We believe that the focus should be on spreading the Gospel and have decided to remove all monetization from our YouTube channel. Please enjoy Dr. Kent Hovind’s awesome and inspiring Bible studies now Ad Free.
Join the revival! The Lord is great. Come visit our Dinosaur Adventure Land in Lenox, AL. Now Open since April 21, 2018!
Don't forget to check out our website: https://www.drdino.com
Please visit our Prayer Request page here https://drdino.com/prayer-requests/
Follow Dr. Hovind on Social Media:
Purchase Books, DVD's and Media:
Phone: (855) BIG-DINO (244-3466)
Schedule an event or Seminars:
To donate to CSE ministry, please visit our website at http://www.drdino.com/donate or email Ernie Land at [email protected]
Join our 777 Club for a dollar a day, $31 a month. Help us keep Dinosaur Adventure Land Free by becoming a partner today! We have a creation museum, rides, 10 lakes, fishing, hands on science lessons, and much more!
If you want to see if a question on Bible/Creation/Evolution etc. that has already been answered in a previous video, just go to the search box and type in "Kent Hovind Official" and the particular subject/topic. Thanks!
Please get involved and tell others about this Creation Science Evangelism and our YouTube Channel to strengthen their faith in Jesus Christ as we study science and the Bible with Dr. Kent Hovind.
We provide this channel and information totally free of charge for the purposes stated above. If you feel led by the Lord to help support this ministry we do accept donations to "Creation Science Evangelism (CSE), Inc." on our website via PayPal.
If you would like to help give King James Bibles to inmates in prison, you can do so by donating here:
To Learn about Pastor Kent Hovind's unjust 9-year imprisonment as a political target go to:
To contact Dr. Hovind Directly call (855) 244-3466 x3
To reach our IT and Production department for questions about Videos, YouTube, social media or the website please call (855) 244-3466 x5 or send email to: [email protected]
:::: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Just friggin’ UNBELIEVABLE! The bible thumpers, believers in reincarnation and ghosts, flat earthers, astrologers, creationists, scientologists, ETC., ETC. are such misled, poorly educated, mindless, pea brained morons whom the rest of us have failed to eliminate. (I could use some help with this. Copy this text and visit sites pushing ridiculous ideas and paste at “Add a public comment.” Dawkins says that we’ve been way to tolerant of these idiots and there is no reason to be nice to them. Just think what might happen if everybody with a functioning intellect did this.)
Hovind sarcasm: yeah you know what a ball is! the Lord sits on the circle of the earth, not ball of the earth. Isaiah also mentions the word 'ball,' but it is not used in reference to the shape of the earth.
You can say now whatever you want and whatever you think i respect you and don't say things like this about me because you don't know me and i don't think you know what you talking about so just stick to whatever you think you better than anyone peace :)
My point is that bible believers have a history of denying facts when they contradict their interpretation of scripture.
They first deny the facts, and then after time, scripture is reinterpreted to fit in with the facts.
Now why did priests of the 17th century deny the facts so vehemently?
(Just look up Galileo).
and who are those priests and where is the source of that? and i never saw anything in the bible that says the sun went around the earth maybe i'm the blind and everybody is different at how they look at the world but the thing that the earth goes around the sun is not evidence for evolution, but i know what you wanna say with that and thanks :)
Galileo had evidence that the earth went around the sun but none of the priests would even look through his telescope.
They trusted biblical scripture before their own eyes. It’s a similar method of denial.
During a recent debate with RJ Downard (which Hovind refuses to post on his channel because he did so poorly), Hovind claimed that plants couldn’t have existed without animals because animals produce CO2 and without them, plants would run out of CO2...
Does this so called doctor not know that most CO2 does NOT come from biological respiration?? Is he really this ignorant??
Atheists still talking about Kent's time in prison? man, these people need to find something new, that stuff is getting old, in case you people didn't notice, He's already out! and has been out for how long now? If you're going to mock him at least find something new. enough with this ex-con stuff.
Thanks again for a great study on the joints in our body Dash truly an amazing feat of engineering! On a sidenote I did call Bill and spoke to him personally He was gracious and informative and I did order some supplements for my overused joints.
