Kent Hovind's opinion of Eric Hovind's argument (atheist/Christian dialogue excerpt) 

Dude - I totally believe this scripture that says when two or more are gathered in his (God's) name he is there... I think in this case - and any other its true - but - I think god is more interested in reasoning things out than spitting matches... In fact... let me put it this way... I think if God passed by these two discussing God versus No god using Science and the bible to reason and stuff - say over a beer - he'd fly right by without interferance... but would grab two christians condemning each to hell over trinity or other such matter that should have no bearing on salvation, by the ear lobes... gentlemen? Is there a problem here? BOTH GUILTY - Of being Morons! LOL

They mostly are. When you start learning more about the faith you can be easily persuaded by Kent's confidence and rhetoric, but after a while, you just ignore him. Not related to Hovind, but I'm currently deconstructing and don't know whether I'm a Christian or not, but it's not because of Hovind's pseudoscience. Although evolution and its implications played a huge part.

Exactly what I was thinking lol

Wrong. A theory is a hypothesis that has been demonstrated to be true. We see evolution happening in real time. We observe the change of allele frequency in populations over time (microevolution), and we observe speciation (macroevolution).

lol....evolution in real time does not Abiogenesis. That is a False equivalency that you should address.

Ha!!!!! Show me where? The "living bible" I'd guess.

@@ghytd766 hi mate....ignorance must be bliss.... Kjv..... 1 Timothy 6:20 KJV - O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

I think Eric gets that from his father in many respects.

You do realize narcissists are made not born right? Who raised Eric?

@@GodlessScummer Exactly

In other words, it's easier to dismantle a real fool than a fool with some intellect. A trickster fool can easily sway a lot of people, which is dangerous.

Linsforever i agree, but in terms of respect, who should we respect more? The author of this video said he respects Kent more. But I disagree. I respect Eric more because at least he is honest about where he is coming from. Kent is coming from the same position as Eric, but he tries to repackage himself in a false way, and that kind of dishonest warrants no respect from me.

I think all arguments ranging from Christianity to Evolution all have significance that should be respected. Unfortunately too many people get caught up in who is right and wrong. I think Kent makes some amazing points for a young earth, I think he explains how science can work with Genesis really well. I think his stance is different than his sons actually, his son believes in God essentially just because it must be that god is real and Kent believes in God because he feels science can actually support the Bible. They both believe in the Christian belief but they’re stances/positions are completely different.

They are both pathetic

I think the main problem is that people are uneducated in different fields of science. I'm constantly amazed at how many people don't even know that nothing gets elevated from a hypothesis to a theory unless it's already been demonstrated to be true. It's also pretty sad that people don't realise that evolution is directly observed in real time. New species evolve quite regularly.

At least Kent talks about science; Eric goes to presupposition because he knows he doesn't have the evidence, and doesn't understand science well enough to appeal to it.

SecHummer I fully agree. Also I am Catholic, not Baptist i liked listen to Dr. Kent Hovind lecture because as You said, he used scientific arguments what is of great meaning if we want to discuss about such issues as flood, geological columns, dating of fossils, dinosaurs and humans, etc. Regards.

Kent is not a Dr. He doesn't have a single legitimate degree of any kind.

Erudite.....LOL!!!

no he doesn't.

@@lennyhipp I still use this account!

trust Jesus please.

