God's (One of Many) Blind Spot(s)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-10-2012, 12:29 PM
RE: God's (One of Many) Blind Spot(s)
(23-10-2012 04:48 AM)The Theist Wrote:  
(23-10-2012 01:14 AM)fstratzero Wrote:  What?

You do realize adam and eve never existed?

The most reliable history ever produced by mankind says that Adam existed, what evidence do you have that he didn't that isn't speculative conjecture?

If you believe that, I have a bridge I can sell you.

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2012, 02:23 PM
RE: God's (One of Many) Blind Spot(s)
(23-10-2012 05:24 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(23-10-2012 04:53 AM)The Theist Wrote:  [...] but it must be kept in mind that the angels were created with freewill probably millions of years before man and none of their myriads sinned before the angel known as Satan was in the garden to protect them.
Suddenly you're not on Hovind's side anymore and believe that the Universe is older than 6000 years? Talking about consistency... Consider

This is the introduction I wrote on my website to the video:

The controversial nature of the source of these videos necessitates a brief introduction, or disclaimer at least. Yes. Dr. Kent Hovind is doing time in the federal pen, and worse than that I don't agree with most of his theological leanings, Young Earth Creationism, and his mainstream apostate Christian or traditional mainstream Christian teachings, but when I watch these videos that isn't a problem for me because so little of that is even mentioned. When it comes to science and evolution, this guy makes more sense than anyone I have ever heard on the subject. Of course, the average evolutionist atheist heavily scoff at him but that is only because they disagree with him. None of those I have talked to taught science for 15 years like he has, and none of the hundreds I've talked to could even come close to offering anything that remotely resembles a reasonable refutation of his material. They can't even come close.

As I said in the Evolution and Creation Introduction, I don't take the debate very seriously from the start. As Hovind himself says: If they want to believe in evolution that's fine. Who cares?

It ultimately doesn't matter whether or not I agree with his theology or that he is in prison, the question is is what he teaches true? Accurate? The fact is, as he has also said, no one knows for sure, on either side of the Creation / Evolution debate. Richard Dawkins would like for you to believe that anyone who doesn't agree with his evolutionary position is stupid, ignorant, or wicked, but in addition to being a really poor philosopher and oblivious to the fact that Evolution is nothing more than a failed metaphysical experiment, he doesn't have the sense to see that anyone who takes that position in this debate has already lost. Probably the real reason he won't debate the subject. But again. Who cares. Take this video series with a grain of salt.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2012, 02:27 PM
RE: God's (One of Many) Blind Spot(s)
(23-10-2012 05:22 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(23-10-2012 04:49 AM)The Theist Wrote:  I've looked at your post in the creation forum and await your further examination.
What are you talking about? I linked you to an archive containing dozens of creationist claims and their respective refutation. I summarized Hovind's claims for you, so you can look them up in the archive.

I rarely read the links provided in answer to a question or comment on forums, unless the one posting them is the one who wrote them or is giving only a reference to a point they have already made. If I wanted to look up the subject I could have done that myself. I was expecting a discussion with you.

I was under the impression that what you had done so far on the creation forum was a summary of a further examination.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2012, 02:35 PM
RE: God's (One of Many) Blind Spot(s)
(23-10-2012 12:15 PM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  ...
(On another side note, at a level slightly more elaborate than mitochondria, we really do trace our DNA to one Eve but not to one Adam.)

Don't make have to change my rep comment...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

Ok, point taken.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2012, 03:33 PM (This post was last modified: 24-02-2013 09:38 AM by Vosur.)
RE: God's (One of Many) Blind Spot(s)
(23-10-2012 02:23 PM)The Theist Wrote:  This is the introduction I wrote on my website to the video:

The controversial nature of the source of these videos necessitates a brief introduction, or disclaimer at least. Yes. Dr. Kent Hovind is doing time in the federal pen, and worse than that I don't agree with most of his theological leanings, Young Earth Creationism, and his mainstream apostate Christian or traditional mainstream Christian teachings, but when I watch these videos that isn't a problem for me because so little of that is even mentioned. When it comes to science and evolution, this guy makes more sense than anyone I have ever heard on the subject. Of course, the average evolutionist atheist heavily scoff at him but that is only because they disagree with him. None of those I have talked to taught science for 15 years like he has, and none of the hundreds I've talked to could even come close to offering anything that remotely resembles a reasonable refutation of his material. They can't even come close.

As I said in the Evolution and Creation Introduction, I don't take the debate very seriously from the start. As Hovind himself says: If they want to believe in evolution that's fine. Who cares?

It ultimately doesn't matter whether or not I agree with his theology or that he is in prison, the question is is what he teaches true? Accurate? The fact is, as he has also said, no one knows for sure, on either side of the Creation / Evolution debate. Richard Dawkins would like for you to believe that anyone who doesn't agree with his evolutionary position is stupid, ignorant, or wicked, but in addition to being a really poor philosopher and oblivious to the fact that Evolution is nothing more than a failed metaphysical experiment, he doesn't have the sense to see that anyone who takes that position in this debate has already lost. Probably the real reason he won't debate the subject. But again. Who cares. Take this video series with a grain of salt.
You seem to be unaware of the fact that Kent Hovind's entire speech relies on the premise that the Earth and Universe are 6000 years old. If you dimiss his premise, it logically follows that you also dismiss any argument that relies on this flawed premise. You can either think he's got the age right and his arguments are valid, or you can think that he's got the age wrong and his arguments are invalid. If you choose the latter, what need is there for me to refute anything? If you choose the former, you are contradicting your previous position.

Kent Hovind's argument in a nutshell:

P - premise | C - conclusion
P1: The Universe and Earth are 6.000 years old.
C1: Therefore every piece of evidence that speaks against this specific age is a hoax, a forgery or non-existent.

For starters, most of Hovind's speech is a misrepresentation of the actual science. Firstly, scientists do not believe that the universe is 20 billion years old. It has been determined to be around 13.7 billion years old. Secondly, the theory of evolution is independent from abiogenesis. The former explains, among other things, the diversity in species and how organisms changed over time, while the latter is a bunch of hypotheses attempting to explain how life originated on planet Earth. Thirdly, the singularity is not part of the Big Bang theory. In fact, even if it was, the singularity is not hypothesized to have spun, meaning that the Conservation of Angular Momentum has no bearing on the validity of the theory whatsoever. You seem to be under the absurd delusion that because Kent Hovind was a teacher for 15 years, he somehow is an expert on several fields of science that he didn't study.

(23-10-2012 02:27 PM)The Theist Wrote:  I rarely read the links provided in answer to a question or comment on forums, unless the one posting them is the one who wrote them or is giving only a reference to a point they have already made. If I wanted to look up the subject I could have done that myself. I was expecting a discussion with you.
Your laziness is clearly your problem, not mine. You're not a little child whom I need to spoon-feed the information, you're an adult who should be able to think for himself. I delivered the evidence you asked for. If you don't want to look at it, that's your problem. If you want to stay ignorant, that's your problem. If you want to keep making unsubstantiated claims about a topic you know nothing about, that's your problem. If you had the time to watch an almost two hours long video from Hovind, you also have the time to research his claims on the page I linked you to.

As for the discussion, you're joking, right?

(23-10-2012 02:27 PM)The Theist Wrote:  I was under the impression that what you had done so far on the creation forum was a summary of a further examination.
My post clearly states that I merely summarized Kent Hovind's claims and that it's up to the reader to head to talkorigins.org to do his own research.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: