WW3 TOMORROW

Sadly, Ham is smarter than Hovind and knows he would lose.

@@ronaldolson6553 That's very debatable.

Alex Abplanalp Ken Ham would 100% lose to Inspiring Philosophy

@@prophet_alfredo9465 more like to John Walton (that’s where all of inspiring philosophies arguments come from)

@@Lucas1Apple12 that is where he gets the functionalist interpretation but he also relies on Heiser, Alter, Stanhope, Van Ee, and more for his arguments.

You should care more about being right and the truth than being better at defending nonsense

@@robertwhite1810 how many of these sock puppets do you have, Kent?

I had the exact same response except for the other way around. I couldn't believe how InspiringPhilosophy acted in this debate. His position was simply to appeal to academia experts over what the Bible obviously & clearly says over and over. It helps to understand the Bible quote of Satan ruling the power structures of this world is NOT joking or exaggerating. It's very silly to appeal to mainstream academia like that in any debate about Christianity. The Bible clearly tells us not to do be like that, so it just reveals the person is sound asleep regarding awareness of the devils deceptions in modern times. Creationism is very, VERY obviously true and Evolutionism is very, VERY obviously not from a scientific perspective and a Biblical perspective.

Literally the only way to believe Evolutionism over Creationism is with fallacies of scientism combined with having practically religious faith in mainstream academia.

@@lightbeforethetunnel oh well, if you say that it’s “very obviously” wrong, I guess that’s settled! 🙄

It was Bowling Bowls and Whales

It hurt my brain hearing him say that

Fax

It is stupid. He was illustrating how stupid atheists think. Not how he thinks.

As Jones said in his post debate discussion, "Kent Hovind could get to Heaven and ask God if the earth is 6000 years old. When God says 'No, It's some 4.5 Billion year old', Hovind would respond with something like, 'This conspiracy goes deeper than I thought'"

@@petery6432 this made my day 🤣🤣🤣

@@petery6432 LMFAOO

IP doesn't know Hebrew. If IP wants to talk about what a hebrew word means he should pull out a standard biblical hebrew dictionary and he didn't.

@@boliusabol822 he sources Hebrew experts but ok i

@@boliusabol822 You don't know IP. If you want to talk about what IP does or doesn't know, I would ask that you pull out a biography or an interview that you've personally conducted with him.

@@FallenMerick dude I gave lots of examples/ You either address them or you don't but if you don't then i'm not going to have the silly conversation you want to have.

@@boliusabol822 You're the one wanting to have a silly discussion. I'm just using satire to point out how ridiculous your argument sounds. As if expert opinion is somehow not good enough and interlocutors are required to be an expert themselves to debate something.

I agree that he made his mind up, but the important thing is belief in God as the creator and more importantly the gospel.

Inception of Freedom I also used to be a Hovinder. On top of that, I used to listen to Ken Ham. That wasn’t until I saw how dishonest he is when I saw Science VS. the Ark Encounter. If you haven’t seen that series, I highly recommend you go check that out.

It's important to expose his stupidity so those who would follow him learn to think for themselves. I was never a follower of Kent or Ham but watching them is slowly turning me into a agnostic

Sebastian Shaw John Lennox, InspiringPhilosophy, Frank Turek, Ravi Zacharias, James White, Jeff Durbin are some apologist to check out. Kent Hovind and Ken Ham are the clowns of the Christian community.

I love John Lennox. He’s an absolute unit of an academic and an apologist.

And who do you think won?

@@trevthegamedev IP

@@VierthalerStudios what a question lol. I might have to disagree with coming back and rewatching this. Not because IP CRUSHED Hovind the Heresy, but because it was just so painful to see the endless illogical claims from this pinhead!

So Genesis is not about creation, it's about the inauguration of the story we never heard about..... ?

OMG right?!?!?! When IP spoke about analyzing the book of Genesis from the perspective of ancient Eastern civilizations made PERFECT sense to me. Evolution fits in the Bible and a literal interpretation is not logical.

But even in Hebrew, it still doesn’t say what inspiring philosophy was trying to say!

