Creaky Blinder has an Admirer (No, Not That Kind)

Creaky Blinder has an Admirer (No, Not That Kind) · Creaky Blinder Has a Video ...

Creaky Blinder VS Kent Hovind
Pedro McPherson | 24 Febr. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPvcfjtMKEc

2:32 Why would the velociraptor be domesticated?

Have you found that sharks and jackals are ideal to domesticate?

They still exist the same time as we do, but we do a pretty good job of avoiding them, and with jackals, if not sharks, I think it's mutual.

I think dinosaurs found in rocks are mostly pre-Flood. I don't know where they went after the Flood, those who survived on the Ark, but if they are found in rocks, I think they are mostly pre-Flood. So were the Neanderthals. Do you know what? Places where we've found Neanderthals, we haven't found Dinos. Places where we did actually find Dinos, we didn't find Neanderthals.*

2:40 Radiometric?

Do you mean inorganic, like what God used in speeded up decay to warm the mud to make it rock after the Flood?

Or do you mean organic, where I find it credible the C-14 rose after the Flood, by more rapid production, both than before and than since? By the way, feel free to check the math on those, my latest version was from Christmas 2024 on my blog Creation vs Evolution.**

Uni-Byte

@uni-byte

No, he means radiometric. Look up what that is.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@uni-byte I know it better than you. What it means, that is.

It comes in two flavours, inorganic and organic, the latter known as Carbon 14.

There are pretty different problems in each for Creationism and there are different solutions in each for Creationism.

3:02 Independent? Currently from each other, yes.

From Evolutionism, no. And that one is historically not independent of Carnegie funding. I don't mean the Carnegie porter brew in Sweden, I mean Andrew Carnegie.

From Dunfermline, made money in steel, and placed money in scientific institutions, with a clear bias for the Evolution story.

He died August 11, 1919, so the common thing these 1000's of researchers are dependent on, while not of each other, is some while back.

But I thought Scotsmen were interested in keeping memories alive. Are you a true Scotsman? I recall, a certain McPherson wanted to keep the memory of Oisin Mc Finn alive, and that was more than several centuries earlier .... indeed, more than a millennium earlier.

Uni-Byte

Evolutionism? Were you dropped on your head? Evolution is not an 'ism' it is a scientifically developed theory. It's not a belief system, it's a tool.

Rise of the lion

@uni-byte Where you dropped on your head ?, science is the tool that develops such theories, the word theory is a clear indication that something has not been proven yet and may never be, and yes evolution is a belief system as it can't be proved.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@uni-byte "Evolution is not an 'ism' it is a scientifically developed theory."

Definitely no more than Creationism.

Now, -ism is not just about beliefs totally disconnected from science (if such a thing exists), it's also about opposing positions between scientists. Like Robert Carter and (correct me if I'm wrong) Jerry Coynes are both Geneticians. Carter is Creationist and Jerry Coynes is an Evolutionist.

"Were you dropped on your head?"

How about dropping this excessive courtesy, I'm quite fine without such concerns!

Uni-Byte

@hglundahl You're hilarious. Where's the science in Creationism? "Me read da book!" Never mind. I tire of this inane dribble.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@uni-byte In fact you seem totally ignorant of the field of Creation science.

One postulate is, results have to agree with the book. None is, no info can be gathered from elsewhere or tested scientifically.

So, you are mirroring a bit how Evolutionist Science works. One postulate is, explanations have to agree with Materialism. And unfortunately another one is, information about events can't be gathered from books, at least not when "we" are doing "our" work.

Uni-Byte

@hglundahl There is no such thing as creation science. there is only creationism. Look up what the term "science" means. There are Wikipedia articles on science, scientific theory and scientific laws. Go read them.

Besides creationism required evolution. It can't exist without it and it demands that evolution be far quicker and stronger effect than does the scientific version. Both Ken Ham and Kent Hovind claim that canids and bears are the same "kind". That only one pair of that "kind" had to be on the ark. I think the presentation in the "Ark Experience" shows a bear. So, that means in mere 4,000 years, that pair of bears had to evolve into the all the species bears, wolves, foxes, dogs, dholes, jackals etc. and spread across the planet. In scientific reality that took 40 million years. Actually, in your ridiculous belief it would have had to happen much quicker than 4,000 years as there is written evidence that al those bears, wolves, foxes, dogs, dholes and jackals existed thousands of years ago. In fact, they are all mentioned in your bible. So, at some point a bear must have given birth to a dog, or a wolf. Something you creationists claim could never happen.

