It has been suggested to me that I may have fell victim to "Poe's Law" in my previous comment, and that this video is supposed to be a meta-spoof of some kind. But if you've ever watched Kent Hovind or Ray Comfort make complete asses of themselves, I cant just sit back and tell myself "Relax, noone can be this retarded. Not even retards" because yes, yes they (peanutbutter)can.

Also, looking at the Youtube description and the original posters really sincere creationist comments, I will assume this to be a serious attempt at making fun of atheists. Again, nothing wrong with making fun of us atheists, but please, if your're gonna do it, shame and ridicule us, not yourself in the process.

Residue:
It's difficult to clearly get the same meaning of a word like "belief" because it is ambiguous and has multiple meanings.

Let's take it in small steps.

Evidence is data that you make your working hypothesis from. When you gather a sufficient amount of evidence that has no contradicting evidence, you can make a theory. As long as no evidence contradicts that theory, it can be considered factual to the best of our knowledge (or a belief if you really want to call it that (I don't)). This theory (fact) must be able to withstand attacks from all angles, which is based on evidence.

Example: I see a white swan (data/evidence). From that evidence I form the hypothesis "All swans are white". Next I gather evidence of more swans, thousands of swans, all white. The evidence then indicates that my hypothesis is correct, and we can "upgrade" it to theory. To the best of our knowledge swans are white. Then evidence is presented that suggest that some swans exist that are black. This evidence is analyzed and scrutinized and my theory is found out to be faulty. A new working hypothesis is formed: "All swans are black or white". And so on...

This is following the evidence.

There are many guidelines for what can actually be considered evidence, but all in all, you just have to eliminate the margin of error. If only 1 person (maybe a person with a different theory) saw a black swan and no one else ever has, then the evidence is not very reliable - he could easily just be making it up for personal gain, for instance. If a million people saw black swans the evidence is much more reliable. That being said, in reality you'd have to do more than just see the swan to make it reliable evidence.

So you see, it doesn't mean that it is reasonable or unreasonable to me, it's that the evidence does or does not support it. What I think is irrelevant if the evidence points in another direction.

Religion makes the grievous error of making the theory out of nothing and then making evidence support it (see all things Kent Hovind). Evidence should not be altered, the theory should be altered.

I see Kent Hovind and the first thing I think of is promoting..

In reply to this comment by eric3579:
gwiz thanks for promoting Kent, the ultimate fucktard!

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
*promote

gwiz thanks for promoting Kent, the ultimate fucktard!

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
*promote

Ugh, Kent Hovind sets off my douche-dar.

'Nuff Said

And here's some info on Hovind's $250.000 fraud.
The jist of it: "Prove beyond reasonable doubt that evolution is the only possible way life could have come into existence" (Which means that God must be disproved; which is impossible.)

Given the opportunity I would beat Kent Hovind to a bloddy pulp with a Bible.

Not only is Hovind completely ignorant in all areas of biology, he doesnt even get the concept of self-funding, which he confuses with getting gullible, religious ignorants to cough up money while babbling in foreign tongues, or as he so charmingly links scientists with his own like-minded morons in Iraq who he thinks pays for their own bombs.

And i fixed the typo, thanks for the heads-up

Agreed, Rougy. Again, it is a question of background in practical and theoretical knowledge, which Hovind clearly lacks. As evidence by the fact that Hovind had no idea what the Geneticist(PS. there is a spelling error there in the title) was talking about when he mention transcription, bioinformatics, and other topics which are common knowledge in biology.

He makes a very nice point at the end, if you could find evidence for applications of creation science then you could get funding to do research in the current scientific system. The reverse is not true.

"In 1971 he graduated from East Peoria High School in East Peoria, Illinois. From 1972 until 1974, Hovind attended the non-accredited Midwestern Baptist College and received a Bachelor of Religious Education (B.R.E.).[6] In 1988 and 1991 respectively, Hovind was awarded a master's degree and doctorate in Christian Education through correspondence from the unaccredited Patriot University in Colorado Springs, Colorado (now Patriot Bible University in Del Norte, Colorado which no longer offers this program)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

He does. And he repeats his questions many times. He interrupts Hovind only, when he is trying to get around the answer....and Hovind is trying that in most of the cases. I always have similar problems when arguing with someone who hasn't a clue what he's talking about, but is convinced he's right anyway. If I get caught not knowing the question to an answer, I say "dunno" - but creationist can't do that: because with every question they can't answer their whole world view(and meaning of life)is put to the test. So - I wouldn't be upset if anyone would prove a design in nature; just very surprised!
....but the only arguments I can see for now are solemnly based on arrogance ("I don't understand all this - and I'm such a smart guy")and I see no observations which can be only or better explained by the designer-hypothesis.

He doesn't even give Hovind a chance to respond. Dumb interview IMO. Cool visuals though.

So Dr Hovind's argument goes; "la la la la i'm not listening ... what about islam ... irish people blow eachother up, therefore your argument breaks down sir!" This really is painfull to listen to, but hats off to 'gene boy'

Mr Hovind really should have a reasnoable answer to any of the questions the scientist asked him but he didn't. What Hovind studies is simply study with no view or goal of practicality. Knowledge for knowledge's sake is all well and good, but claiming yourself a scientist as such is ridiculous.

Very well put. I'm actually semi-impressed that Kent didn't bring the discussion of "belief" or "faith" into the argument which usually happens in such a one-sided argument against a Christian's views.

Hahaha...just read that Kent Hovind did (or is still doing) a 10 year term for tax offenses AND he has a theme park called "Dinosaur Land". What a kooky man!!!