The evidence for evolution was strong even during Darwin's time and has become stronger ever since. In the last two decades a new area of study has emerged called phylogenetics which examines the genomes of species. The data from this conclusively proves (and I mean PROVES) that all species share a common ancestor (even bacteria, eukaryotes and archea) and thus proving evolution is true. So when you look at the evidence from the different species in separate layers of the geologic column, of the thousands of transitional species that have been found (so that many lineages are now complete) and the phylogeny analysis that confirms common ancestry and now the genetic evidence as well...only a moron (or someone lying to protect an income that depends on lying about science Mr Hovind) could deny that evolution is true.
This will not stop people arguing against it, after all there are people out there who believe the earth is flat, that the moon landings were a hoax, that the world's leaders are lizards in disguise, that Santa is real, that the moon is a hologram and fairies live at the bottom of their garden. I don't mind people not wanting to live in the real world. They are free to do so, just don't expect me to do so too or try to teach my kids to do so.
Brett Perry - no need to get one of your classmates. You can do it. I believe in you.
It might surprise you to know that I also subscribe to the Big Bang theory. I just have a different perspective about what caused the bang. Since my perspective isn’t limited to only natural means I’m free to explore other possibilities. In that way naturalistic evolution is the more restrictive view.
It’s really simple... the effect can’t also be the cause. In other words, nature can’t be the cause of itself. Evolution by wholly natural means conveniently ignores this paradox. The only other option then is something supernatural.
It’s really not that difficult to figure out.
BTW Dawkins, by his own admission, ruled out intelligent causes of origins before he even looked at the evidence. I’ve read Dawkins’ work. It’s rife with bias. I’m sorry you’ve been deceived by it.
+Steve Sorenson well i could yank a kid out of a jr highschool science class to respond to your intellectually vapid statement, but I'm gonna go ahead and take a swing at it. Phylogenetics is biased because it assumes naturalism? I think that's fair considering the natural world is the only thing we have to investigate. The reason lagitimate scientists don't assme the possibility of a creator is because possibility it self is something that has to be demonstrated, and thus far beleivers have failed to meet there burdon of proof. Furthermore everything we know about the way the world works does so without the need for a creator. Its a completely pointless assumption to make. Now in the latter half your comment you basically did a redirect and tried to use Matt's words against him, and that would have been clever if not for your complete lack of science literacy. The only people who don't believe in evolution are those who don't underatand it, and I'm willing to take a leap and say you probably fall into that category. Evolution is just a fact, it happened, its happening, and its going to continue happing as long as life exists. As far as life coming from non life, scientists are currently working on this one. It's called Abiogenesis we don't know exactly how life started, but we do know that under the right circumstances life can indeed spring from non life. Also you might find it interesting to know the first person to propose the big bang theory was a preacher. Seriously everybody needs to put there bibles down just for a little bit, and read something educational. I would suggest anything by Richard Dawkins.
Matt Holton - phylogenetics is a biased explanation that presumes naturalism. If you consider the possibility that there’s a designer the conclusion of evolution isn’t quite so apparent.
Only a moron (or someone lying to protect a theory - Matt Holton) could deny that creation is true. This will not stop people arguing against it, after all there are people who believe that everything spontaneously came into existence when nothing exploded and that life arose from non life despite those things being mathematically impossible.
I love Dr. Hovind but i find highly inappropriate how he talks about women. Did Dr.Hovind just said that one of the women in his ministry have few lose screws not in the hip, but other place ? Did he meant brain? I would be offended if i would be Lady Dee
The extreme levels of ignorance and lack of education of YEC is hard to believe in 2018. Parroting tropes of a buffoon ex con preacher is not a sign of reason or education but of fear and indoctrination. Do you really think this Alabama Cult Leader knows science when all he does is read from wiki? Even then he can’t pronounce half the technical words and demonstrably doesn’t understand the science at all.