@@jsandbox2068 that makes no sense at all and ip drink alcohol when the bible says not too

@@jsandbox2068 the English is a translation of the Greek Hebrew and aramaic and there are plenty that know those languages and still dont believe ip interpretations on it

God is not stupid and evil he didnt write genesis to be confusing and needing of somebody else with Greek to show you what it says

Thanks for your encouraging feedback, Gene! Have a great rest of your Saturday! :)

Classic bait and switch conman tactic

For us as atheists this debate is the best example what kind of BS it is...my point is that Kent is at least honest to scripture however insane the scripture is from today perspective...IP is more dishonest here because all his teology is made up on purpose exactly as excuse to literal meaning of Bible which was taken this way throughout entire history...this is labyrinth of metaphoric, symbolic, abstractive,langugeistic meanings, which 99,99% believers has no clue about.....basic ordinary believer will never come across this made up teology/excuses...Bible has been debunking itself scientifically and the ridiculous attempts to save it is even more comical.....lets not get deceived here...the person more dishonest here in the debate is IP, because he needs to addapt even more made up lies to save the text, Kent however crazy he is, is at least honest here (By the way Kent world view is what majority always was in past History till scientific revolution

@@black6master Do you really think the Catholic Church would’ve allowed IP to say his opening statement in the 1200s? Most definitely not. It went against their narrative and thus would’ve been squashed out as best they could.

@@hunglikeahorse120 in 1200 ? There was chaos but from 3/4 century onward IP view would be heretic and he would end up steak by CCh, the same in Izrael

@@black6master false, IP actually made a video on this, Philo, Ireneaus, Augustine, Origen, and many other church fathers thought that this chapter could be read metaphorically and should have been so.

You could almost see IP becoming an Atheist with the honest scepticism he seems to embrace.

That's how he works.

I dont think Kent is a good speaker. But I see what he's saying and agree with alot of it. You can believe in evolution and God but I def dont think the bible teaches that.

@@j2mfp78 so you think Kent isn't a good speaker and had a hard time arguing. Well what I saw is that he couldn't speak because he lacked any knowledge on ancient Hebrew. If he knew anything about the language, then he would be able to say no you're wrong to IP and try to correct him. But whenever IP came out with some Hebrew to support his position, all I got from Kent is oh well my bible here says nothing like that and completely disregarded anything IP had to say

@@josephcioe4697 so why doesnt IP write his own translation of the bible so we can all understand it now. If a certain word means something else in Hebrew then why weren't those actual words used? I here this all the time. Oh in the Hebrew it means this. . So all these translations are just wrong no one new how to translate Hebrew untill now?

@@j2mfp78 because the English versions we have are the closest we can get to fluid English. To translate the very literal Hebrew to English would be a big jumble of super specified sentences. For example in German there are like 7 different words that translate to love. But in German each of these specifically mean love for your spouse, or love for your kids, of love for material objects. Imagine every time we said love we specified whay exactly. That would be a little awkward. Now imagine we do the same thing with the whole bible

@@josephcioe4697 it would sound how it should sound that was a crappy point. Your saying its translated but you have to know Hebrew to understand what they meant? Then the translations are useless.

Kyrby Caluna thanks!

Think Club , Mike adds to the word of God, he is a heretic.

@Saint Dragon Temple inauguration, priest & priestess etc. Funny how I've never seen any Bible version with Genesis written that way & it's also potentially very damning if atheists really find out just how far mike has & does twist the translation, they'll soon realize he doesn't believe in the Bible as it is written in English, or any language as you can find genesis translated the same as English in every other language & not Mike's interruptation from heretical scholars.

@Saint Dragon The same way Tovia singer is a heretical scholar when he states Satan is doing the will of God & is taking orders from God in what he's doing & that they aren't opposed to each other & in enmity. What Tovia does is read into the scripture what is not there & ignore the actually context even though he knows far more Hebrew than I or IP etc, his doctrine is still heretical as he has to twist the scripture of God telling the serpent to crawl on his belly & eat dust to mean something that's good & a blessing to the serpent. The Hebrew scholars brought up by Mike are doing the same thing that Tovia does.

@@ThruTheUnknown The book state's he brings everything. Light dark evil and good. Either way it's your gods doing and control

The ol' hovind gish gallop. A staple of every debate he is a part of.

Mr I'm-Not-Prepared-For-That Hovind.

Opening statements are a mix. Discussion thereafter is one at a time. Get with the program already.