I have watched this Hovind thing from afar - and I'm no JUDGE - but when I toss all I've gathered across the "what would God think?" mind exercise... I see a GUY who has more right going on than wrong, a man who doesn't mind pushing the law to the letter - that's not a crime unless they deemed you went accross it - happens - intentional - sometimes unintentional - sometimes the accusers don't have an honest case and win anyways... so.... Tax Fraud? Maybe. Does a Rich Pastor automatically get reduced to not godly because he has things? Not according to the bible, according to the bible, juding this man on his financial success is pretty much looked upon as wicked and evil - god has pointed it out, Jesus has painted some easy to follow pictures of this sort of thing in his parables... Jail... Comes out - Kid stole all his stuff and his wife left him - they kept the money, charged him rent - and basically pushed him on the street... for what exactly? so - giving the son the benefit of the doubt - not ever wanting to slam a ministry - especially if god's spirit was in there despite them being less than 100% right - no one is 100% right... further - you have to use caution on such a thing because you have God Lovers on the up and up and God frauds who are either just ...well.. sicker than others - while others are real wolves in sheep clothing... and among them - little children - cherubs, people who are just in love with god and not into any drama - complicated scene... for the Mature to navigate in a godly way.... Seeking to judge to protect the flock - but seeking not to trip up a "off the rails person with good heart" if they can be nudged back on... etc... Gentle - soft - patient... hmm... My opinion - of all I've seen eric Say, Refuse to comment, how his ministry works, seeing how he talks or doesn't of his dad, and how his dad talks about everyone - despite - possibly being railroaded- or not - still pleasant - still seeming to be trying his best to not freak on emotions and stay under reign of god's ways of thnking and acting... I see Dad trying, and kid acting more like a TREASONOUS TRAITOR than anything else... I'm no judge.. and I looked at this whole situation - but obviously I can't know all the details - but from what I see? I get the Holy spirit Vibe peeking out of The Father most of the time - with some BRASS clamouring even when he is wrong and you know you see him still passionate - God Bless him lol - even flawed... His Kid? I hope he is with God too... but I don't see holy spirit logic driving him as much as he resembles a politician who speaks if agrees, smiles when he disagrees - no comment or end of interview if you ask something they are scared of... Why be scared of the TRUTH? I think we are all imperfect, but I think The Father is back in the saddle... and complaining if he remarries? Better to remarry and not be committing fornication daily if you ask me... better still if you can just keep it in your pants - but pants or not - living alone - sucks - Jesus knew - he Said those that can make room for it (Single life ministers) make room for it, otherwise - marry. I think Jesus message is pretty enlightening on these matters... a TRUE SAINT? Never marry? TRUE SAINT MArry? Divorced? Doesn't REMARRY. I'm no SAINT and holding the Father to SAINT HOOD is CRAP I figure give them all a break - they have family issues - but - I never heard a sermon from Eric that was anything even remotely interesting... Where his father - keeps on hitting the INTELLIGENT DESIGN argument to get people thinking more about the WHAT IF and less getting hung up on the details of this old ancient text or that one - ONCE you See Intelligent Design Makes sense - NOW go into the ancient books and remember - they ahve truth but have been cleverly and accidently altered over time, books yanked from circulation, others added to it - the bible is a subset - though a BIG ONE - it's only part of the story. I dunno - my two cents - not declaring I'm right - if anything - what do you think? That's my take so far.

Theresa Metcalf That's what all Christians say.

Theresa Metcalf Not all who were Christians accept that doctrine. Although it is a loop to one who does. Obviously to anyone who remains a Christian that accepts Perseverance of the Saints that will seem impossible, that is until they lose their faith (which happens to many).But many believers didn't/don't subscribe to TULIP. EDIT: I almost forgot. Don't forget the parable of the sower. It is also true on the Christian world view many people being former believers (or at least believing themselves to be) in the manner of.the parable.

Theresa Metcalf, atheists love to say "I used to be a Christian", but all they really mean is that they went to church once or twice in their life.

"The host never was a Christian. you cant be unsaved." - That's a LIE You can't be UNSAVED? That's the STUPIDEST biblical CLAIM Ever! You most certainly CAN! Go Ahead... start a GOD is DEAD campaign and work hard against the HOLY SPIRIT and see how long it is before God totally just lets you off into destruction - Unforgivable SINS can be Committed at any time - saved or Not - STOP with the NOT BIBLICALLY SUPPORTED CLAIMS - THAT's a LIE Krs2? That's pure slander for no reason what so ever - some demeaning generalized insult to all atheists ability to tell the TRUTH - SHUT YOUR HOLE - Or represent our King Properly - by not slandering athiests with your generalizations that they just LIE - You're a FALSE ACCUSER and Talk Shit - SHUT Your Hole - reread that "Remove the Rafter from your eye before trying to pull splinter out of someone elses eye - YOU'll SEE CLEARLY this way - Your Way? You just implied all athiests who say they were christian are liars? God LOGIC? Or slander? SLANDER - Weak Link - GET OUT - GET OUT - You're SHAMEFUL

So if you vigorously went around a told everyone that your parents are not your parents, they will just stop being your parents? The answer is NO. Therefore, God couldn't stop being your savior. Most people who give up on God is because they never really trusted in Him.

