Christian Forums Alumni Aron Ra to debate Kent Hovind.

[Subduction Zone]

Some people never learn. After Kent Hovind was publicly spanked in a discussion with Aron Ra. Held as a discussion so that Kent could not get away with his lies and errors, Hovind has now challenged Aron Ra to a debate. It is supposed to be a series of video exchanges. Here is Part I:

 

[Go Braves]

I don't think Kent Hovind has got the slightest desire to learn. He'll have his few fans cheer him on regardless of how inaccurate what he says is, & that's all he really cares about. He wants attention.

 

[Strathos]

For some reason I can't bring myself to care.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For some reason I can't bring myself to care.

I figure it will be worthy of a few bags of popcorn at least.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

Some people never learn. After Kent Hovind was publicly spanked in a discussion with Aron Ra. Held as a discussion so that Kent could not get away with his lies and errors, Hovind has now challenged Aron Ra to a debate. It is supposed to be a series of video exchanges. Here is Part I:

I'll take my God-inspired faith over your faith in science any day! You are limited to reason and the grave. You think I am limited to irrationality and the same grave.

If you are right, we both end up in the same place, though I would be significantly poorer in this world for my lack of selfishness that I would attribute to the One in whom I believe and I would have confounded people's rationality by watching some (not all or even most) unchurched people be healed, because they were willing to let me pray for them. I will have felt a purpose in this life that what I do transcends anything in this world (which I believe is headed for destruction).

If I am right, we don't end up in the same place, by virtue of our living choice.

You owe it to yourself to re-examine what you think is true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'll take my God-inspired faith over your faith in science any day! You are limited to reason and the grave. You think I am limited to irrationality and the same grave.

If you are right, we both end up in the same place, though I would be significantly poorer in this world for my lack of selfishness that I would attribute to the One in whom I believe and I would have confounded people's rationality by watching some (not all or even most) unchurched people be healed, because they were willing to let me pray for them. I will have felt a purpose in this life that what I do transcends anything in this world (which I believe is headed for destruction).

If I am right, we don't end up in the same place, by virtue of our living choice.

You owe it to yourself to re-examine what you think is true.

Faith is your weakness, not mine. Please do not make false accusations of faith. Let's try not to use personal attacks here. If I called your beliefs "superstition" all that would accomplish would be to make you angry.

Can we try to keep this evidence based? That probably seems unfair since there is no reliable evidence for creationism.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

Faith is your weakness, not mine. Please do not make false accusations of faith. Let's try not to use personal attacks here. If I called your beliefs "superstition" all that would accomplish would be to make you angry.

Can we try to keep this evidence based? That probably seems unfair since there is no reliable evidence for creationism.

No, you can't make me angry. I think it is more sadness for you and thankfulness for me, because I remember how willfully ignorant I used to be, too. And nobody was going to get me to believe any of what I thought was nonsense back then, either.

Thankfully for me, God saw fit to wake me up in spite of what I believed.

Now, I know Who I know and you don't know Him. So, how can your "evidence" discredit Who I know and what I know to be Truth? Because you don't know Him, you think there is no evidence for what I believe, because you are blinded and can't see it. My Scriptures mention your type. It is like a cube trying to explain to a square that there is more than they can see. You can't see it, because you are limited to 2D world.

 

[Jimmy D]

No, you can't make me angry. I think it is more sadness for you and thankfulness for me, because I remember how willfully ignorant I used to be, too. And nobody was going to get me to believe any of what I thought was nonsense back then, either.

Thankfully for me, God saw fit to wake me up in spite of what I believed.

Now, I know Who I know and you don't know Him. So, how can your "evidence" discredit Who I know and what I know to be Truth? Because you don't know Him, you think there is no evidence for what I believe, because you are blinded and can't see it. My Scriptures mention your type. It is like a cube trying to explain to a square that there is more than they can see. You can't see it, because you are limited to 2D world.

You are perfectly entitled to your views, and I wish you well with them, honestly.

But this thread is about Kent Hovind's debate with Aron Ra.

(Edited for accuracy)

 

[dickyh995]

No, you can't make me angry. I think it is more sadness for you and thankfulness for me, because I remember how willfully ignorant I used to be, too. And nobody was going to get me to believe any of what I thought was nonsense back then, either.