Steve Sorenson Fail. But copying is the highest form of flattery. Not an original idea amongst you yec cretins. Lol ad hominem he claims as his fails to understand what one is, then actually resorts to it himself. Hilarious. YEC are retards
Elmer Gantry - the extreme level of ignorance and lack of education of Evolutionism is hard to believe in 2018. Parroting tropes of a buffoon YouTube stalker is not a sign of reason or education but of immaturity and indoctrination. Do you really think this YouTube comment troll knows science when all he does is use ad hominems and straw man fallacies? Even then he can’t use proper grammar or spelling and demonstrably doesn’t understand creation science at all.
Evolution taught us,we are a mindless animals
The Bible taught us,we are not a mindless animals but a being that have fallen to sin and we need to repent from it
Apes are mindless,their brains is only focused on banana and they are very gluttonous eaters of bananas
If you're still thinking that your ancestors was an apes or monkeys
You should eat a lot of bananas by now
jwkivy - oh I see, a semantics fallacy, gotcha 🤣😂🤣😂.
Really dude? Are you really this desperate? Do you really not understand that animals and mindless animals are the same thing? Go back to your religion of nothing exploding and life forming from non life.
+Steve "how did I misquote jwkivy?"
*Really dude? Are you really this desperate? Do you not understand the difference between 'animals' and 'mindless' animals? Go back to your religion of 'having a relationship' with fictional characters.*
Why does the human species have 3 different bone structures? Mongoloid, caucasoid, and negroid. Tail bones, S shaped vertabrae, most painful births, hip/back problems? It's a result of our ancestors changing from quadrapedalism to bipedalsim. If you think a rock turns into a biological organism your a fool. It requires energy source(ribose), a heterocycle capable of aldol reaction(nucleotides), a base(sulfur for example), conditions(hot/cold, water/gas), and time. We will replicate RNA from prebiotic materials and conditions within our lifetime(which is a genetic replicator). Hope yall are gonna be ready for the truth.
27:59 That is pretty simple kent, it didn't evolve with that in mind but rather it happened and it was beneficial so it was passed on. Why do you refuse to learn basic evolution? *Argue evolution all you want but at least argue what it actually teaches!*
for someone using a computer I guess when you get a bug in your computer it is an inprovment, remember all Mutations are a loss of DNA code or jumbling it up, either way there has never been a proven or a beneficial mutation or one seen.
Steve Perry - You said that the “evidence for creation is just a book written 2000 years ago” (direct quote from YOUR comment above). I’m not sure why you’re now trying to say your comment is about YEC. How do you expect me to follow along with what you say when YOU can’t even follow along with what you say?
I’m not sure how to respond to “evolution doesn’t ignore anything”. That’s not a very convincing argument since I just demonstrated that it does indeed ignore the paradox of nature creating itself.
Steve Perry - You’re making a lot of assumptions about me and I don’t know why.
It’s really simple... the effect can’t also be the cause. In other words, nature can’t be the cause of itself. Evolution by wholly natural means conveniently ignores this paradox. The only other option then is something supernatural. That’s a “baseline argument” not taken from a religious text. I don’t need a Bible to tell me that, just common sense.
It can't be argued differently that its origins are in the religious text. If you took out the religious text there would be no way for you to have a baseline argument. I understand you want to say there is science to back it up but the point I am making is that you go the Bible FIRST and then try and find the evidence. If you don't have Genesis 1 then you don't have the origin, if you don't Noah's flood in the bible then you don't have anything to match your 'evidence' too.
So YEC is founded in the Bible which was written some 2k years ago. I am not misrepresenting that at all, that is what you all say. That since the bible is to be taken literally then the arguments come from the bible! And YEC 100% depends on the age of the earth. If you want to argue gap theory and all that then sure maybe what I said is a strawman, well for the sake of arguement, but I didn't say in that context.
Steve Perry - you’re correct about a straw man fallacy, but that’s not the ONLY definition. A straw man fallacy is ALSO when you misrepresent an argument (any argument) in a way that makes it easier for you to defeat. By ignoring the science of creation and presenting it as only an idea from a religious book you are setting it up to misrepresent it to make it easier to argue against. That’s the very definition of a straw man fallacy and exactly what you’re doing.
