we make them have sex with each other? Do you understand that there has to be a disruption in gene flow for the species? you guys are back, I'm so sorry about that, so embarrassing, thank you guys so much for letting me know, my goodness you guys have been amazing, thanks to Dave and Kent for being so patient and by the way, also thanks for this amazing debate. off the charts amazing, we'll try to answer a few more questions and then this will move.

I don't know if you'll be able to see Kent longer, we'd love to have you, but I know you usually like about an hour and we've already gone beyond that, right, if so, if you have to go, we know a couple of questions. more, but let's hurry up, okay, okay, thank you very much, next let's see Steven Kent, let's see Marty Bryan dazzle. He said that the caterpillar turns into a butterfly. I'm not sure what would happen if any of youoceans because there is already life there that will disrupt any system that produces it. I mentioned the fact that it took 500 million years for it to occur, so yes, it's an interesting area of ​​study.

I'm not an expert on this, but I do organic chemistry, it's my specialty, so I understand a lot of this to a certain extent and I hope to learn more about it one day. Thank you very much, let's see if I can find something. one that hopefully we can if we can get a part two because it was so good, would people be okay with us saving those questions for the next one or is this just a terrible idea? I have a feeling this is a terrible idea. I don't have many more questions, but a lot of them are for almost all of them were for Kent, so I think without him being able to answer, I hate to do it, he'll just avoid them anyway, you know what?

I mean, we definitely need to define a type over times and he won't and never will because he's prohibited from defining the type or it will demolish the argument of him, oh my gosh, yeah, let's see, maybe what we'll do, let me. So Cerf, thanks for your question. They said he can't. How about a quote for those graphics you put out since you cut out the text? Let's see, so they want to know where you are using the references. I know Brian Stevens asked one. or two and I wanted to get to those let's look at area 85 restorations thank you for your question they said if Kent understands evolution like you say I will give you $100 if you can answer the following question what two things are wrong with the statement? a dog will never produce a non-dog according to the theory of evolution, so Elias banned one thing to define a dog, he won't even say what a dog is, he is doing it very deliberately to obscure the facts surrounding whatever he is trying to talk about God next. above we see Elijah bar so Bach thanks for your question they said if humans have zero ability of it Yahweh let's see why he is so angry why Noah brought mosquitoes to the ark maybe we will get an answer for that next time feel free to ask, Resta said, Hi Kent, how did Noah get a billion species of bacteria and microbes on the ark?

So definitely, honestly, because of these questions and because people honestly loved this debate, if we can get you to come back at some point, we'd love to. to get out, you know the opportunity, yeah I think the only way I would like to do it is because this was quite irritating because he just invades everything I say, if you want, if you wanted to structure it around a lot of these very, very good questions. for Kent and let us watch him try to answer them and I can keep him in check when he says something unscientific that maybe he would consider, but this wasn't very productive because he won't concede anything.

I think you'll notice how I very validly and definitively pointed out that his analogies are not valid, and yet he said them like eight times in this debate, which he does. I've seen him say them all before and in all these other debates, but he keeps saying the wrong illogical things. appease your audience, so this precise format I don't know if I would like to do it again, maybe another one where I have to be aware of specific scientific questions that could be something that tricks you, one thing we could do. I don't know if this to make any difference with the destiny, we had statements of two or three minutes of two minutes or so that each person had their two or three minutes, it is read only alternis and we did it for a while and they had opening statements.

At first, whether or not that would address what you're worried about, I'm not sure, but he just and every block of time that he's allowed to talk, he just spews out all his talking points that are just misrepresentations of the science, so which ends up being unproductive because I'll respond by throwing up and then he'll just throw up something else and then his audience won't be able to know what's going on and people with a scientific background know what he's doing, but it just doesn't end up being productive. You know, I got you, well, no, it's not unnecessary, it's definitely been people who enjoyed listening to them this time.

Brian Stephens, thanks for the question and he said thanks to Professor Dave. I went to a religious school growing up. Education helped me realize that creationism is an absurd science. So you have a fan, Professor Dave, and I'm glad you're here, there's a convert, yes, and by the way, you know I can't, he wants to eat, I'm sure he'll break a limb in a second. Just forgive me. just because he's not here I don't want to, okay, I don't want to be too hard on him because I was just going to say you don't have to be an atheist to meet the scientific evidence, right?

If you want to believe that a God started the universe, I'm comfortable with that, there's no problem, so you have religion and coexist, appreciate that and with that, friends, let's see, I've skipped a lot of super takes, some of them were something as well as pointed. in terms of addressing Kent and since he's not here like hmm, I think it's okay to answer and ask questions that maybe he'll answer next time or something, but in you know, some of the more pointed ones, I'm like, oh Definitely. I'm going to say that if he's not here to give an answer, but let's look at Karelian.

I wasn't sure who he is. He said having a doctorate in political science makes you more familiar with an evolution expert than a layman. person I'm notclear, yeah, I mean, there's a lot of truth in that, I mean, I think it's pretty, yeah, it's pretty demonstrable, I mean, and particularly when you have zero degrees of any kind, you're pretty demonstrable, you're not an expert in nothing, as would be the case with Kent, but Yes, this has been a real pleasure. Honestly, I enjoy them all. Thank you Professor Dave for hanging out with us today. Honestly, people, like I said, have gone crazy over this, so thank you all for his questions.

Thanks for hanging out here. We said, let me know if you have any ways that you think I could improve the channel, feel free to say, I'm always happy to get feedback and especially if it's something where you're like, hey, yeah, this could be better, we're working on some updates, one in particular, we are working on video updates, it may be like DSLR and we are working on audio, it's not like what I have. I moved for a good microphone, so we have a good microphone. It's just that sometimes I embarrassingly accidentally step on the cable and pull it out and it's muted and it's very bad, but thank you all, we appreciate all your comments, this channel really is like I, the debaters, are the soul of it, so that we appreciate the debaters. and then also the questions, a lot of the questions, like the great ideas, like 99.9% of them, come from you, so thank you very much and with that one you say, be careful and once again, Professor David doesn't you can have both links in the description so check out those links if you enjoyed what you heard today and once again thank you Professor Dave for being here thank you bye everyone.