teddyv Posted September 22, 2022 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 4,265 Content Per Day: 2.92 Reputation: 2,302 Days Won: 1 Joined: 05/03/2020 Status: Offline Share Posted September 22, 2022 41 minutes ago, one.opinion said: You said earlier that Hovind "destroyed my argument", whatever that means. That's an empty boast since I've never debated him, nor ever plan to. I have no idea if I can "beat" him in a debate. I'm not interested in "beating" anyone. These "debates" usually boil down to who can talk the fastest and loudest and look the most proud while doing it. This is it exactly. A debate is not really about determining truth - its about who can argue more persuasively. A capable orator or debater can probably "destroy" someone tasked with defending the position "the sky is blue". That's why debates by Hovind are pretty meaningless. He's got a slick, affable persona in these matters, but he's still wrong about most of it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted September 22, 2022 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.10 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted September 22, 2022 (edited) 44 minutes ago, teddyv said: A capable orator or debater can probably "destroy" someone tasked with defending the position "the sky is blue". Yes, it's been my experience that whenever I see a YouTube video of a debate where someone "destroys" someone else (regardless of topic and/or viewpoint), it is almost certainly a matter of theater and not substance. Edited September 22, 2022 by one.opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparks Posted September 22, 2022 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 23 Topic Count: 28 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 6,159 Content Per Day: 2.03 Reputation: 2,513 Days Won: 8 Joined: 01/20/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted September 22, 2022 1 hour ago, one.opinion said: You said earlier that Hovind "destroyed my argument", whatever that means. That's an empty boast since I've never debated him, nor ever plan to. I said the 'Kent Hovinds' (plural), because you said the 'Kent Hovinds out there.' The Kent Hovins have destroyed your arguments, meaning Kent himself, and all the rest of the Kents you are referring to. You are wise to not debate him, but if you are critical of him and have the chance to debate him personally, why not debate him? Why not put your money where your mouth is? It's probably not wise to be critical of Kent, if you can't beat him in a debate. 1 hour ago, one.opinion said: These "debates" usually boil down to who can talk the fastest and loudest and look the most proud while doing it. It's about facts, and when it comes to evolution theory, you have none. That's why you won't debate him. You don't even point out your arguments here. I am only aware of the ERVs, and maybe the heavens. I guess you don't think God cause pause time, or run it forward trillions of years in 1 second being possible, or something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparks Posted September 22, 2022 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 23 Topic Count: 28 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 6,159 Content Per Day: 2.03 Reputation: 2,513 Days Won: 8 Joined: 01/20/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted September 22, 2022 1 hour ago, teddyv said: This is it exactly. A debate is not really about determining truth - its about who can argue more persuasively. A capable orator or debater can probably "destroy" someone tasked with defending the position "the sky is blue". That's why debates by Hovind are pretty meaningless. He's got a slick, affable persona in these matters, but he's still wrong about most of it. A debate is about truth, but I guess if you cannot win the debate, then it's about what ever excuse you can make for yourself. Hovind wins debates because the evolutionists cannot. They are unprepared. He puts on a slide show and actually shows them why they are wrong. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted September 22, 2022 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.10 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted September 22, 2022 1 hour ago, Sparks said: I said the 'Kent Hovinds' (plural), because you said the 'Kent Hovinds out there.' The Kent Hovins have destroyed your arguments, meaning Kent himself, and all the rest of the Kents you are referring to. Ah gotcha, thanks for the clarification. My scientific argument can be summed up as this - the evidence God had left us in His creation support an ancient universe, an ancient earth, and common descent of biological organisms. No one - Kent or otherwise - has destroyed this. My theological argument can be summed up as this - regardless of the time frame with which we view Genesis 1-3, the points of theological import are shared. For that reason, fighting, “destroying”, and demonizing the “other side” is pointless at best, and potentially harmful to our witness. 1 hour ago, Sparks said: It's probably not wise to be critical of Kent, if you can't beat him in a debate. Kent can do what he wants, it is just silly and false to claim he has “destroyed” anything. 1 hour ago, Sparks said: It's about facts That would be ideal for such a debate, but they are all functionally just show - like the Gish gallop. 1 hour ago, Sparks said: when it comes to evolution theory, you have none. This is not accurate. Molecular evolution (heritable change over time) is directly observable. The supporting evidence for larger scale change over time is abundant. Large scale evolution is supported by paleontology, biogeography, anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, and genetics. 1 hour ago, Sparks said: That's why you won't debate him. Hovind can believe what he wants. I don’t really care what he thinks. I’m not a natural thespian. I have a life. Those are several reasons I have zero interest in debating him. 1 hour ago, Sparks said: You don't even point out your arguments here. I am only aware of the ERVs, and maybe the heavens. You won’t engage in ERV discussion. You metaphorically plug your ears and claim “debunked!” as if I haven’t countered your claim. Why would I put any effort into a different form of evidence when you won’t address ERVs? 1 hour ago, Sparks said: I guess you don't think God cause pause time, or run it forward trillions of years in 1 second being possible, or something like that. Of course He can, the evidence He left us simply suggests otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparks Posted September 22, 2022 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 23 Topic Count: 28 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 6,159 Content Per Day: 2.03 Reputation: 2,513 Days Won: 8 Joined: 01/20/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted September 22, 2022 1 minute ago, one.opinion said: Of course He can, the evidence He left us simply suggests otherwise. What evidence do you have that God didn't speed up time placing stars in the heavens where they are today? What says otherwise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparks Posted September 22, 2022 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 23 Topic Count: 28 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 6,159 Content Per Day: 2.03 Reputation: 2,513 Days Won: 8 Joined: 01/20/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted September 22, 2022 18 minutes ago, one.opinion said: My scientific argument can be summed up as this - the evidence God had left us in His creation support an ancient universe, an ancient earth, and common descent of biological organisms. No one - Kent or otherwise - has destroyed this. I think Hovind has. Why not watch one of his videos on why evolution is stupid, or his full blown debates? You speak like someone who has never seen them. Look up: CSE BIBLE EXTRA by Kent Hovind Why Evolution is Stupid with 100 Reasons 18 minutes ago, one.opinion said: You won’t engage in ERV discussion. You metaphorically plug your ears and claim “debunked!” as if I haven’t countered your claim. Why would I put any effort into a different form of evidence when you won’t address ERVs? That's because when an ERV chooses it's own hotspot, it's over. It defeats the idea that we inherited ERVs from apes because apes got them all on their own, and so did we humans. There is nothing to engage. Your problem is you don't understand that the argument has been destroyed for 23 years. It was done 23 years prior to your post about ERVs. I feel like a comedian who has to explain his punch line, because there is this one guy in a room of a billion people who laughed who didn't understand it. Trust me, the duck on the guy's head should have made you laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David1701 Posted September 22, 2022 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 15 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,731 Content Per Day: 3.54 Reputation: 3,522 Days Won: 12 Joined: 11/27/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted September 22, 2022 17 minutes ago, one.opinion said: ... My theological argument can be summed up as this - regardless of the time frame with which we view Genesis 1-3, the points of theological import are shared. For that reason, fighting, “destroying”, and demonizing the “other side” is pointless at best, and potentially harmful to our witness. ... The points of theological import are, emphatically, NOT shared! Did God create everything "very good"? Did man evolve from lower creatures, or did God create him directly from the earth? Was Eve made from one of Adam's ribs? How, when and why did death enter the world? Is Eve the "mother of all living" (i.e. of all humans)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David1701 Posted September 22, 2022 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 15 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,731 Content Per Day: 3.54 Reputation: 3,522 Days Won: 12 Joined: 11/27/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted September 22, 2022 4 hours ago, one.opinion said: As always, I'm happy to look at evidence with you. Let's have an evidence-based conversation about this. https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted September 23, 2022 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.10 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted September 23, 2022 1 hour ago, Sparks said: That's because when an ERV chooses it's own hotspot, it's over. Here are three main reasons why your explanation is insufficient. 1. You are mistaking a preference for an insertion site with a requirement. 2. You have not explained the identical outcomes of genetic decomposition in two separate species over tens of thousands of samples. 3. You have not explained how these tens of thousands of sequences have become fixated in the human genome in roughly 6,000 years. Fixated means that a sequence has increased in prevalence to the point that virtually all members of a population have the same feature. “It was debunked 23 years ago” is simply false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts