Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby

FAQ

Contact

Profile

Kent Hovind

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 ... 9, 10, 11 Next

Bible-Discussion.com Forum Index -> Creation vs. Evolution Debate

Author

Message

WholeNewWorld
Growing Guppy

Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 44

Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 5:12 pm Post subject: Re: debate challenge from evolutionist to Trinity1

Trinity1 wrote:

WholeNewWorld wrote:

I'm an atheist, and willing to defend evolution.

Well bless your little heart... welcome to the board. Smile

Quote:

It's better to do these things one subject at a time, so tell me ONE scientific claim evolution makes, which you feel is false.

Um... ah... oooo - k-, how about... all extant life all 'evolved' from a single celled organism.

Ok, great.

I believe creationism is false when it says God created the world. But I would never present this aburdly broad position in a debate as something we should "debate", because it would spawn too many side-arguments.

Evolution is a complex subject. Think you can find a somewhat more narrow subject?

WNW wrote:

Trinity wrote:

He is indeed a very contentious fella on both sides of this issue.

Because of his successes at misleading people about evolution, yes. For example, his dishonest debate video-editing, wherein he would insert slides during the filming of the evolutionist speech, so show the viewer at home that this point was false, instead of making the viewer wait till the end of the speech. He did this on his video debate with Farrell Till on the subject of Noah's Flood.

Quote:

Showing evidence that the debater's evidence is false while the debater is... presenting false evidence... is 'misleading'?

Yes it is, WHEN IT'S NOT YOUR TURN TO TALK.

But since Hovind doesn't render to Caesar, I can understand why he couldn't resist being that dishonest. After all, he's defending god, no rules!

Quote:

So, if he would have waited until the debater finished presenting the false evidence and then threw up slides demonstrating that it was false would have been OK?

Absolutely.

What would you think if I had a video debate with you, but in the version I sell, every 10 seconds or so of your presentation, I cut away to my own slide, to refute you on something which I forgot to mention when my rebuttal time came?

Would you think I was trying to give myself the upper hand in ways that I didn't have in the original debate? yes you would.

So anyway, try to pick a point of evolution that is specific, so it doesn't end up spawning too many side-arguments. When creationists say the same to me, I usually say "is the biblical kind a family, species, what exact taxa is it?"

So I know you can narrow the subject field.

Trinity1
Emperor of the World

Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123

Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 5:54 pm Post subject: Re: debate challenge from evolutionist to Trinity1

WholeNewWorld wrote:

Evolution is a complex subject. Think you can find a somewhat more narrow subject?

Well, I'm not sure... hmmmm... how about... perhaps you could help us with the taxonomical progression from a singled celled organism to... lets say... Kingdoms then? Or is that to broad?

WNW wrote:

Trinity wrote:

He is indeed a very contentious fella on both sides of this issue.

Quote:

[quote"Trinity"]Showing evidence that the debater's evidence is false while the debater is... presenting false evidence... is 'misleading'?

Yes it is, WHEN IT'S NOT YOUR TURN TO TALK.

Oh.. the ole sit down and shut up while I'm lying through my teeth ploy... Oh-k, got it. Laughing

Quote:

So, if he would have waited until the debater finished presenting the false evidence and then threw up slides demonstrating that it was false would have been OK?

Absolutely.

And spend the rest of the evening correcting someone else’s lies... doesn't seem very productive in my opinion.

Quote:

What would you think if I had a video debate with you, but in the version I sell, every 10 seconds or so of your presentation, I cut away to my own slide, to refute you on something which I forgot to mention when my rebuttal time came?

I'd think it was your dime... your tape... not my problem.

Quote:

Would you think I was trying to give myself the upper hand in ways that I didn't have in the original debate? yes you would.

Are we back to defending the telling of lies again? Confused or disgusted

Quote:

So anyway, try to pick a point of evolution that is specific, so it doesn't end up spawning too many side-arguments. When creationists say the same to me, I usually say "is the biblical kind a family, species, what exact taxa is it?"

And when evolutionists say the same thing all I usually ask is to provide a consistent definition of species... to which they reply what is a kind, to which I reply... well the Bible only provides about ten verses of a definition where as evolutionists has about a gazillion pages of it and still can't figure it out... Rolling Eyes

Quote:

So I know you can narrow the subject field.

-k-... define species. Confused or disgusted

_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."

‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith

FFT
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337

Location: Memphis

Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 6:52 pm Post subject:

Trinity1 wrote:

Oh.. the ole sit down and shut up while I'm lying through my teeth ploy... Oh-k, got it. Laughing

Are you accusing the presenter of dishonesty?

Trinity1
Emperor of the World

Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123

Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:15 am Post subject:

FFT wrote:

Trinity1 wrote:

Oh.. the ole sit down and shut up while I'm lying through my teeth ploy... Oh-k, got it. Laughing

Are you accusing the presenter of dishonesty?

