Dr Richard Kent is made of wrong

So, I was flicking through the god channels the other day and encountered Dr Richard Kent telling me just why evolution is impossible.

As you can imagine, I sat and watched the full hour… mainly with a smile on my face and occasional outbursts of hysterical laughter. It occurred to me, however, that this is absolutely, 100% what many people completely and absolutely believe to be the total truth and that, well… it’s bloody terrifying.

Okay, so the first thing he raises is that he’s a retired medical doctor.

This alarms me in all sorts of ways. I wouldn’t want to work with anyone who truly believed the things he says in his video and then provided medical care because, as you’ll see if you watch it, he doesn’t really seem to understand the scientific process and I would therefore question his ability to, y’know… not accidentally kill patients by misunderstanding medications or something.

The young earth nonsense that he starts off on isn’t really tackled in any depth. He just seems to point out the difference and move on… ‘Yeah, the bible says this and science says that and they disagree.’  Indeed.

Oh but remember, we’ve got a built-in get-out clause here. Anyone who disagrees with the bible is wrong because the bible says so. Also, the devil… what a dick. Not only is he a liar but he’s the father of lies too! He’s his own father, how’s that even possible, The Devil? Answer me that? You can’t can you? Dick.

The 6 different types of evolution that Dr Kent lists are Cosmic, Chemical, Stellar, Organic, Macro and Micro. A large part of the argument that he then proceeds to make against evolution is that only micro-evolution has been directly observed. I believe that he means directly observed whilst happening… at no point does he tackle the, what seems obvious to me, issue that no-one can realistically observe, at first hand, a process that takes such monumentally long spans of time to happen. What science does is look for the fingerprints of these events and they’re all over the place. Hell, I can point you to a Christian website that lists them. You can have your imaginary bearded sky friend cake and eat your evolutionary fact cake too.

Mmm, cake. What? oh right…

So, then the good doctor uses SCIENCE AGAINST US!!! Oh noes! The first law of thermodynamics states that nothing can come of nothing (basically) so, yeah… physics. But the bible says that there was nothing and then God made everything. Right. Those are two different statements, good… let’s compare and contrast and look at some evidence and then have a lovely rigorous debate about it all and come to some kind of logical conclusion… wait, what?

Dr Kent’s argument seems to be to mention something scientific and then say that the bible disagrees and therefore the bible is right. That’s his main argument. His other argument is that Science (SHOCK HORROR) changes its mind about things… it’s, it’s almost as if a collection of individuals come to some kind of agreement about what the most probable explanation for something is based on the most current data and theories and then, *faint*, adjust that thinking should new and compelling evidence come along.

How do these so called ‘scientists’ sleep at night? Don’t they know that certainty is more important than anything?

*facepalm*

So, by this point in the talk, I’ve realised that Dr Kent is an idiot when it comes to a) understanding how Science works b) effectively arguing his point in an organised fashion and c) probably a lovely person but really, really deluded about the world.

I keep watching though, I can’t help myself.

Okay, so entropy… hmm. Somehow he seems to think that this contradicts evolution. Now I got a little bit confused at this point. He actually has a slide that says, and I quote;

‘The atomic bombs added lots of energy to Hiroshima to end WWII and did not organise anything!’

‘Hey guys, I’ve totally got this awesome idea of how to bring about peace’ – Jesus, not helping.

Right. That’s clearly how it works… add energy, get organisation? So, as a closed system (because that’s totally how God made us y’know) we can’t have energy added and therefore, everything’s just going to get less organised and stuff? Hmm. So, if evolution is impossible because things can’t organise in that way, are babies impossible too? Is that why all of those libraries have random heaps of books? Why no-one in the history of anything has ever solved a Rubik’s cube or invented something new? Sorry but I don’t understand your argument.

Ah now, in the next part the lovely Dr Kent completely misunderstands the language being used. ‘Simple’ organisms aren’t simple… they’re infinitely beautiful and wonderful and amazing.