The age of the universe has no bearing on intelligent design theories. That is... intelligent design isn’t dependent on the age of the universe whereas naturalistic evolution doesn’t work unless billions of years have passed. In that way naturalistic evolution is the more restrictive view.
thermal 15 Im not trying to claim victory im trying to show you that Kent is wrong when it comes to matters of science because thats where you get this stuff from. Why would i admit to something that i know is not true? if from rocks is what you think is actually taught then isn't it on you to explain why you think that?
+thermal 15 A couple things. Do you understand what "moving the goal post" means? I don't think you do, since I never moved it. You have to provide some sort of evidence for me to move the goal post, but you haven't provided any. All you have done is show you don't understand the difference between chemical and biological evolution, and abiogenesis and evolution.
I mentioned what Brawnic said because I was saying the same thing. He just said it in his reply before I could say it in mine.
We never said we came from a rock; we actually have stated multiple times we did not come from a rock. You are the one saying we say that, but you haven't provided any evidence to support your claim. You provided a quote that you just admitted DOES NOT say we came from a rock as your evidence that we are saying we did come from a rock.
Are you being deliberately dishonest, or are you really that daft?
thermal 15 The only people who i have ever heard mention that life comes from a rock are Kent and other creationists. Thats creationists own interpretation and no one else's. Its certainly not taught in public schools and in text books like that. No one comes out of college thinking this.
You may not have said it directly but you did say ''as opposed to a fully functioning human coming from a ROCK?!'' to mcfly's response, and ''All textbooks say that a fully formed human being came from rocks. Maybe not in those exact words, though it wouldn't surprise me if some did. It's implied.''
There is no text book that says this nor is it even implied.
+Brawnic seriously and this is my last reply. Claim victory or whatever thats never bothered me. This thread has been beat to death I prefer to argue and bicker on the new vids.
If you guys are so sensitive about the rock thing just own it. Lets be honest you know exactly why creationists troll you with that. In a not-so-roundabout way their accusation is legitimate.
Pro tip: when you get into this argument it makes your entire evolution theory look even more flimsy. I'd just say yeah, we came from rocks and then proceed to explain why. I kinda feel like a traitor even telling you this lol.
Cya on the next one ya homos.
+Brawnic of course it doesn't say you came from a rock. It can be inferred, but it doesn't say that. I never said it says you came from a rock. You're the ones saying you came from a rock. Just own it yeesh. It's just semantics.
Last comment. If I go to DAL, will I be able to relax and see what’s there or will I be put to work?
You advertise this place as free but then also say come down and we’ll put you to work. That’s why I’m curious.
thermal 15 I guess you didn’t understand my statement. Kent rarely does in depth research and sometimes doesn’t do any at all. I’ve learned how to not conduct research the way he does.
Do you understand now or still need help with reading comprehension?
If all you listen to is Snake in DeGrasse or Bill the Idiot Guy, then it’s easy to be misinterpreting science.
I even watched a short YT video with Richard Lindzen (MIT professor - atmospheric physicist) slap 👋 Bill the Idiot Guy for teaching false science. A thing of beauty.
Kent is right. The best way to destroy ToE is to point out the obvious. The impossibility of the non-creation theory.
This series of episodes will become legendary. Glad to contribute by having joined the 777 club!
Not trying to be cynical but every time I see that swing at 58:22 I cringe. One of these days a kid is going to go sailing off that into a fence post. aron (ra) nelson is going to plop his jelly down on it and snap the rope. Setting yourself up for a liability case. Jus sayin.
+Steve Perry now now. Kents just being a little naive. Every playground has swings. He just needs to remove the posts and put down some mulch to soften the landing. He needs a safety coordinator. There are ppl out there that sue other people for a living.
On second thought he should leave the posts and lower the swing so the kids can't get so much air.