I think people who think like Kent are mostly fine, except when they're trying to convince other people that they're correct. (I mean this pretty broadly. Kent is a weird case because he's actually taken the time and effort to present these conclusions, and it's usually the lack of time, inclination, and/or ability to really deeply dive on some of these things that lead people to believe what he does.) The truth is that Christianity should have room for people who aren't especially intelligent, or maybe aren't inclined to introspection, and that's okay. Really good preachers can draw from a depth and breadth of knowledge to, as we say, "meet them where they are," and help teach people what is true and what God says our guiding morals should be. If they ever want to dig deeper, there should always be people in the congregation who can help them, but if they're content with the level of resolution at which they are, they can contribute from there. Christendom ended up in kind of a weird anti-intellectual slide for a while, acting like we weren't allowed to claim science is part of Creation, not parallel to it. I'm worried we'll snap back too far and make it something that unless you can give a deep philosophical and scientific explication on Genesis 1, we don't want you (or we at least look down on you).

@@jacksyoutubechannel4045 completely agree Kent Hovid, also defense absolutely radical insane king James only fundamentalists like Gallo Ripplinger and Stephen L Anderson, and I know the whole labeling radical and the same thing, just watch videos of them or look up some of the statements they’ve made. And the most devastating thing is, and this applies to both Christians and atheists, they see people like Kent Hovid, and televangelists like Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Jesse Duplantis, or Joel Osteen, and they come to the conclusion that’s what Christianity and Christians are like, and they don’t know about the more sophisticated and intelligent figures like, Greg Bahnsen, Alvin plantinga, Emmanuel Swedenborg, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Leibniz, or biblical scholars like Bruce Metzger, Daniel Wallace.

@@jacksyoutubechannel4045 I’ve had almost the exact same thought but never verbalized it or have heard it said out loud. I agree and think that scripture is amazing in that it is for people with all levels of understanding to grasp and the depth of understanding can vary by individuals. I really like how you worded it.

Literally

There is a actual fundamentalist Spanish versions of the Bible. They'll say they're translated from the original texts and Textus Receptus but are actually translated from the KJV. Thankfully, those fundamentalists are few.

Ask Sam Gipp that question and he'll tell you that you have to learn English. According to Gipp, the KJV even trumps the original languages (it sounds like Kent Hovind might even believe that too!).

DMeloMan watch Walter Veith ‘Battle of the Bibles’ or read the book ‘Our authorised Bible vindicated’

Sadly these KJV fundamentalists truly believe that their King James English is superior to ALL other languages, even the original Hebrew. It's a very Ethnocentric and absurd point of view.

Ahah if you read the Louis second 1910 in French you’ll burn in hell forever!🤫🙄 haha

Emotional or not, I personally don’t see how that strengths or weakens the argument. If the argument itself is based off of emotion then I could see your point.

Kevin McElroy He probably just isn’t used to being personally attacked like this. Kent was incredibly rude.

Kent must still be stuck in 1995

I wouldn’t agree. We don’t need ppl telling us how to read the bible. Kent is being scriptural.

God's not dead how is Kent being scriptural. He’s been told multiple times that the KJV of the Bible isn’t the word of God. You would commit an argument from ignorance fallacy if you insist on the KJV. The Hebrew versions are the proper scriptures preserved in history.

You haven't yet become strong enough in exegesis. Cultures change even during one's own generation. History of Genesis spans many generations. And its Hebrew reading is for its literal writing style throughout its text. But I would agree that culture is part of most peoples' worldview.

His making evolution fit with the Bible

@@moneyheist_- he isn’t “making evolution fit”, he’s saying that it simply just does. It does not contradict the text to believe in evolution because the scripture seems to be able to be faithfully interpreted as not a literal six days of creation. It’s not just him, there’s a lot of people who agree with that type of thinking, even early Jews and church fathers had various understandings of Genesis that did not contradict and old earth

Most all trinitarians believe this

Same!

We have to love him. How can we expect him to accept the faith when we are hypocritical. If everyone was telling you how much they cant stand you and how stupid you are do you think you would join them and accept their beliefs and lifestyle? How can we expect to convert people when we tell them we hate them? We love kent, we see he has some issues with his logic and doctrine. I dont blame him. I blame the devil. And i want to make it clear that he definitely dishonored the Bible and dishonored God. That is unacceptable. Jesus said forgive them, for they know NOT what they do. Kent doesnt understand what hes doing because hes not saved. And makes it appear that he has no fear of God. Eventually God will bring his wrath upon the earth and wipe out everything. God has so much mercy and patience tolerant, but he only tolerates so much sin before he brings justice. May God bless you all.