‘they’re not simple Mr Darwin… they’re really, really complicated’

How dare Darwin, without his electron microscope and talking in terms of ‘simple’ and ‘complex’ fail to point out the amazing complexity of all life. Wait, again I’m not getting your argument Dr Kent. So, because the universe that we live in is a complex and amazing thing, evolution is impossible? How about if we change the language a little… how about if it’s ‘less complex’ organisms and ‘more complex’ how does your point stand up now? Oh wait, it doesn’t… BECAUSE YOU’RE NOT MAKING ANY SENSE.

*sigh*

Now follows some absolute nonsense about Zebras learning to fly. If a Zebra was growing wings, its vestigal wings would make it more likely to be eaten by lions and therefore SCREW YOU EVOLUTION mwahahahahah!

He then backs this up by stating that if evolution were possible, there would be lots of transitional life forms in the fossil records… which there are not. Apparently.  *cough* Archaeopteryx *cough*

I can’t even comment on the next part… I’m just going to leave this screenshot here…

Urgh, I’m getting tired now.

He waffles on a bit about how the sun is shrinking and that means that if the earth were as old as Science says it is, we’d have been engulfed in it’s fiery embrace back when the sun was bigger. Also, the earth used to spin really, really fast if it were in fact as old as Science says… goddamn you Science.

But if it’s going that fast… oh, screw you Science, you dick…

Those poor dinosaurs.

By this point, I’m barely even listening… Dr Kent questions why if earth is older than about 6000 years, there aren’t any calender systems older than that. Honestly, how do you even say that out loud and not want to slap *yourself* in the face?

He decides, again, that because Science was wrong about the amount of moondust on the moon, that ALL OF SCIENCE is wrong. Wow. If we’re allowed to start using this as logical argument, I have a few parts of the bible that I’d like to have a discussion about please.

Thankfully, the end is now in sight. Dr Kent has saved up one last whammy though, for those that aren’t yet convinced by his amazing skills as a logician.

No, now, you see, what you’ve done there, Rich, is confuse the word ‘Miracle’ meaning an extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is therefore ascribed to a supernatural cause with just ‘amazing’. Yep, the development of a single sperm and egg into a proper person is amazing. It’s awe-inspiring in fact but, and let’s make this clear, it is not a miracle… it happens every single day. It’s sort of why we’re here in fact.

To be fair to the old chap, he does politely answer the most common complaints on his website and offers some questions of his own to the ‘scoffers’ who find his arguments unconvincing…

Having explained my position, what about yours?

– Are you absolutely certain that you know more than God does?

– Were you there when God created the Universe?

– Are you certain that the Bible is rubbish?

– Are you certain that there is no life after death, and if so, how are you so sure?

Easiest quiz ever.

1. Yes, I am absolutely sure that I know more than a fictional character does.

2. No, because God didn’t create the universe and I’m not billions of years old (thankfully, imagine the wear and tear)

3. Yes, I am absolutely certain that the many-authored, self-contradictory, racist, factually incorrect, sexist, largely plagiarised collection of church approved books commonly known as ‘The Bible’ is rubbish.

4. Yep, I’m certain. As a medical professional I have attended many deaths. There is no release, no flash of heavenly light, no chorus of angels. Just a biological unit stopping in its functioning. I have never witnessed any messages from the dead, coded or otherwise. There is no accurately measured and verifiable data that shows any transference of energy as a coherent unit on death. An afterlife is most convincingly explained as a comfort blanket, a psychological buffer against the reality that we all die and this life, this wonderful and amazing life, is all we get. Isn’t that enough?

This entry was posted in proper rants and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Dr Richard Kent is made of wrong

  1. Pingback: Cubik’s Rube quickies: Richard Kent « Cubik's Rube

  2. AJ says:

    Actually, the theory of evolution had been disproven so long ago. You just choose not to look at the facts properly. Many evolutionary scientists, some name most of us would recognize, admit the theory is impossible. If you really understood what Jesus did, maybe you would praise and worship Him, instead of deny Him. Try reading about Smith Wigglesworth (from a Christian point of view). He lived what Jesus preached. Smith healed the sick, and reportedly raised 23 people from the dead over the course of his life. He is an example of a true Christian.