+Mister Archaeopteryx ah ok I thought you were saying there was a dormant gene that makes blue eyes. Look, I don't profess to be educated on this stuff but the general gist isn't hard to grasp. We can call it a mutation if you like. I just don't like that word because it implies something has changed into something else. It's the same gene. I don't understand what you don't understand. This doesn't even benefit either side of the argument. Unless, UNLESS new information was added. How you're equating g blue eyes to new information is beyond me. In fact, blue eyes can be genetically traced back to a single common ancestor 6 to 10k years ago. 6000 is a number that comes up a lot on Kent's channel. If you turn off the 4x4 on your truck no new functions appear. Your analogy would be a two wheel drive turning into a 4x4. New mechanisms would need to be installed. I have blue eyes too and even if I have kids with a blue eyed woman we could have brown eyed kids. And Africans with no European ancestors can have blue eyed kids. Ugh. This convo is getting really convoluted. In my mind it boils down to whether new info was added and I just don't see how you're arriving at that conclusion. BLUE isn't being ADDED. BROWN is being REMOVED.
thermal 15 So you’re saying this switch hasn’t always been there (at least not reduced) but you’re saying it isn’t a mutation.... how did the switch change?? It IS a mutation... it’s the only thing that makes sense... like I said, if this switch had always been in the gene pool, it would be equally distributed world wide. But its not. The switch changed and the ancestral population had this change added to the gene pool, while the rest of the world’s population did not (of course now that world travel is easy, that will change).
Again... we call these genes CODES or INFORMATION because they are expressed as different traits. Blue eyes are a different trait than brown because the genes (this switch) is different. It’s not really a gain or a loss... it’s a change. If you want to say it’s a “loss of information” then you’ve lost the information that is expressed in brown eye color and gained the information that is expressed in blue eye color.
And if this doesn’t satisfy you as far as “new information” that’s fine. But blue eyes ARE the result of a mutation. If you really want to insist there’s no new information we can talk about all sorts of other mutations out there that have created new proteins that the ancestral population never had. Or gene duplication... or gene duplication with mutations on the duplicates.... this is nothing new. Geneticists have been discovering this stuff for decades.
+Mister Archaeopteryx it hasn't always been there and it isn't a mutation and it isn't a new switch. It's a degeneration of the melanin producing gene. That gene has always been there. You haven't added anything to make blue eyes, you've taken something away.
thermal 15 You’re actually right about blue eyes being from a lack of melanin, and the gene that produces this melanin has a switch that can be on, or off, or reduced (as in blue eyes). The gene that produces the melanin is information and the switch itself is ALSO information. So if a mutation comes along and alters this switch to REDUCED, then we have less pigment and blue eyes... or OFF... and we have albinos. And this is why we don’t see blue eyes equally distributed throughout the whole population... we see it only in those who have inherited this mutation. If it’s NOT a mutation and this “REDUCED SWITCH” was always there, we should still see blue eyes equally distributed and primarily in people with European ancestry.
Now... if you’re going to say this “switch” isn’t new information, I’m going to ask: why do we call it information? We call it information because these genes are ultimately expressed as traits we have. If changing the switch changes the trait, then its new information. I’ve got blue eyes myself, and the ladies seem to love them. So frankly I consider it a beneficial change. But that part is just my opinion. Although if this sort of thing happened in nature and a new trait made for a more attractive mate... that new trait would be passed on and favored.
+Mister Archaeopteryx now that I think about it, Inuit have brown eyes and the only part of their bodies exposed to the sun are their faces. So that doesn't support micro evolution. The gene that produces melanin isn't operating at full capacity then the trait was passed on. This is a nothing burger.
Joints definitely prove a wonderful Creator. As my own joints get a bit older they're wearing out though and my doctor has recommended hip replacement surgery. But I'm taking the advice of Dr Hovind not to rely on satanic secular medicine. Please pray for my hips to be fixed through G0d's love. His design is perfect as stated by Dr Hovind.
thermal 15. Yes I believe in healing through prayer. As my hips were designed perfect by my Creator I've been thinking I must of done something wrong and am either being punished or my faith tested. With Kent's commonsense work for the L0rd, Kent's advice is all I need on all things medical.
Westydowns and I've explained why he is wrong and misrepresents cosmology because he is a liar. And I have also explained no science book makes this claim and so you are a liar. I am not the one who does not know the difference between singularity theorems and universe ex nihilo hypotheses. So it is you who needs to apologise you ignorant liar. I won't hold my breath though...