No. I am merely pointing out what I have seen in other Hovind debate tapes when he produces them for the general public... Instead of stopping the tape of the debate... all that he is doing is demonstrating that what his opponent is saying is false... or at least not as conclusive as they are trying to lead people to believe. So... instead of stopping everything... pointing out the inaccuracies... and then re-starting everything again, all he is doing is showing a few slides as his opponent is speaking.

With that said... it’s his production anyway. If his opponents want to produce their own tapes, market them... have at it. If you don't like the tape... don't buy or watch it... its a free country. Very Happy

FFT
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337

Location: Memphis

Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:17 pm Post subject:

Trinity1 wrote:

Instead of stopping the tape of the debate... all that he is doing is demonstrating that what his opponent is saying is false... or at least not as conclusive as they are trying to lead people to believe. So... instead of stopping everything... pointing out the inaccuracies... and then re-starting everything again, all he is doing is showing a few slides as his opponent is speaking.

What he's doing is undermining his opponent. It would be one thing if he stopped the presenter every time he had a bone to pick and the presenter was then able to respond, but that's apparently not what was done.

You do understand there are rules for formal debate, right? Just because you apparently don't care doesn't mean they don't exist or that people don't expect them to be followed.

Trinity1
Emperor of the World

Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123

Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 4:54 pm Post subject:

This is classic FFT:

FFT wrote:

As are the rules to formal debate... when your opponent is speaking during their allotted time, you don’t interrupt…but then you ask:

Quote:

You do understand there are rules for formal debate, right? Just because you apparently don't care doesn't mean they don't exist or that people don't expect them to be followed.

Which includes not interrupting your opponent during his remarks and specified time allotment.

Classic indeed. Laughing

FFT
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337

Location: Memphis

Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 5:57 pm Post subject:

I said it would be one thing if he interrupted—I did not say it would be okay if he interrupted, merely that it would be better. If you can't make arguments without misinterpreting what I'm saying, please just stop altogether.

Trinity1
Emperor of the World

Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123

Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 9:49 am Post subject:

FFT wrote:

I said it would be one thing if he interrupted—I did not say it would be okay if he interrupted, merely that it would be better.
If you can't make arguments without misinterpreting what I'm saying, please just stop altogether.

No... I believe your assertion was exactly that as you were implying that I apparently didn't know the rules of debate. Question

If you don't want me misrepresenting your arguments, then you need to be a little more clear on what your intent is... as I'm still not sure what you are trying to say... what would be better... that he interupt... or not? Regardless... it was nothing more than one of his tapes... and like I mentioned before... it was one of HIS tapes to do with what he wanted.
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."

‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith

FFT
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337

Location: Memphis

Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:25 pm Post subject:

Trinity1 wrote:

what would be better... that he interupt... or not?

It is less underhanded to interrupt than to undermine.

Trinity1
Emperor of the World

Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123

Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:36 pm Post subject:

FFT wrote:

Trinity1 wrote:

what would be better... that he interupt... or not?

It is less underhanded to interrupt than to undermine.

And it is dishonest to present evidence that one knows is false too... and that is what Hovind was correcting... I suppose we can pick our poison with this one...
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."

‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith

FFT
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337

Location: Memphis

Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 1:16 pm Post subject:

Trinity1 wrote:

And it is dishonest to present evidence that one knows is false too...

Correct. Are you asserting that the presenter was lying? Because I already asked this question and you said no. Laughing

Were you lying then?

Trinity1 wrote:

and that is what Hovind was correcting...

You've already said that you don't think the presenter was lying, but Hovind sure does. He still uses arguments blacklisted by AIG, even though he's been informed of their fallibility.

Trinity1
Emperor of the World

Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123

Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 5:09 pm Post subject:

FFT wrote:

Trinity1 wrote:

And it is dishonest to present evidence that one knows is false too...

Correct. Are you asserting that the presenter was lying? Because I already asked this question and you said no. Laughing

Were you lying then?

Trinity1 wrote:

and that is what Hovind was correcting...

You've already said that you don't think the presenter was lying, but Hovind sure does. He still uses arguments blacklisted by AIG, even though he's been informed of their fallibility.

And we are on page three of the Kent Hovind thread... a 'known' liar, tax evader, and just an all around butt... according to evolutionists... yet... we are going to shoot for page four... ? Wink

FFT
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337

Location: Memphis

Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 8:06 pm Post subject:

Then stop arguing?

Trinity1
Emperor of the World

Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123

Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 5:43 am Post subject:

FFT wrote:

Then stop arguing?

That Hovind's tactics are 'dishonest'? I think not. If there wasn't a monopoly on 'free inquiry' in our schools and universities all of this would not be necessary.... now would it?
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."

‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith

FFT
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337

Location: Memphis

Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 1:10 pm Post subject:

"Free inquiry" into what? You would have children taught creationism/ID in public schools? Neither has scientific merit; if they were taught in science classes we would effectively be lying to our children. As I've said in the past I'm perfectly okay with general religious studies courses; I actually think it's a shame they aren't an option already.

Display posts from previous:

	Bible-Discussion.com Forum Index -> Creation vs. Evolution Debate	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 ... 9, 10, 11 Next
Page 3 of 11