    • zenspider says:

      Okay… I’ll bite.
      a) name the ‘evolutionary scientists’ please.
      b) I don’t deny Jesus, I equally don’t deny Zoidberg or the cat in the hat. Fictional characters don’t need denial to make them fictional.
      c) Smith Wigglesworth is freaking hilarious. Sorry, but that is all turn of the last century hype. Preposterous claims by a man who clearly didn’t understand biology but did understand PR.

      Give me one shred of evidence for any of Christianity’s claims and I’ll happily consider your religion as the one true way. Unfortunately, not a single one of the major (or minor) world faiths has managed this yet… who knows, maybe today is the day my eyes are opened. Go for it. I’m receptive. :)

    • Aaron says:

      Evolution has been disproven? Sorry the world press must have missed that hugely important memo, please provide links to where this was published and the scientists who conducted the studies and experiments to gether their evidence to disprove this very solid theory…..wow a world without evolution, goodbye anti-biotics, I guess you never really worked at all and it was Jesus healing us the whole time!

      PS. If an “evoutionary scientist” disproves evolution, wouldnt they no longer be evolutionary scientists? What has Jesus got to do with a biological scientifc theory and even if one day evolution was proven wrong (which if you knew anything about the theory or even what the word “theory” means in scientific terms, you would know is impossible) why would that suddenly prove the existance of God?

  3. Dave says:

    The educational establishment doesn’t want the theory of evolution to be disproven, even though its more shallow than a puddle on a hot day, so any Scientist who finds anything of interest in creationism or is willing to be open to the idea of intelligent design, immediately becomes an outcast with a 95% chance of losing their job etc and of course as seen here, faces the usual slanderous, irate attitude that cant bear the thought of becoming accountable. Here is a scientific fact that has been proven. The louder a person shouts and cusses, the more insecure they are and its funny how so many atheists fit the bill, but this is an almost pointless exercise because if a person doesn’t want to believe then that is for a reason, and whatever that reason is (which is usually an accountability issue) then they will go on the offensive to try and safeguard their particular lifestyle, which normally reflects what Alistair Crowley said……..do as you will in which case Dr Kent;s quote of John 8:44 was spot on.

    • zenspider says:

      1) you don’t know what a ‘scientific fact’ is.

      2) please direct me towards the evidence based disproval of evolutionary theory, I’d be fascinated to read it.

      3) You’re the aggressive one here. Slander is an inaccurate term to throw around in a public forum.

      Please try using more evidence and less hyperbole. That’s how a discussion works. I’m assuming you are a Christian and probably an evangelical so don’t hold out much hope of a sensible reply but still, if you’re willing to have a civil conversation rather than trot out the same misunderstandings of the terminology, we might have an interesting exchange of ideas.

  4. Woody says:

    It doesn’t matter how much anti – God rubbish you spout it won’t make Him go away,and He will still be waiting for you at the end of the line, and by then it will be too late. Of course it is your choice, just make sure you don’t get it wrong. Eternity is a long time.

  5. D.Edwards says:

    Hi, I know I’m a bit late, but I’ve been watching Richard Kent’s latest series on Revelation TV, called To The Point (Tuesday, 2.30pm). He pretty much spouts the same old goo you dismantle here so well. I have written to him via Revelation, since he invited comments, but he has not replied – I didn’t expect him to; he does not interact with atheists or anyone with any scientific understanding. His stuff is laughable. Last week he said the sun was a miracle. He also went through the seven days of creation. How he failed to see that day 1,2 and 3 were impossible without the sun (which turned up on day 4), I don’t know? He also claimed plants were formed before the sun, and that photosynthesis was occurring, despite, in a slide on photosynthesis, showing an image of the sun ‘feeding’ plant life on earth. Any way, thanks for your post, sorry to respond so late. Just did a search on Richard Kent and your blog came up.

    • frank says:

      Hey just watched dr kent as im having an ongoing debate with my local delivery man. Where does the developement of the eye stand if darwin said in his book he didnt think that it could come from natural selection. Also do we work out how close we used to be to the sun or moon by calculating backwards the same time frames as we see now .One last thing is there a book on modern species currently evolving .

