MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)

[Esquilax]

The first thing he does is start talking about "cosmic evolution," which... is not evolution. So I think the issue isn't that Kent is effective at what he does, but that he and you share the same problem of thinking that you get to redefine what evolution is to fit the agenda you want to push.

The video is damn near two hours long and thats all you have to say???

If the man starts off with an argument that's so factually inaccurate that it isn't even addressing the topic he's purporting to debunk, what hope do we have that the rest won't follow the same meandering, fallacious path?

Also, consider that we've heard Hovind's claptrap before. You aren't the first goofy apologist to think that the man's fever dream of what evolution is is some kind of scathing critique of a topic he clearly knows nothing about; in fact, Kent Hovind and his equally dullard son are two of the reasons I became an out atheist, rather than merely apathetic to the whole endeavor. They lie or are simply wrong with such frequency, their arguments fail to even be about evolution so completely, that their position was utterly repellent to me. Nobody who has to lie, or be that ignorant about topics you're claiming to be an expert in, could possibly have any handhold on the truth. Further investigation only confirmed what the Hovinds initially led me to suspect.

Have you read Kent's dissertation? I mean, we both know that Hovind got his degree from a diploma mill that isn't accredited and operates out of a trailer, but have you actually read his dissertation? I have: it reads like an elementary school book report.