***** "You don't need to understand evolution to understand any of those sciences you mentioned." You have it backward. Understanding the sciences allows you to understand evolution.

***** No silly, evolution doesn't require beLIEf, you are very confused. How about holding your creationism to the same standard that you hold evolution? Can you do that?

***** "You actually do need believe and actually faith to believe in evolution " Only if you are not aware of all the many supporting sciences, and you don't know what evolution is or how it happens. "Lets put everything in the same standard" Sure. Let's see how well you do. What's your support for creationism? Do you know of any science at all, that supports creationism?

***** "Supporting sciences are only available based on what is explained to us based on what we think has happened Billions of years ago ." Not true at all. Who told you that? Cite your source. "Putting everything in the same standard would suggest honesty and transparency" Yet science does this. "See now that we understand that we do not understand 100 percent but only understanding the problem and how to solve it which makes us think we understand all of it except of course when we stop and think who created math ?" Funny, that was the the Ancient Greeks who invented math. It's just a linguistic representative logic system. "and why is 1 + 1 equal 2 and not 3" Because logic systems have to have a way to prove, otherwise they are not valuable. You have run on a tangent. So, back to what you assert. You say that you don't know how life evolves. Think of it simply. You were small enough to fit inside your mother at one point. Now, you are bigger. You have evolved. This is clear, and measureable. In fact, all of biology, and biochemistry support evolution. But that's just the very tip of a much much greater iceberg of entire fields of scientific study that support evolution *directly.* In order to begin to discredit evolution, your first task is to completely discredit all known biology, zoology, botany, anthropology, anatomy and physiology, virology, and every related science. Then you can start working on the many, many other entire fields that support evolution. You can then move on to all of physics, and chemistry. That should keep you busy for about twenty lifetimes.

***** "Why do you need a source ?" No citation, noted. " Just ask yourself this Im I 100% sure of what happened billions ago is ( insert what you think happened here ) is the truth." Since evolution doesn't just explore what happened billions of years ago, you must be making a strawman argument. "I suggest we are solving many problems and finding many solutions but our test is not quite nearly close to being finish so our percentage might be close or might be far but most definitely it is not 100%" Science isn't the search for absolutes like that. Mathematics has it, but science is different. " Only if the whole test is finish can I say I got an A and even so I might not get an A. But once I finish my test than I could be 100 percent sure of what problem I got wrong or if I got wrong any problems at all." So.. you don't understand process at all, and you seek an absolute "answer". You are not ready for science. "Like I suggested before if you know the answer to the problem than show us how to solve remember you are the source." Nonsense. You reject evolution, and you can't demonstrate any other process. Silly. This is *your* problem. Not a problem with evolution.

Kent was arguing from science, but his science is wrong. Compare that to his son Eric who wants to circumvent the whole discussion about evidence but just wants to argue about what "evidence" means. Eric Hovind copies Sye Ten Bruggencate. Sye Ten once admitted (in a sermon) he doesn't argue using reason and science, for 2 reasons: 1. He's not smart enough 2. If he can argue someone into the religion, someone else might argue them out

SecHummer Most of Eric's material and arguments originated from years of work by Kent e.g. the laughable explanation for the Grand Canyon. Hence they are both using pseudo science and pseudo science, by definition, is not science. The fact that Eric gets his philosophical views from the "own goal" specialist Sye does not alter this.

Α & Ω Yes, i want to know how Aeolian layers come to be deposited by water and between layers that were deposited by water. I want to know why different fossils appear in different layers. Seriously, what can explain such sorting in a single event? I want to know how a catastrophic event causes a meandering rift rather than a straight fracture. I want to know how mud can bend. Above all, i want to know how unlithified layers did not collapse when this "rift" was catastrophically formed. Answer these questions and i may just then consider Creation "Science" as an alternative to conventional Geology.

pilgrimpater Never heard these arguments let me chew on this for a while

Α & Ω Just basic and obvious questions. I bet you will be off trawling just the Creation sites won't you hoping for inspiration.