[3:30]
Kent: His response was "While present knowledge of molecular biology has not solved this riddle, it is interesting Hovind said the following on the issue of accepting such a discovery as evidence for "evolution"; and he's quoting something I said at a university. "I was a university [.....]" Well, Carl, that's precisely the point, okay, it would take intelligence to create life. And he says here, ' while molecular biology has not solved the riddle', in other words, we don't know how life got started. Now, Carl, this is my whole point. Till you can prove scientifically that it can happen without a designer quite teaching that it did happen without a designer. Don't call it part of science. [.....]
Kent (cont): Okay number four [....] and he writes, "It's almost tautologically obvious that organisms that wouldn't reproduce would not survive and those that do reproduce will survive. An organism that doesn't reproduce [word omitted] is the very definition of 'non living'" Well, this is not correct, okay. The definition, ah, there are many organisms that do not reproduce, that can not reproduce. They're certainly are alive. I've met people that don't have any children, would like too, can't have any children, they're still are alive. So you're wrong about that. So I would change that sentence.
COMMENT: Good point. Text will be reworded.
[10:30]
Kent (cont): He's saying, "organisms that wouldn't reproduce would not survive" Well, he's missing the point of my question. The question was, Evolution Theory is supposedly responsible for causing creatures to be capable of and interested in reproducing themselves.
Eric: That is a very, very complex system isn't it?
Kent: Complex. Chances of it evolving are zero. Being capable of reproduction is a major obstacle for evolution. 'Interested in' is another one. Why would any animal want to produce more of its own kind. That's only going to create more mouths to feed. Why did none of the animals evolve the ability to live forever? That would have been smarter.
Eric: That would have been a great one.
[12:00]
Kent: His response is, "This is a straw man. Whenever there is replication of DNA there are errors. Sexual reproduction also adds further combinations of variety. It is upon this variations in populations that natural selection operates. The process is elegantly simple."
Eric: He is still talking about microevolution here.
Kent: He's not getting it
Eric: Yeah
Kent: So, the theory says that complex life forms came from simpler life forms. There is no evidence of that. There are people who believe in that, great, you can believe whatever you want but quit calling it science, okay. All that we see is dogs produce dogs [.....] He says this is a straw man. I think you're wrong Carl. I'd take this section out of your web site.
He said "What Hovind is playing with here is the macro/micro loophole. In a footnote, Hovind states 'When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations ...'" I don't want to read the whole thing. You can read that on the web site yourself.
COMMENT: Hovind conveniently stopped reading at the point of the explanation of the loophole technique prior to using the technique.
Eric: But he is trying to say that micro and macro evolution are basically the same thing. It's just that macro evolution is micro evolution over a longer period of time is what he is really trying to come across with. He is saying, 'Look you can't divide these, they’re the same thing.' And we're saying, 'We never see the macro. All we ever see is the micro.'
Kent: They just don't get it. That assume and they hope and they think micro would lead to macro. Which is fine. Carl, you can believe that all you want. I don't care what you believe. But you just stepped outside of science and went into religion and didn't even see that you did that.
Eric: That's the hard thing to see. [.....] It's very easy to show micro evolution. We can show that all day long. There's lots of evidence. But soon as it goes to macro evolution, that's where you will never, ever be able to give evidence.
Kent: They can believe it. And he says, "Lenny Flank has written a short essay on the issue of "kinds" and the usage of the term by creationists." The Bible uses the word kind and it's very simple. If you want to know if it's the same kind. It doesn't even have to bring forth and organism that will reproduce later. The horse and the zebra can bring forth - a zorse. The horse and the ass can bring forth - the mule. Now, generally the mulle is sterile [....] The fact the horse and the ass can cross proves they were originally the same kind because those to did bring forth.
Eric: I mean, if you stand back and look at it, it looks basically like the same kind of animal.
Kent: [.....] Now, by the same token, I would say the horse and the pine tree can not.
Eric: I would say those a definitely a different kind.
Kent: That's what I said many times. Generally a five year old can tell you where the line is. [....]
Eric: But most evolutionists like to use the word 'species' instead of 'kind'. Is there a good definition of species?
Kent: No. A dog and a wolf are different species.
Eric: However, they're inter-fertile.
Kent: They’re inter-fertile. They can still reproduce.
Eric: Pretty much every definition of 'species' they've come up with has fallen through hasn't it?
Kent: Right. It's a straw man argument. They are making up a term 'species' and then claiming that "Oh see, we can create a new species." I'm not arguing 'species'
Eric: The same 'kind' of animal.
Kent: Right. The same 'kind' of animal. Right
Eric: [....] When you're discussing evolution with someone, that's another tactic they'll like to use. You know, "Look, we've created a brand new species." They like to use that word but when you really get down to it, you stand back and look at it, it's the same 'kind'. They talk about these bacteria that are changing -reacting to the environment - and they call it a new species of bacteria. Stand back and look at it. What is it? It is a bacteria.
