This is by far the best and most intellectual debate I've seen on JewTube, as far as creationism/intelligent design is concerned, and the intellectualism is not to Hovind's credit. Ross is the real intellectual here:
Old Earth vs Young Earth Debate - Dr. Hugh Ross & Dr. Kent Hovind (1 of 3):
Old Earth vs Young Earth Debate - Dr. Hugh Ross & Dr. Kent Hovind (2 of 3):
Old Earth vs Young Earth Debate - Dr. Hugh Ross & Dr. Kent Hovind (3 of 3):
However, Ross argues against evolution. He does it better than other creationists, but at the end of the day, he's wrong about evolution. Here's an excerpt from the debate, when Ross denies evolution:
Ankerberg: First of all, start me off, does evolution have any place in any of this?
Ross: I would say no.
Ross: Well, just by scientific modelling we can determine that there's no possibility for a species change into a distinctly different species unless it exceeds one quadrillion individuals with a body size less than one centimetre and a generation time less than three months, which means it's gonna work for viruses and bacteria, but it's gonna have no capacity to explain the existence of new species of birds, mammals or any of the creatures we see from the Cambrian explosion onward.
Ankerberg: So folks on PBS are doing specials on chaos theory saying that's the way it came about, what do you think?
Ross: Chaos theory in my opinion doesn't work, ah yes you can get departures in thermodynamic equilibrium, if you got a complicated enough system and pick a small enough volume element in that system, but there's an important corollary, the farther you depart a system from thermodynamic equilibrium, the faster it must snap back. Something as complex as a virus, the snap back time is less than ten minus a hundred and twenty seconds, so the fact that we're all older than that means that's not how we got here.
Ankerberg: So you're saying all the plants, all the animals, and man, none of that evolved?
Ross: No evolution, beyond the, not species level, genus level, order, family, none of that. Unless the species happens to have more than a quadrillion individuals...
Ross is an academic astrophysicist and advocate of progressive creationism:
John Ankerberg did an excellent job as the moderator of the debate. Bible fundamentalist Hovind had a nervous breakdown when Ross argued about how carnivores are good for life on earth, because they regulate herbivores from eating too much plant life (and thereby, preventing herbivores from destroying the source of oxygen). Hovind couldn't accept this, because of his northern European animal-friendly world-view taken to its extremes (in other words, his judgement is clouded). Hovind began talking about that's not the God he knows/worships because it would be a cruel god, and so on ad nauseam.
What's interesting about this debate is that it's far above the typical Richard Dawkins vs religious John Doe, because Dawkins although a brilliant scientist, doesn't really know much about religion on a deeper level. Ross and Ankerberg on the other hand, seem to have some interesting exegetical and theological knowledge and also some understanding of Hebrew (through Gleason Archer) which improves their understanding of the bible.
Kent Hovind is arguably the shittiest and most anti-scientific debater I've ever seen. You can see that he's nowhere as educated as Ankerberg and Ross. When asked about the Hebrew words of the Old Testament, Hovind dodges the question and answers something else about how you shouldn't have to be a guru to read and understand the bible.
By the way, what's Ankerberg's American English accent called? Is it a Chicago accent?
Anyway, what do you think of the debate? I think Kent Hovind is one of the greatest anti-intellectuals ever; "self-deception" is written all over his face. The part when Hovind says Neanderthals were deformed humans is really funny, because the existence of a non-human homo species really goes against the biblical creation myth. I wonder what Hovind would say if he found out that we possibly have some Neanderthal admixture...
What I find fascinating is how erudite men like Ankerberg and Ross can still believe in the bible? They're well educated after all, and they're trying to adjust scientific realities after their belief in the biblical creation.