Kent Hovind vs Molecular Geneticist

the following videos below contain an even better debate with hovind (IMO):
hovind debates evolutionary biologist grad student (watch these while you can- before the CSE tries to remove them again):

(you can skip the first couple of minutes of each video; the dialogue between the two is great)



2 thoughts on “Kent Hovind vs Molecular Geneticist

  1. Hi, i have seen this video before, the shorter version. I must say, although KH answered the empirical evidence part, he didn’t answer the application part. I, however do have an answer to it. Here I quote my own comment on the youtube video that someone else uploaded.

    In a nutshell:
    creation predicts hyperbaric conditions, and life being much more vibrant and capable (longer lifes recorded, which would naturally mean better healing/sustaining ability of organisms). Test for application: are hyperbaric conditions better to life? yes. Just look up Hyperbaric chamber for medical use, as well as experiments of produce grown in hyperbaric conditions.

    “Application for Creationism

    how do we get a hold of this molecular geneticist?

    kent hovind does not answer the application question very well at all i must say.

    I have an applicatin of creation, however.

    premise: creation says things were very well designed in the beginning and things have been getting worse, including life, health, regenerative power. Creation says there was a mist that arose from the earth that watered all the plants and no rain. kent hovind alludes to a water canopy. either way, both increase the total mass of the atmosphere, resulting in a significantly higher air pressure globally. so one puts two and two together and thinks “would higher air pressure conditions make life flourish better?”

    The answer is yes, and we have evidence, tests, and actually done experiments for this.

    plants grown in hyperbaric chambers result in huge growth. hyperbaric chambers medically heals all sorts of ailments, even preventing the need for amputation. ”

    Extention investigation:
    does/would evolutionism and purely naturalistic theory for the origin of the universe allow for hyperbaric conditions on earth, much higher than they are now? how/what would be the process/conditions/chemicals in the atmosphere? or is hyperbaric conditions exclusive to the creation theory?

  2. The question the caller asks is a valid one. application for creation. of course. I think KH could not think of an answer right away. But I don’t think it would have been bad if KH just said “gve me some time to think about it and i’ll get back to you” The caller’s question stumped me and it took me a while to put together te application i wrote out above.

    I am one that thinks creation makes more sense than evolution (to a really high degree, to be honest), but even I thought it sounded like KH did not have an answer, and wasn’t able to bring himself to say “I can’t answer you atm”. My whole point is that the shortcomings of KH does not mean the invalidity of the creation theory.

    But pressing ANY idea/theory/hypothesis is how we advanced science and affirm the validity of a theory. This is how every theory has been built and established up to now, and should be: by questioning, making derivative discoveries applications and inquiries. The principle of questioning and testing is universal – the level of “hostility” does not upset this “law” either. ideas like whether bodies tend to slow down or continue in their motion is not consequential to things like morality, the existence of deity as theories about the origins of the universe, life and man.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s