Kent: Still bacteria. It has a loss of information not a gain. We get into that on video #4.
[16:10]
Kent: Let me skip a few paragraphs here [- skipped the exposure the Universal Negative]. I've skipped down to where in red print it says, "What Hovind is not telling you about the offer" here.
Number one - he says "Hovind does not have the $250,000 prize money. He claims a "rich friend" does." Okay Carl, this is correct. [....] The offer is fine. Why would you have something like this in here? I've said very clearly, many times, that this offer is sponsored by somebody else. So this is unnecessary for you to take up valuable internet space with this trivial bit of information.
COMMENT: Trivial?
Secondly he says, "The Committee remains anonymous. Even a selected challenger is not allowed to know their identities." Let me tell you why, Carl, okay. The first couple of times, two people wrote in and gave me evidence for evolution - which was dumb stuff - but I said, "Okay, I'll give it to the Committee." I sent a letter to each of the people on the Committee and person who sent the information in and sent him all their names and addresses and said "They will respond to you." He spent the next year their mail box and email box with pornography and with all kinds of evil email. So I wrote 'em a letter and said, "Look fellas, I apologise. I won't do that again. I will send you the information. You can respond and give them your contact if you would like to." These are busy men. They're trained scientists. I don't even know if they're creationists. All I know is they're experts in their field. [.....]
Carl goes on. "The Committee is selected by Kent Hovind himself." Well, what would you like? Would you like to select the Committee? Think about it.
COMMENT: Since Hovind likes legal analogies - think jury selection.
[21:30]
Kent: And he says, "For the demolition of every Young Earth proof Hovind has suggested see..." this web site, referring to Dave Matson which has this How Good are Kent Hovind's Young Earth Proofs. [.....] I still am willing to defend myself on any of those issues - and we can. So, no, I think it's pretty obvious to the trained scientific eye that the Earth can not be billions of years old, for lots of scientific reasons.
And he says, "It's a straw man. No definition of 'kind' has ever been given by Hovind." Carl, you're simply mistaken or lying. I've given it many times. If they can bring forth they're the same kind.
Eric: Exactly. Is it better to say, "The original animals that were able to bring forth"? The Alaska rabbits and the Florida rabbits can't bring forth.
Kent: Right. You can diversify to the point - like branches on a tree. Evolutionists try to make it like it's one big tree. No it's an orchard. There's a 'horse kind'. There's a 'dog kind' which has produced hundreds of varieties or branches on the dog tree. It's an orchard. It's a bunch of different 'kinds' of animals that God created.
Eric: [from 22:45] Backing up. "Contradiction. Hovind has admitted he doesn't know what a 'kind' is." Even if we have said that in the past I would say we would retract that even if that was said.
Kent: Good point. I think maybe in a debate somebody asked the question, [....] and I said "I may not know what the original 'kinds' are."
Eric: And he probably took that as, "You don't know what a 'kind' is"
Kent: Well, the Bible says if they bring forth they are the same 'kind'
COMMENT: Is there a definition in there somewhere?
Kent: No one has ever observed life arising from non living matter. He says, "This is true depending on the definition of "life" used." Well, I'm glad you partially agree with me on something. That's good.
Matter can not produce it self out of nothing. "See The Prof ...." I haven't looked at that web site yet.
[23:20]
Kent: After my five different [definitions of evolution] he says, "Hovind has implied the above events did occur but simply with the aid of "God". In short, he has just presented the case for theistic evolution (which Hovind does not support).
Eric: No
Kent: You are missing the point entirely here, Carl. I'm saying these five things can not happen by themselves. God, however, did bring everything into existence. This is not theistic evolution. I'm not saying God used some kind of process to let the creatures evolve. That would be a retarded god. That would be a cruel god.
COMMENT: Note I said, "which Hovind does not support"
Eric: There's a joke going around that God spoke and [big] bang, it happened. We're not saying God used the Big Bang there.
Kent: No, not at all.
[24:00]
Kent: And he gives a bunch of links to people that have tried to take up my Challenge. I will be glad to debate any of these guys with half my brain tied behind my back, in front of any college or university. I don't have time for written debates. [.....]
Eric: He gives several web sites here to people who have people who have tried to pick up the quarter million dollar offer. Do you know any of these people?
Kent: No. I'm sure we'll get to them because they will come up later
[25:05]
Kent: I want to go to Was it Assault and Battery? I've never had a chance to publicly defend myself.
Eric: Here we go
Kent: And here we go. And you can read through the whole thing yourself. Let me give you the story.