I got the opposite from this, thought IP was snarky and uncharitable and derailing.

Kent is incapable of scholarly discussions

fujiapple96 Lolol “yeah”

You should see my reaction when I saw Michael servicing cocks at the local toilet glory home

Well it’s blasphemous when you’re going to add words into the Bible When your going to add another interpretation into a self evident sentence that has no indication of it being a figure of speech. It’s therefore, adding into the word of God. Where In genesis does it indicate that it’s not meant to be taken literally? Nowhere actually. It’s even mention in exodus.

The beginning is also mentioned in John.

NR Ramirez study the history of the stories written that make up the Old Testament. The stories are all nonfiction, borrowed and rewritten from older stories of the time, evolution destroys the account of Adam and Eve. Unless you don’t agree with me, but I understand where you’re your coming from.

It difficult to get a man to admit he is wrong when his paycheck requires him to do the opposite.

Rodney Settle no actual honest historian even says that the Old Testament is borrowed. Even though the Old Testament is history. Everyone who says that just copy from illiterate atheist websites and are ignorant of the stories. What is actually true is that these pagan stories originated from one story. Because if you actually study they all sound familiar, Noah’s ark for example, the only one that has common sense and carries reason and absolute purpose is from Noah’s ark. The rest is somewhat a cube that’s swimming in an ocean. And most are not even similar to the Bible, they copy that there is a god and they just mixed it up. And guess what, even scriptures tells s that there are gods. You must do a series of twist and turns to make it sound like the Old Testament. You understand that I don’t believe in evolution because the evidence isn’t compelling, true, strong and absolute?

Where did he talk about it? I've only begun to watch

@@Beastinvader Kent Hovind began talking about the trinity in 1:22:35- 1:25:55. Hovind clearly doesn't even have a basic grasp of what the trinity doctrine states. The trinity doctrine holds that God is one God, but three coeternal consubstantial persons or hypostases-the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit-as "one God in three Divine Persons". The three Persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature" (homoousios).

@@JohnSmith-yw9nk Well defined. I finished the debate and I'm shocked to see how easily he moved from partialism to modalism

Finally, I agree with Standing for Truth.

Eh, honestly it really doesn't matter what someone thinks about the Trinity. It's all just one spirit, anyway.

Hardly... He did quote scholars on a handful of original Hebrew words, but Kent destroyed him on scriptural context... IP is desperate to make the Bible fit the theory of evolution, which is impossible, because he could never adequately argue scripture... I'm a firm believer of the Gap Theory, and that it's scripturally sound, but it still doesn't allow for evolution.

@Techstorian OW "An effective argument from Hebrew would require an absolute fluency in the language" This strikes me as patently false. "Quoting Hebrew words in singular fashion is the weakest of debates." Again, I think this is wrong. Not quoting any Hebrew is probably a much weaker form of debate, given the document was inspired in the Hebrew language. IP was correct with regards to his criticism of Kent reading in his western presuppositions and blindly affirming an english translation (The king james of all translations lol).

Mark Wildt perfectly said. I am highly skeptical of these so-called Hebrew experts. You're right in saying that inspiring philosophy is failing to take into consideration the importance of scriptural context. And yes I believe there's a subconscious attempt to make the Genesis account fit their secular View. It's very suspicious that none of this stuff was ever really put forward all throughout church history.

@Techstorian OW Except biblical scholars don't draw on modern Hebrew in their exegesis of OT scripture. Doing so when ancient Hebrew material is readily available would contravene the principles that exegesis is based upon. Compared to the time that the King James was transliterated, we have a much greater understanding of ancient Hebrew, and more scholarly resources to compare the texts to. Your criticism fails to touch on my point - Even modern Hebrew would likely give us a much more informative APPROXIMATION of the texts nuances and original meanings compared to modern English. There are even more radical differences between ancient Hebrew and ANY FORM OF English, than there are between ancient Hebrew and modern Hebrew. Even though we would both agree that using modern Hebrew would be inappropriate, it would still be better than simply using English. Otherwise, are you claiming that OT scholars, or at least the scholars quoted by Inspiring Philosophy, DO use modern Hebrew in their exegesis? You seem to be implying it at the very least.