Westydowns I've already explained to you that NO textbook or science book states that we came from a "dot of nothing". If I am wrong then cite the book. If you cannot the at least have the dignity to admit that you and Kent are wrong.
patrik horvath Apologies... I had responded to another person claiming that evolution is a religion and I think you responded to my response...anyway.
So.... if we look at OUR laws of nature and logic, these aren’t rules to that some being created for us. These laws are simply truths about the reality we observe. For example there’s a rule in logics that says something can not both exist and not exist. This isn’t some rule given to us by an authority, it’s simply what we observe and we conceptualize it.
And you seem to understand this very well, because even in your scenario where we live in a video game, this would apply. The people living in the game conceive the laws based on what they observe in this video game reality.
But really... this is just a huge philosophical rabbit hole. The short answer to this is... yes, we could be living in a video game... or in the Matrix... or we could be a “brain in a vat.” There’s no way to prove we are or aren’t. And if there’s no evidence for it... why look for more complicated explanations?
Evolution is not pure chance. The variations produced in the gene pool are there by chance. But natural selection is the OPPOSITE of chance. It would be like grabbing thousands of random people from a population and having them all try out for the best football team, then when you’re left with only the most athletic people for the team someone comes along and says that this dream team happened by chance... it didn’t.
Ok i understand how you thinking , and yes there are laws in the nature but what/who gave these laws, laws just not popout from nowhere. For example you are in a video game but you don't know about it, and everything what happen in the game you think is natural and nothing is supernatural what happening with you or in the world you live in, and there is somebody who programmed this world and even you but you don't know this, and the people in this world try to figure it out what is happening they call themself scientists, they find so many thing and laws in this world and they know it has a begining, but they are in the world and the only thing they can explore is this world and nothing more they can't see what is out of this world so they never know who did this or what, the only thing they know is how this world works. The evolutionist says that's all happened by chance but in the games or virtual worlds you must program the randomness in the world so random things or chances can't happen without the codes for the randomness. and i never said that whoever believe in evolution is in a religion, so no they haven't got multiple religion and i don't think there is any religion. Sorry for my bad english i'm Hungarian :)
patrik horvath Supernatural is not simply something “we don’t know.” Supernatural, as the name implies, is something that violates the laws of nature... or is even removed from the natural world.
If you look at every known phenomenon today, be it earthquakes, storms, diseases, comets, etc.,... you can rewind the clock back to a time when these things were explained by supernatural beings.... even though today, we know all these things have natural explanations. Supernatural explanations have a track record of absolute failure.
Yet here you are, defending the supernatural explanation to biodiversity and calling the natural explanation a religion... even though it doesn’t fit all of the other descriptors I gave that all religions have.
How do I practice this “religion” of evolution? Is there a place of worship? What do I worship? Is there I’m supposed to live? Is there some reward in the afterlife? Is there doctrine that tells me what I can and can’t do?
What about all the Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc that accept evolution? Do they have multiple religions?
What is supernatural? It's a thing that we never saw or never felt and our "scientists" never found? If that's the case nothing is supernatural, the supernatural is something that we don't know that doesn't mean that thing is not exist because we THINK it's supernatural.
TheOddOne’s IN In what way is it a religion? Look at all the religions of the world. They are focused on the afterlife. They are focused on worshipping a supernatural being. They have rituals. They have places of worship. They have doctrines that tell them how they should behave. They in fact, have different lifestyles.
Evolution has none of this. It is simply a scientific explanation of biodiversity and all the evidence supports this explanation.
Thank you for your intelligent comment.
Steve Sorenson When you present an argument supported by evidence I will respond in detail. Look up what an ad hom is and stop parroting Hovind you ignorant fuckwittedarsehole. These are insults based on facts.
Steve Sorenson Here’s the problem. You’re a moron lol. You’re trying to combine The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution into one topic. Hahaha. Again, you’re uneducated on this subject and it’s blatantly obvious.