[story as described by Hovind and already included on web site]
Kent: And the bottom line is I didn't assault and batter anybody
Eric: And you wouldn't
Kent: I wouldn't. You've been in my care for a long time?
Eric: Yeah I've done enough things to warrant assault and battery but I have never gotten that.
Kent: Carl, this whole section needs to be removed from your site. You're either confused about the facts or you're deliberately lying. Plus it's a straw man [sic] This is unrelated to the creation/evolution .... even if I was guilty of assault and battery - which I'm not - it doesn't matter.
Eric: It's an ad hominem attack.
Kent: It's an ad hominem attack.
Eric: That's the first sign you are losing a debate by the way. You don't want to do that.
COMMENT: Perhaps Hovind should reread what was actually written.
[.....]
Kent: So remove it. It's unnecessary. It's .... like I said, you are either confused about the facts or you're lying, okay? Because I didn't assault and batter anybody. Keep in mind that Jesus got accused of all kind of things. Actually he god accused, convicted and sentenced and executed for something he didn't do. So just because somebody gets accused of something doesn't mean a thing, okay. Wait and see what the final verdict is. The final verdict was [.....] there was no prosecution. I was never found guilty of assault and battery. And I'm telling you, I not guilty of assault and battery.
Eric: I can vouch for that. There is no way he would have done that. And, knowing the situation and what happened, Trudy is a little bit psycho and I'm wondering what was going on there.
Kent: Right
Eric: Definitely got some issues going on there.
Kent: You can ask my wife, who I have been married to for thirty years. I have never hit her one time [....] I haven't even hit my wife so I am not going to batter the neighbor’s wife, that's for sure.
Eric: God designed this great little place for kids to get whipped on - and that's according to Biblical principles. [....] And I can tell you, ah, he knows where that place is. Plus Dad played tennis in high school.
Kent: Oh, forehand smash
Eric: Man, you do not want one of his spankings.
[32:15]
Kent: Mr Hovind and the Professor. I haven't read this one yet.
Eric: This is when you tell the story about the Professor you spoke to on the airplane.
Kent: Oh, okay
Eric: Great little story. If you haven't heard it - Seminar #1 - is the Professor story concerning the Big Bang and how the Professor didn't have the answers to the questions.
Kent: Okay, ***** is griping here that it is anonymous authority. Who's the Professor?
Eric: Yeah
Kent: I don't remember. How many people do I meet a week?
Eric: Quite a few
Kent: I've flown 208 times this year. I don't remember who the Professor was.
Eric: The bottom line is it doesn't matter
Kent: What difference does it make?
Eric: [Kent Hovind] is trying to make a point here
Kent: He's doing what is called filibustery. You know, lets talk a whole bunch and distract people from the real story. The story is true. The Professor did say he believed in the Big Bang. I could find you 100 professors who would say the same thing, if you would like. I mean, go visit a university, they will say the same thing. They do believe in the Big Bang. And I did ask him about stuff spinning backwards and he didn't have an answer for that. And it is a valid, legitimate story.
Eric: Very good, Sir.
Kent: And he says, "Who is the Professor? What was his area of study, cosmology or maybe economics? Berkeley has more than 130 academic departments and programs."
Eric: That's a whole other amazing thing how very quickly the evolutionist will defend something and as soon as they need a way out they'll just say, "That's not my area of expertise." They'll talk about it with you but soon as you trap 'em, "Well, you'll have to go talk to Professor So-and-So about that. You know, that's not my field."
COMMENT: If an argument rests upon the authority of an individual the identity of that person needs to be given. Hovind didn't also 'forget' the name of the Professor, he also 'forgot' sections of dialogue and simply created his own (as illustrated in my argument).
[.....]
[13:15]
Kent: He says, "Belief (small 'b') in a concept of science is not the same as Belief (big 'B') in a theological position." This is where you are wrong, Carl. You do have to Believe, theologically, you have to Believe religiously that evolution happened. I don't know why you aren't seeing it - and many others aren't either or don't want to admit it.
Eric: Many of you out there right now can very easily see that evolution is a religious world view. That it is not part of science. We looked up 'science' in the dictionary yesterday and evolution has nothing - at least the first five - have nothing what so ever to do with science. They do not go by the scientific method. If you really want to call yourself a scientist -really want to go according to the scientific method - let's examine evolution closely. And it's very easy to see it doesn't fit science.
Kent: Where's the observation? They always say, "You have to live for millions of years to see this." You're admitting my point. We don't see it.
Eric: They'll talk about the fossil record. Dad, is there really a fossil record?
Kent: There is no fossil record. There are a bunch of bones in the dirt.
Eric: That's not a record is it?
Kent: That's not a record is it? That's a bunch of bones in the dirt. Now, they are interpreting that to be a fossil record and then they base their theory on their interpretation and say, "See, our theory is true because it matches our interpretation." Well, duh!