​@Techstorian OW I'm not going to argue against a KJV onlyist here. Suffice to say that your position pretty much does not even exist amongst those persons who actually have qualifications in Old Testament biblical scholarship. People reading these comments, please understand that Techstorian OW's interpretation of scripture is not supported by people who study, or can actually read (or speak) ancient Hebrew. It is a view of the biblical translations that is almost entirely and exclusively accepted by persons whose only language (spoken or written) is modern day English.

He just does it to get the gullible to keep sending their hard earned shekels to DinosaurLand

Hes a scammer, and idiots EAT his shit up. Profits make him believe hes a prophet.

@@LucasHergenreder-xn2vz I have no idea what you're referring to.

@@LucasHergenreder-xn2vz ah, you're still a Christian? Don't worry, it takes some people a long time to grow up, you're not _that_ unusual. I wasn't defending IP, they're both comically wrong.

@@bouncycastle955 The only person who needs to grow up is you, the idiot who thinks people with a different belief system are children. You sound like a 14 year old who thinks he's smarter than everyone else because he rebelled against his fundie parents. Pathetic.

wrong.. IP was playing games and Ken was shooting straight.

I credit Hugh Ross as being one of the people who saved my faith a few years ago. I was raised in a young earth environment and one of the things that pushed me away from that perspective is studying the original languages and the downright unchrist like attitude that young earth creationists like Kent hovind have when they debate someone that disagrees with them. Especially when they're debating a fellow believer they just become incredibly hostile and don't demonstrate God's character and love very well. We need to not be attacking each other as Christians when we disagree because it causes harm to the body of Christ. We need to be able to disagree in love. People like Kent treat Christians who disagree with them like they're not saved and they say threatening things like "God's going to judge you for saying that." There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ. We need to act like that verse actually means what it says.

Well IP doesn't know Hebrew(let alone biblical hebrew). If IP wants to know Hebrew he should study it.

@@boliussa how did you come to that conclusion and can you support it?

Kent Hovind is the master of straw man and red herring arguments. He is a fool.

@@stephencastro4723 amen brother

He is why there are more atheists

It’s his normal way. And it’s very disturbing. Satan is the accuser of the brethren...let that sink deep. Very upsetting.

@@unknowntexan4570 hmmm maybe that is the plan...Satan is the accuser of the brethren. Not the Holy Spirit

Kevin McElroy it’s really not hard to understand the creation story there is nothing indicting IP’s heretical position

Welcome to every debate with Kent. Pointless diatribes, misrepresentations of opponent's position mixed with general disrespect from a conman who did more for atheism than Hitchens could ever dream of. Long live Kent.

I'm glad that you are interested in the issues. But you do know that we all agree we are sinners and Christ came to reconcile us with God. This is what makes us Christians. Not geology.

Kent is not ignoring the language it is written, he's relying on good translators, IP doesn;t know Hebrew and IP's claims about hebrew were wild

i mean virtually the entire world believes in supernatural in some form, it is more logical to believei n that than to be an unhappy neckbeard nonbeliever minority

I agree, tactical plunger! thanks for stopping by! Have a great rest of your Saturday! :)

Couldn't agree more. The creeds of the Church have declared that someone who doesn't believe in the trinity is damned. It's the fundamental tenant of the faith!

The trinity is the most ridiculous and blinding doctrine to ever exist. You are committing a grave sin by believing in that heresy

Your god doesn’t exist

This guy used to come to my school and teach when I was in 6-8grade I’m 42 same stuff then too

Kent pretty much reads the Bible and tells people they should believe a basic interpretation of it. I don't think there's much need for that approach to change.

@@mikewilliams4717 neither does yours

@@mikewilliams4717 How do you figure that?

You know, that "curse" that Kent was talking about is often misunderstood. It's not "cursed is any who adds to the Word of God", it's pronounced to any who add to the book of Revelations. Fortunately, though, this misunderstanding has kept most people from adding anything and claiming it to be scripture, so it is good.

People deny half the Bible to make evolution work

@@114wildfire the Bible says nothing about scientific theories like Big Bang and Evolution. Only YEC's said that with their flawed interpretations.