      • Dyfed says:

        Right, Frank, you’ve clearly fallen for creationist lies by claiming Darwin wrote the eye could not come from natural selection. This is a tremendous example of how creationists misrepresent, actually. If creationists, or you, had bothered to read Darwin, what he is doing is being intellectually honest, something far beyond a creationist. Darwin first present a preceived problem: how could something like the eye have evolved? Over the next three pages, had you bothered to find out, he actually explains how the eye could have evolved through natural selection. Over the preceding 150 years, we have discovered examples precisely matching Darwin’s hypothesis. You clearly don’t udnerstand even the simplest science, so stop being arrogant and perhaps read a book by a biologist, or, if you are interested in cosmology, a physicist.

      • frank says:

        ok , i didnt read darwin . But as always i do have to ask , how someone with your intelect can accept everything came from nothing . how many writings on a subject do we need as evidence. one book darwin or 66 the bible.

      • Dyfed says:

        Dear Frank,

        Who on earth says I claim everything came from nothing? Do you even understand the concept of ‘nothing’ that theoretical physicists use? The consensus is that there was never ‘nothing’, so without ‘nothing’, a creator is not required.
        You clearly don’t understand science. We don’t have ‘writings’ as evidence. Have you ever heard of peer-review? Google ‘scholarly peer-review for evolutionary theory’ you will get BILLIONS of hits, Frank; more than 66.
        The Bible is a historical artefact. It needs to be read critically like we read all ancient texts. Sadly, you seem neither williing to show humility and learn, nor do you seem willing to approach your texts critically, like all humble people should do.
        You haven’t even bothered to learn anything about modern biology; you just take pot shots at Darwin without understanding anything about his work, or what has come about in the 150 years since he published his findings. Very sad. Very arrogant. You’ve sadly fallen for the snake oil salesmen of creationism.

        Yours,
        D.

      • Dyfed says:

        … and, Frank, if you admit to not even reading Darwin – or not checking what he DID write – why on EARTH would you make the false claims you made about him in your first post? Does what is right and true not matter to you?

        Ap

      • frank says:

        theory of darwin , mmmmm theory of , i borrowed this from a scientist “Indeed, Charles Darwin himself acknowledged in On the Origin of Species—the 1859 book detailing his theory of evolution by natural selection—that it might seem absurd to think the eye formed by natural selection. He nonetheless firmly believed that the eye did evolve in that way, despite a lack of evidence for intermediate forms at the time.

        ” LACK OF EVEDENCE . SO YOU WILL BELIEVE SOMTHING CAME FROM NOTHING

        . no evedence . your more creationist than me. id like to have been left as a bird if i came from natural selection , it seems the most select way of survival . Head south for the winter brrrrrr . flying without fuel , no pollution. escaping predators.

        Why did all fish not just keep evolving til ther was none left in the sea ???
        My theory is that some liked the sea so stayed others tried hard to walk then darrraaa they evolved.

      • Dyfed says:

        Are you a troll? Your responses now don’t even sound rational. I’ve already explained how dishonest creationists are regarding Darwin and the eye. Read the book! Darwin was hypothesizing; in the preceding 150 years, his hypothesis has been supported by massive evidence re: the evolution of the eye. Why don’t you stop being arrogant and learn?

        You basically don’t have a clue what the modern evolutionary synthesis is. You’re just committing a strawman fallacy. You don’t even understand how evolution occurs: why didn’t fish not just keep evolving? That is just a ridiculous notion. I can’t even understand your confused blatherings now. If you want to make points, do so; but make them sensibly.

        D.

  6. frank says:

    Last comment mrs dyfed . Insulting peple wont make you correct . show me the missing link , Try taking your own advice and read the 66 books of historical evedence not just the one man theory . DR KENT was converted to truth from science . He at least took the time to investigate booth sides of the story til he came to the T R U T H .wheres the next stage of men evolving , if your an example leave me in the primordial slime thanks .Humans have evolved to kill kill kill .This is evoluotion .Go back to the drawing board Mrs

    • Dyfed says:

      Frank,

      How interesting you complai about being insulted, when you are your ilk do nothing but belittle and insult a dead man who can’t defend himself by lying about him.

      First, I’m male; not Mrs. Second, what ‘missing link’? Another arrogant statement. You’re after transitional forms. There are thousands. Absolutely thousands. Between which species? I can give you many. Here’s one: Tiktaalik. Learn about them.