Eric: Yeah (laughter)
Kent: Talk about circular reasoning.
Eric: Yeah (laughter)
[.....]
[35:30]
Kent: And I said, "Tell me sir, if you believe in Evolution, how did the world get here?” And the Professor said, " Well, it came from the Big Bang." And Carl writes in, "Straw man. There were a lot of steps after that...."
Eric: (laughter)
Kent: You're missing the point, okay. I was debating Pigliucci - that one up in Knoxville, Tennessee - and I kept asking him, you know, I showed him what the text book says. "4.6 billion years ago the Earth cooled down and developed a hard rocky crust. Then it rained on the rocks for millions of years. Turned 'em into soup and the soup came alive." Basically.
Eric: That's the simplicity ... simple view of what evolution teaches
Kent: But they teach it over thirty pages so the kid doesn't get this shorted version because they may laugh at it. We've got the book right there if you don't believe me. So I kept asking Pigliucci - who teaches at UT, Knoxville - I said, "Dr Pigliucci, do you believe we came from a rock?" He avoided the question about, I don't know, five times. Finally, he got angry and said, "Will you quit asking me that question." I said, "I just want an answer. Ignore time. I'm going to give you billions of years. Do you think we came from a rock?" "Well, not directly."
Eric: (laughter) Believe we came from a rock.
[end of discussion]
[37:10]
Eric: Does Dr Hovind have a PhD?
Kent: I get this a lot. A lot of the anti-Hovind web sites are saying, "He doesn't have a legitimate PhD." Okay, PhD stands for Doctor of Philosophy. Okay, you can get a PhD in a lot of different things - a lot of different subjects, okay.&nbssp; I have all this written out on my web site. Now, why **** has this on here, I do not know.
Eric: Again, it's an ad hominem attack
Kent: Wouldn't matter if I had a degree - wouldn't matter at all, okay. But I do, okay. I have a legitimate PhD. And then he's got a link on here to Karen Bartelt, PhD - her article about The Dissertation Kent Hovind Doesn't Want You to Read. I debated Karen Bartelt on the radio years ago in Morten, Illinois. She teaches in Eureka College in Eureka, Illinois. And she teaches evolutionary biology, or something like that. Okay, so I had a continuous standing offer to debate her anytime because she had written all kinds of things on the internet about me - and she still has stuff on the internet about me, Karen Bartelt. So finally I debated her at the Universalist Unitarian Church in Peoria, Illinois. [....]
Eric: If you do watch that debate or if you've seen it you know that was - easily to say - that was a slaughter house. Man.
Kent: The whole thing was ad hominem attacks - attacking me personally. I want to stick with the subject, okay. I don't mind the personal attacks - we're doing some here.
Eric: I love it because, Dad, when she got done with all of these attacks you said, "Okay, throw the PhD out the window. Throw everything you want at me. I'm a bad person if you want. Now, what about creation versus evolution?"
Kent: Call me Bubba. Call me 'Hey You'. I do have a PhD from Patriot University which is a small non-accredited Christian university in Colorado. It was at Hilltop Baptist Church - their number is 719 597 7512 - you can contact them and ask them if this story is true. About three people are year got a PhD through Patriot University - got a Doctors degree of some kind. About 25 people a year got lower degrees - bachelor or doctorate. They offered distance learning which thousands of universities do, okay. You can get many degrees from universities all over the world. I was up at Rutgers University and went and saw their department - to get a degree in .... I don't remember what it was.... some subject. It was closet converted to a desk and person, and this is where they handled the correspondence from the people doing correspondence to get their degree.
Eric: You don't need anything major when it's only correspondence.
Kent: Right. Now, so I mentioned my PhD is from Patriot. Patriot then, after I got my PhD - years after - moved to a different church - it's a Christian university - out in the hills of Colorado someplace. Right next to the church is a parsonage. And some person went by and took a picture of the parsonage - which has the same address ..... oh Dan, you have the PhD?
Eric: Yes we do have an official PhD here. We would like to show you everybody. You're going to have to get this video if you would like to see it. Here is the official PhD.
Kent: Post Hole Digger
Eric: The Post Hole Digger
Kent: (laughter)
Eric: We've got one here. Just using it.
Kent: Okay
Eric: We've got two of these actually. Plus the Doctorate of Philosophy that makes a total of three. That's great.
Kent: I do have a legitimate PhD. So if you don't like it don't call me 'Dr', call me Bubba. It doesn't matter to me, okay. Many people get degrees .... I don't know if people cheat for their degree or they lie or somebody else pays for it. I know I worked hard for mine. If you don't like it, ignore it, okay. Carl, this is unnecessary on your site.
COMMENT: It is necessary because Hovind attains increased prestige from a title of dubious origins.
Continue onto 12 December