Stephen Castro Did I claim the Bible talks about scientific theories?

Stephen Castro Well, Bible does seem to speak about evolution though. Romans 1:23 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.👈👆👆👆👆👆👆👆👆👆👆👆👆👆👆👆

It's easier for him, he doesn't need to put as much thought into changing his bogus script.

If the Hebrew meaning to these words are so obvious why do they translate them the way they do that doesn't support IP's view?

@@marclaclear6628 Because there's nothing else that they can put in that ensures it makes sense of the most important elements of the text.

@@thomastrebilco7219 Which is a pretty good indication that the English translations are accurately representing what the words mean.

​@@marclaclear6628 Why would we consider placeholder words, which are put in due to there being a lack of adequate English words able to convey Hebraic meaning, as an indication that the fine nuances of the Hebrew text are accurately represented? Whenever we don't have the words to convey the Hebraic nuances in English, we use placeholder words instead to ensure preservation of the primary themes. However, doing so means we lose any non-primary meanings. The fact that placeholder words are used at all demonstrates the opposite of what you just claimed - we should be less confident that the Hebraic nuances are accurately transliterated whenever placeholders are used, because this indicates that the original meaning was unable to be directly transliterated into English. Placeholder words are an indication that the nuance of a text cannot be directly transliterated. In other words, placeholder words indicate that we cannot derive nuanced meaning from the translation - only the primary themes.

How can one say this?! 🤣

Jim Merrilees wow, ok so first off I was replying to a joke. Ok. I was not looking for a debate. Second the Bible is full of truth to the point where the things in it that are questionable don’t take much faith. The Bible is full of proven history that even secular scholars admit to be true. The Bible has a lot personal firsthand claims that are now known to be scientifically accurate. It also disproves a lot of evolution theory’s. And although some parts of evolution such as adaptation have been proven a lot of evolution in terms of macro is in question. And if you think IP is dumb well you should look at his debates against Aron ra and Matt dillenhanty

You have it wrong.

Prove anything you just said.

Lool

Yeah me too!..... I watched many IP debates and i have always found his facial expressions priceless! especially when the opponent says something stupid... Cracks me up every time!

his eye rolling actually put me off IP, that's not how you should behave, he was like that from Kent's opening statement, it showed closed mindedness and rudeness from the beginning. I didn't find it funny, but really off putting and unbecoming.

@Bob Smith you're "adding" to God's Word, son! (to emphasize age superiority).

You could also call him Kent "Ad Hominem" Hovind.

35:05

Kent uses infantile analogies because he and his followers like simple comparisons so they don't have to understand theories and supporting evidence.

Potato amen

Not necessarily. Just because someone professes Jesus Christ means nothing. Jesus said to look at the FRUIT! I’ll just say Satan is the accuser of the brethren. I only saw one person doing that here and he always does that. The way he treated Hugh Ross in one debate was despicable. Anyway...God knows. Only He knows the heart of “man”. We really need to watch how we treat each other. God bless you

@@KimberlyOfTheRoyalPriesthood indeed 🙌 This usually applies to teachers of the faith but can also apply to individuala

@@thiccmcchicken550 ?

​@@KimberlyOfTheRoyalPriesthoodPaul's warnings were pointless then. Weren't they?

Man you guys are incapable of coming up with something original.you must be the 100th atheist to make this joke.

Why are you assuming he is an atheist? If you watched the debate clearly some Christians do believe in evolution. Whether or not you are a YEC you should recognize that Kent Hovind is truly a scumbag and makes Christianity look bad...

@@harrisonkunneman9952 You are the one to judge him? If I were you, I wouldn't be so quick to condemn people who are willing to promote the Bible as God's word, regardless of whether you agree with every point they make.

The criminal Kent hovind you mean 🤦‍♂️

Darrien DeFederico Great point

Science is observing a process in a lab, something that we've done with micro evolution but not macro evolution. Finding fossils of similar anatomy isn't proof, nor is similar DNA, rather it's merely assumptions that we all evolved from something common. Evolution has pretty reasonable observations but it isn't factual since it cannot be observed. Trying to use "enough time" as an excuse doesn't work because we humans have mortal lives and can only observe points of time.