Thankfully for me, God saw fit to wake me up in spite of what I believed.

Now, I know Who I know and you don't know Him. So, how can your "evidence" discredit Who I know and what I know to be Truth? Because you don't know Him, you think there is no evidence for what I believe, because you are blinded and can't see it. My Scriptures mention your type. It is like a cube trying to explain to a square that there is more than they can see. You can't see it, because you are limited to 2D world.

Perhaps you could enlighten us with your evidence? Why is it that you think you have special knowledge that couldn't be available to me?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, you can't make me angry. I think it is more sadness for you and thankfulness for me, because I remember how willfully ignorant I used to be, too. And nobody was going to get me to believe any of what I thought was nonsense back then, either.

Thankfully for me, God saw fit to wake me up in spite of what I believed.

Now, I know Who I know and you don't know Him. So, how can your "evidence" discredit Who I know and what I know to be Truth? Because you don't know Him, you think there is no evidence for what I believe, because you are blinded and can't see it. My Scriptures mention your type. It is like a cube trying to explain to a square that there is more than they can see. You can't see it, because you are limited to 2D world.

Well that is good. At any rate you should not make false accusations. And you should also try to learn the difference between knowledge and belief. Let's try to deal with the facts here.

And don't worry. Yes you are demonstrably the product of evolution. That does not mean that Christianity is wrong. One does not need to believe the stories of Genesis to be a Christian. Once Again you loaded your post with false accusations. I am not the topic of this thread.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I don't think Kent Hovind has got the slightest desire to learn.

That's for sure.

He'll have his few fans cheer him on regardless of how inaccurate what he says is, & that's all he really cares about. He wants attention.

Mmmm... money I think as well (which is why he spent some time behind bars for tax evasion). As Sinclair noted, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

Hovind's salary depends on Christians paying him to make their doubts go away. 'Look, Dr. Dino knows a lot about this stuff, and he says evolution is nonsense. Now my cognitive dissonance has been assuaged. I feel great!'

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't think Kent Hovind has got the slightest desire to learn. He'll have his few fans cheer him on regardless of how inaccurate what he says is, & that's all he really cares about. He wants attention.

And money. Don't forget about the money.
He wants lots and lots of money. Just don't tell the IRS (again).

 

[AV1611VET]

Some people never learn.

AT 05:38, Ra says it's impossible for anyone to defend creationism.

He doesn't know me, does he?

 

[Subduction Zone]

AT 05:38, Ra says it's impossible for anyone to defend creationism.

He doesn't know me, does he?

Actually he does. There was a qualifier to that statement. That you left it out confirms Aron's claim.

 

[Shemjaza]

AT 05:38, Ra says it's impossible for anyone to defend creationism.

He doesn't know me, does he?

Surely the two of you came up against each other at some point.

 

[AV1611VET]

Surely the two of you came up against each other at some point.

What is a "kind"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is a "kind"?

Yes, that did not work out too well for you. You never could define "kind". Here is a way that you can tell if one has a working definition or not. If there are two groups of animals how do you tell if the two groups are the same "kind" or not?

 

[AV1611VET]

If there are two groups of animals how do you tell if the two groups are the same "kind" or not?

The quickest way is by seeing what genus they are.

If they are the same genus, and they can mate and have children, who can have grandchildren, etc., then they are the same kind.

Thus a "kind" has to satisfy two heuristics:

1. same genus
2. be able to create a lineage

 

[Subduction Zone]

The quickest way is by seeing what genus they are.

If they are the same genus, and they can mate and have children, who can have grandchildren, etc., then they are the same kind.

Thus a "kind" has to satisfy two heuristics:

1. same genus
2. be able to create a lineage

Forget the use of taxonomic terms. This is your systemization. The definition you gave fails when it is faced with the problems of ring species. We do not even need to get into the fossil record to show its problems.

 

[AV1611VET]

Forget the use of taxonomic terms. This is your systemization. The definition you gave fails when it is faced with the problems of ring species. We do not even need to get into the fossil record to show its problems.

Kind = genus

And I don't plan on changing my perspective on that anytime soon.

"Family" is too broad and "species" is too narrow.

"Genus" seems to be just right.