Hey, everyone.
Hey, Kent.
So some of you may have seen my exchange with the con man Kent Hovind, which basically consisted
of me explaining to him with crystal clarity why all of his talking points are invalid,
and then him proceeding to repeat them ad nauseum anyway, like a little child.
And what a surprise, he wants to do it again.
But he has some demands.
He wants to go “one topic at a time”.
This is comedy gold, Kent, since you are just a little greased pig that won’t answer direct
questions and changes topics at the drop of a hat when you know you don’t have the 9th
grade understanding of biology required to discuss something.
Here are some examples of you doing that.
Don’t worry old-timer, we’re gonna go one topic at a time.
But we’re not gonna follow your format.
You see, any time you are given some span of time to speak, you set a world record for
lies per second.
That’s why you must be interrupted constantly, so as to address one lie before you make it
to the next one, and your response is to simply whine about being interrupted and then change
the subject.
Open discussion also doesn’t work, because you refuse to answer direct questions, like
defining what a kind is, and instead just resort to your ridiculous misrepresentations
of science, saying that I believe life came from a rock, or tornadoes don’t assemble
cars, no matter how many times I explain to you that these are stupid things
to say.
So instead, this will be the format.
I am about to read for you five questions.
These will outline our next encounter.
Each one will be read, you will have some reasonable amount of time to respond, and
then we will discuss your response.
Any attempt to change the subject will be disqualification.
Any attempt to deliberately misrepresent science will be disqualification.
Your responses must be rooted in scientific fact.
Without your idiotic script to fall back on, you will have to make some attempt to answer
the question, after which I will point out your monumental failure.
Then we will move on to the next question and do it again.
You must be dying to know what these questions will be.
So here they are.
For starters, it was pretty hilarious how you spent your entire opening statement talking
about the bible, citing it as your evidence for essentially everything you say, and then
refused multiple times
to talk
about it.
It’s pretty obvious why you do this.
Because you know the bible is totally indefensible as a scientific or historical document and
doesn’t stand up to an ounce of scrutiny.
Well this time, we’re going to talk about it.
Question One.
Your alleged 6,000 year old age of the Earth is derived exclusively from the bible, as
is the basis for your notion of morality.
So let us examine the validity of this document as a source of facts and moral teachings.
1st Kings 7:23 – And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other:
it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did
compass it round about.
Leviticus 25:44 – Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from
them you may buy slaves.
You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans
born in your country, and they will become your property.
You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves
for life.
Numbers 31:17 – Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every
woman that hath known man by lying with him.
But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive
for yourselves.
Defend the validity and modern relevance of these passages.
Now let’s get to the science.
This is where I will dismantle your ridiculous talking points.
Question Two.
You regularly misrepresent evolutionary ancestry so that you can whine incredulously about
whales coming from pine trees, and other misleading nonsense.
Of course you know that evolution does not propose this, but rather that from a common
ancestor, over several billions of years and many millions of intermediary species, all
of the current life on earth was eventually produced.
Explain, specifically and mechanistically, on the molecular level, why you believe this
to be impossible.
Yeah, I know genetics is not exactly your forte, but you’re gonna have to brush up
a little.
I would suggest actually reading some of those textbooks in your collection.
Question Three.
First, define the word “kind” as you use it.
Not by example.
An actual definition that can be applied to all biological life.
Then, list many of the “kinds” that you believe were on the ark, with specificity,
and explain mechanistically how all of the species on earth today can have been derived
from those original kinds.
That’s right, pops.
The ambiguity of “kind” ends now.
If you can’t even define a simple word that you use ad nauseum, you lose.
Question Four.
You allege that an ark landed on a mountain, at which point these pairs of animals disembarked
and populated the world.
This notion creates endless problems.
Why do so many animal species live exclusively in a specific part of the world?
Why did they go to a specific continent and nowhere else, and how did they get there,
traversing inhospitable climates on the way, and with nothing on earth to eat but each
other?
Where are the trails of fossils that you think somehow can form in a year, and where are
all the modern fossils in general?
How did Noah’s party populate the world, and where did all the races come from, and
why aren’t we all inbred?
In short, how does the ark myth explain what we see today?
Is the panic setting in yet, Kent?
It’s ok, there’s just one more.
Question Five.
Why do you present yourself as Dr. Kent Hovind when you do not possess any legitimate degrees?
Patriot Bible University is a degree mill.
It’s a shack in a parking lot.
You did not attend any classes.
You did not do any research.
You paid money for a piece of paper.
You objectively have no degrees of any kind, so why do you lie and say that you do?
Is it because you started that lie decades ago before anyone was using the internet and
could verify in ten seconds that you don’t have any degrees with a simple google search?
Shouldn’t you stop calling yourself that and apologize for lying?
Why should anyone believe anything you say when you are a proven liar?
And that’s it, grampa.
These are the questions you will attempt to answer, in a display of comedy for all to
see, including your loyal patrons, who will undoubtedly want to witness this debacle,
since you have been mocking me so frequently in your little cult compound.
All of this will transpire on the channel of a third party.
I suggest our mutual acquaintance, SciMan Dan, who will simply read the questions and
moderate the discussion should you attempt any of your greasy piglike maneuvers.
If this is not agreeable, you may suggest another venue, but I will never appear on
your channel.
If you wish to avoid this inevitable trainwreck, feel free to publically forfeit and admit
to your viewers that you just can’t do it.
But if your unparalleled hubris compels you to withstand this humiliation, you know where
to find me.
See ya later, Kent.