      The bible is not evidence for the bible, Frank: that’s called a circular reasoning fallacy. We know quite a lot about how the bible was written, and although lots of the books are anonymous, we have an inkling of the kinds of people who wrote them. They are not ‘holy’ or ‘sacred'; they are, like all texts, flawed; interesting from a study perspective.

      Richard Kent does not understand evolution. It is quite obvious he doesn’t. He is not a biologist. He’s a medical doctor. If I want to know about biology, I go to a biologist.

      Let me give you one piece of evidence for common ancestry. ERVs. These are ancient viruses. They can ONLY be passed down via reproduction. The ONLY way. So if you had one of these viruses, your ancestors, for all the time that’s left, will carry its trait in their genes; in the EXACT place the virus ‘marked’ your genes.

      Now, these ERVs implant their ‘footprint’ in a very specific place in the host gene. Humans and chimpanzees share many ERVs, and they are in EXACTLY the same place in our genes.

      No other way to explain their presence other than common ancestry – sometime in the far distant past we shared an ancestor with chimps. We share fewer with gorillas and orangutans, but we share them, and this supports the theory that chimps are our closest animal relative. We also share some with mice. Dogs and wolves share ERVs, too; as do common domestic cats and their wild cousins, lions, tigers. How do you explain this, Frank?

      Let me give you another example: independently, scientists in different fields – genetics, biology, paleontology, anthropology, biochemistry – have, using evidence from their fields, constructed ‘family trees’ of life on earth. It shows all life is related. OK, but do you know the amazing thing? When these ‘trees’ are compared, they match EXACTLY. No deviation. They all, independently, show the same thing: life diversified through evolution by natural selection and other mechanisms; life is all related.

      Please stop being arrogant. Please be humble and learn before spouting about a subject you clearly have no clue about.

      D.

  7. snowy says:

    Ive just happend to catch Dr Kents point of view today, he explained about event horizons being linked with the turin shroud???? And other events when god makes time stand still is a event horizon! He even used a picture of a black hole.
    The one thing that amazes me about religous experts is they cherry pick the information that suits their arguments but ignores everything else that contradict their view.

  8. Suave Sean says:

    Well done Dyfed in your demolition of poor old Frank’s rationale or should I say irationale. To my mind it is a bit of a fruitless exercise arguing with young earth creationists who merely fallback on a defence of either ‘were you there? ‘(however neither were they) or because it says so in the Bible.
    Creation Science is a contradictory term as it operates from the premise that the Bible is infallible and only accepts evidence that fits in with biblical revelation. If the evidence contradicts the Bible it is either distorted to make it appears to support the holy book or it is discarded as it must be inaccurate. This is not how the scientific method operates and the sheer beauty of science is that it is fallible and changes as fresh evidence is accumulated so that we better understand the world about us.
    Now of course creationists may eventually have the last laugh if it is ever proved that a higher entity started the Big Bang. All I can say that if God was responsible he has done bugger all since and is resting on his or her laurels.
    Eventually Creationists will go the same way as Flat Earthers and Geocentrists and become an amusing footnote in an age of reason and enquiry and increasingly irrelevant.

    • Dyfed says:

      Thank you Suave Sean!

      You’re right, Young Earth Creationists are utterly a waste of time, but sometimes you are appalled by the terrible lies they spout, you can’t help but say something.

      Frank reeled out the indoctrinated rubbish about Darwin, blatant untruths, and even when he was corrected he did not have the humilty to apologise and accept his error – that is a YEC through and through.

      A recent debate between YEC pope Ken Ham and ‘The Science Guy’ Bill Nye showed how creationism fails, fails, and fails again as a credible position: asked what would make him change his mind, Nye answered: Evidence; asked the same question, Ham said: Nothing.

      Ham already believes he has the truth. He had no reason to think he had a mind to change. How arrogant. How anti-knowledge. How against all inquiry and learning. That, to me, defines Young Earth Creationism.

      As to your remarks about about God, you are right: if a god did create everything, he/she/it made a complete mess of things, and should be completly ashamed of him/her/it self.

      Christians/Creationists again blame people for all this. But, as a comic once said, ‘It’s surely the manufactuer’s fault.’

      D.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s