Steve Sorenson I’ll agree. It’s not a strawman fallacy. It’s just completely wrong and makes you sound dumb. You clearly don’t have any idea what you’re talking about and only regurgitate things Kent and other YEC say.
"I know it doesn't. But it should."
There is no reason, why it should. Why do you think that?
"Animals appear in the fossil record easily identifiable as a whale, a bear, a t rex, a bat."
Even that is not the case.
There are strange species, which don't fit into your simplistic cat-dog-bear-bat-rat-horse-scheme. One example are the therapsids. They belong to amniota, but not to reptilia and they are not mammals. And today's species didn't exist at their time.
Early ancestors of birds are resembling eumaniraptoran dinosaurs and share many features with them. At one point they are the same thing. So, no. You can not just fit everything into your scheme of t-rex, bird, fish or bat.
".. easily identifiable as a whale"
Is Rodhocetus a whale? Is Ambulocetus a whale?
+Robert Heinrich I know it doesn't. But it should. That is the problem. Animals appear in the fossil record easily identifiable as a whale, a bear, a t rex, a bat. And noooo intermediary fossils to be found. Quite a conundrum for evodelusionists.
I saw the video of the new DAL. I've seen more interesting junk yards. All he has is a few diet roads and small wooden buildings. It's even less impressive that his old joint in Pensacola. At least there he had a bunch of dinosaurs. Shabby fiberglass ones in need of paint but even so they are more than he has now.
Di adiós al calor durante el día o la noche, tú eliges, porque es programable y muy silencioso, y solo por 39.95€.
Relojes para Hombre Air Force.
Precisión y diseño, así son los relojes para hombre Air Force. Elige el tuyo por 9.95€
Silla de camping plegable Columbus.
Ideal para la playa, jardín o camping, muy fácil de transportar y por solo 19.95€
Gafas de Sol Calgary.
Dale un toque chic a tu estilo mientras te proteges del sol por solo 5.95€
Toalla de Playa de la Real Sociedad.
¡A la playa con la Real! Siente los colores del equipo de tus sueños con la toalla oficial de la Real Sociedad.
Máquina de Coser Alfa.
Perfecta para hacer esos pequeños arreglos a la ropa o si te has apuntado al "hazlo tu mismo" elaborar tus propios diseños.
Descubrir la Filosofía - Aristóteles 
Descubrir la Filosofía - Aristóteles te acerca el pensamiento de este filósofo, considerado uno de los filósofos más influyentes de la historia, se le puede considerar como el primer investigador científico y pupilo de otro gran filósofo griego, Platón.
Broche Lazada Azul.
El broche Lazada Azul es un bonito completo en tonos azules que dará un toque diferente a tu chaqueta, abrigo, bufanda o sombrero.
Todos los Sellos de la Peseta: entrega 12.
Todos los Sellos de la Peseta es una histórica recopilación de todos los sellos emitidos desde 1.872 hasta su última emisión en el año 2000. Entrega 12 de sellos de la peseta compuesto por una lámina vertical entre noviembre 1967 y octubre 1968 y una lámina horizontal con sellos entre marzo 1964 y marzo 1965.
Descubrir la Filosofía - Rousseau 
Descubrir la Filosofía - Rousseau el filósofo francés fue uno de los padres ideológicos de la revolución de 1789. La propiedad privada y el capitalismo ocuparon una parte importante de su obra, donde destaca por encima El contrato social.
Bolsa de yute Summer Blue.
La Bolsa de yute Summer Blue es una original y práctica bolsa con la que podrás llevar todo lo que quieras al monte o la playa ya que el yute, además de ser una fibra 100% ecológica, biodegradable y reciclable, posee una gran resistencia que hemos reforzado mediante su interior plastificado.
Bol de Desayuno Wind Rose Habitat.
En el Bol desayuno Wind Rose caben un montón de cereales con leche o cualquier ingrediente que tomas en esos deliciosos desayunos tuyos que preparas cada mañana. Además este bol de desayuno es de loza por lo que pasan del microondas a tus manos y de ahí, al lavavajillas.
Altavoces Bluetooth Kusstom.