What a bunch of morons.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@uni-byte "Both Ken Ham and Kent Hovind claim that canids and bears are the same "kind". That only one pair of that "kind" had to be on the ark."

I'm not sure you are right about them, but I'd disagree. The Ark had room, not just spatially but also in loaded weight, for at least 2,032 couples, divided among reptiles, birds, mammals, possibly amphibians, and then palaeocritters.

Apart from paleocritters, dinos, pelykosaurs and so on, this corresponds roughly to the level "family" of Linnean classification.

Apart from dogs and wolves, it means foxes and jakkals. Animals a bit further apart than modern dog breeds.

None of them have functions over the others comparable to vertebrates having an eye when worms haven't, or locomotions as different as fish from foul. The "evolution" in this case after the Ark simply means creating reproduction barriers.

I didn't notice

"What a bunch of morons."

This is where I blocked him.

4:05 Given how Hovind's enemies conspired to get him out of circulation, back when he was half decent and showed a photo of his first*** wife, I can't blame Hovind for pronouncing the conspiracy part a bit louder than it deserves.

Common culture misleading its adherents is quite adequate for the most part.

I mean, Epstein repeating the Andrew Carnegie move is a bit beyond that, I think, but that doesn't mean noone taking his money was naive.

Uni-Byte

Did Hovind's enemies commit his crimes for him? Do they lie for him about his diploma mill degree? If you are a Hovind fan, I feel very sorry for you. He's a liar and a fraud. He does not believe the crap he grifts off. Meaning .. you have been fooled. You know hat kind of person allows themselves to be fooled, don't you?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@uni-byte Diploma mill degrees are perfectly legal.

His crimes (or counts of one?) was tax evasion. On his view, there shouldn't have been even a taxation, I'm not sure he was given an opportunity to fill in the paper work for tax exemption afterwards, any more than ICE is now allowing people entering without visa to do so.

atro-boffin

@astro-boffin

@hglundahl hook, line, and sinker smh

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@astro-boffin / "atro" ... are you implying that Kent Hovind only makes a show of being indignated over conspiracies?

I don't think that's plausible.

Citizen Gold

@CitizenGold

@hglundahl "Diploma mill degrees are perfectly legal..." ...and worthless. Which is the point.

Finished that for you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CitizenGold Thank you for your input, but the point was someone mentioned the degrees as part of what he got in prison for.

Not correct.

As to your position on them, depends on what you are looking to do with them. Teach at Oxford? Worthless as you said. Open a consulting bureau for homeschoolers? Not so.

Citizen Gold

@hglundahl Whoever claimed he went to prison for the worthless degree?

If you're referring to when @uni-byte said "Did Hovind's enemies commit his crimes for him? Do they lie for him about his diploma mill degree?" then you're reading comprehension is about that of someone that would defend Hovind.

Those are 2 separate questions. One about his crime, the other about his lies.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CitizenGold In context, as answer to what got him into prison, both were given in the same answer.

Yes, I referred to that, and I pointed out that it was totally irrelevant as an answer.

I can also say that the Diploma mill degree was not lied about, and I'm very far from impressed by it, his thesis was atrocious. But the reference to that has nothing to do in an answer about who was so eager to get him behind bars.

4:54 Would you mind directing me to the video with Creaky Blinder vs Kent Hovind?

I'd like a go at answering Creaky's questions.°

Pedro McPherson

@Thehaggisman

KENT HOVIND Has the Most EPIC CRASHOUT I've Ever Seen°°
Creaky Blinder™ | 23 janv. 2026
https://youtu.be/RknASkqhfHQ?si=A5D4loMpY-j20_5t

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@Thehaggisman Thank you!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Pedro, on that one, Kent didn't challenge Creaky and Creaky respond, Kent challenged Tyson, and Creaky responds.

For that one, how about hosting one between Kent and Tyson?

You know what?

I'm 11:24 into the video you linked to. So far from Creaky responding to questions and criticism, all my comments past 3:40 have been taken down.

* I think this post is what I'm referring to: Neanderthal Pre-or Post-Flood? ** Newer Tables: Preliminaries · Flood to Joseph in Egypt · Joseph in Egypt to Fall of Troy. *** Or, given Matthew 5:32, his actual one. The one whose picture he showed with the words "this is not my wife" [pause] "it's just a picture of her". ° It seems there was no debate so far, but Creaky replied to Hovind's challenged on this one: The Creationist Kent Hovind Challenges Me, I Respond °° I was wrong. I guess I'll have to watch both.