I agree. Sadly a lot of young earthers act like this towards their fellow believers who disagree with them and they attack the body of Christ in doing so. There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ. We need to act like that verse actually means something.

@Humble Guy Kent got F'd in the A

So wrong

I know! Hovind is so wrong, it goes from humorous, to annoying. Hovind is so incapable of intelligent debate.

that would require kent to actually listen to someone else

To squash debates. This debate isn’t a debate. It’s IP being pissed he got creamed with Kent’s arguments.

The absolute worst conclusion to draw from this debate.

That is why i watch him.

The Hebrew translators are the ones who did the English translations. If the words really mean something else then why did they choose the words that they chose?

The interpretation belongs to God! Read Genesis chapter 40! Tell me what you see! Believe in Jesus Christ and you shall have everlasting life! Jesus loves you! Get a king james bible and believe. Read Matthew.

Mi at thank u

Huh? What did I do? Did you read Genesis chapter 40! The power of God's Word shows that it has been preserved as written thousands of years ago in bible! You don't have to learn "hebrew"! Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world! Ask Jesus Christ to show you! Get a king james bible and believe. Read 2 Peter chapter 3. God bless and keep you!

Mi at thank u, finally someone who actually believes in the bible!

The best to understand this that has worked for me is to imagine a gradient from white to black spread out over an entire football field. If you start all the way on the black side, every blade of grass is black. And the ones to the right of it are also black. But at some point all the way on the other side of the field, the blades of grass are white. But you can never pick two blades of grass side by side and tell the difference in their color

Kent is right.. The things IP was claiming about Hebrew were wild, and Kent was right not to trust him.

@@boliussa Riiiight ;)

@@CedanyTheAlaskan if you were more honest you'd ask for evidence, or look at other comments where i've provided evidence, but you're not.

Beastinvader bingo!

Oop

IP just appealed to authority over and over. At one point he just sat there and talked about how if experts in academia support a position then he believes it.

Maybe work on providing a single Bible verse that supports Evolutionism over Creationism first.

@@lightbeforethetunnel the Bible isn't a science book, despite what Kent tries to tell people. The Bible exists to tell you about God and His plan for salvation. It isn't there to teach you scientific truths. God endowed us with intelligence to figure that out for ourselves, and we have

@@williamavitt8264 The title of the debate is: *Does Evolution fit into the Bible* So the problem here is you don't even know what is being debated in the first place.

@@williamavitt8264 Regarding science and why that also supports Creationism not Evolutionism, here's why (which Kent has already explained in every debate on THAT topic, and nobody has actually defeated him after about 300 debates on the topic) Belief in Creationism requires faith in the following unobserved process: 1. Non-Naturalistic process for life coming from non-life Belief in Evolutionism requires faith in the following unobserved processes: 1. Information being added to the genome 2. Increasing genetic complexity 3. Naturalistic process by which life comes from non-life All existing scientific evidence could be interpreted to support either side: 1. A common designer, or 2. A common ancestor So what scientific or logical reason does anyone have to choose Evolutionism over Creationism? It requires faith in more processes which haven't been scientifically verified / observed. Occam's razor is the problem-solving principle that "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity". It is generally understood in the sense that with competing theories or explanations, the simpler one, for example a model with fewer parameters, is to be preferred. So why are many choosing the explanation which requires faith in more unobserved processes when it isn't necessary? That's not the scientific or logical approach. The answer is: Scientism They're believing that whatever claims are within the current consensus of academia are automatically scientific claims. It doesn't work that way. The Methodological Naturalism requirement allows them to include their best Naturalistic explanation for questions they can't answer with observation. “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer (or Creationism), such a hypothesis is excluded from peer-review because it is not naturalistic. Of course the scientist, as an individual, is free to embrace a reality that transcends naturalism." - Dr. Scott Todd, immunologist from Kansas State University as printed in Nature Magazine So, in effect, Scientism is causing them to blindly believe mainstream academia's consensus like a religious text without properly understanding the only reason Creationism is excluded is due to pre-existing philosophical bias, NOT because it's less scientific. Pre-existing bias is a systematic error in the scientific method. They can't even prove Naturalism is a true philosophy.

@@lightbeforethetunnel That's not a topic of debate and IP actually proved that Evolution is compatible with the Bible.

He is a petulant horrid child trapped within the body of a grown felon.