Eric Hovind can't debate the evidence

Eric Hovind, just like YouTube user VenomFangX, has begun moving away from the scientific are of debate into the philosophical one because he, like Shawn, has realized that bastardizing science isn't convincing.

However, in Eric's case, I think that he's using arguments that assume God's existence because his own beliefs come from his assumption since childhood that God exists, so of course this type of argument is going to seem convincing to him.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• evolution
• creation
• PCS
• VenomFangX
• hovind
• potholer54
• Thunderf00t
• science
• apologetics
• presuppositional

[rioyuske]

@Venaloid You dont quite have the premise of the video..Christians find it absurd to leave the word of God as their highest authority. It would be just as absurd if anyone asked you to leave your senses and reasoning on the shelf. The reason proof does not matter in an argument is because we can argue proof all day, but any proof you see against the existence of God, I can just as easily falsify that and you can't know for certain that Im wrong. This argument goes much deeper than what you see.

[Venaloid]

@rioyuske - I'm saying that all of us (Christians and atheists) rely on logic and our senses, but Christians want to introduce an extra assumption that none of the people they'd be arguing against would accept, because that extra assumption is "The Bible is true so I'm right." You aren't allowed to just assume you're right, that's not starting on neutral ground.

Maybe neither side will be convinced, as you stated, but that's an issue of bias, not of ultimate authority.

[rioyuske]

@Venaloid Right there is no such thing as neutral ground. The presuppositions we take to the table are (in our minds) correct. But, what differs is what justification we have to the evidence proposed. To Christians, our justification for our conclusions is the bible. Atheism prescribes nothing, which proves troublesome when trying to present a coherent case for how its conclusions are valid.

[Venaloid]

@rioyuske - Ah, I see, you're going into presuppositional apologetics, essentially saying, "We have no way of knowing that our senses and reasoning are valid unless we start with God." Is this correct?

[rioyuske]

@Venaloid I am a presuppositionalist yes, and we all are in our basic beliefs. I was stating that Hovind uses this principle to make a point that our presuppositions suppose what we find to be true about evidence. I do use this method to defend my faith as well, yes. My argument is a little more than just our S&R ability though, I propose that nothing at all can be known without beginning with God.

[Venaloid]

@rioyuske - I'll be addressing S&R ability in my next video, and other fields within presuppositional apologetics in later ones (hopefully soon, I've been sitting on this topic for over a year.) I accept that Paul may well have been talking about presuppositional apologetics in this video, but since he did not elaborate, it sounds like he's simply saying, "assume the Bible is true when arguing with an atheist" and nothing more.

[Venaloid]

@JerichoRanger93 - Um... well, I'm actually trying to make a point, entertainment is second in my mind. Sorry.

[Venaloid]

@marigolds44 - Abiogenesis is an emerging field of study that doesn't have any concrete idea of exactly how life can arise naturally (there are several proposed models to date). However, nothing they've done has indicated that it's impossible, and many experiments have shown that the basic components of life can be created and, in some cases, assembled, naturally.

[TheMasterOfTheFrets]

He forgets, in a debate there are no winners just viewers and people to argue for each side.

[MrDEEPTRUE]

@Venaloid-- U LOOK LIKE A LITTLE BIT A MONKEY =MAYBE YOU ARE THE MISSING LINK-==ARE U?---WITH RESPECT OF UR PERSON==

[MrDEEPTRUE]

@Venaloid WE NEVER HEARD YET OR THEY NEVER PROVED YET THAT ANY DOG EVER BECAME A CAT OR A CAT A DOG! There are all kinds of dogs and all kinds of cats, but there are no dog-cats or no cat-dogs! Because God created everything "after its own kind" and they can't possibly get out of that kind. They may vary within their kind or specie, but they'll never change into another! It's impossible!

[MrDEEPTRUE]

@Venaloid THIS IS IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO GOD'S WORD which states that all living creatures were created "after their kind" with the ability to bring forth seed, or fruit, "after their Kind (species)

[MrDEEPTRUE]

@Venaloid ACCORDING TO EVOLUTION, TODAY'S PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES ARE ALL MERELY TRANSITIONAL FORMS, part of an endless chain of life whose links are gradually evolving into more advanced stages. For this reason Darwin regarded the classification "species" as "a mere useless abstraction" and "as one arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience."

[MrDEEPTRUE]

@Venaloid Can you imagine a dictionary, a chemical factory, or New York City, coming into existence by itself--POOF--without any assistance from an intelligent designer, planner or creator? Such is the logic of evolution's imaginary assumption that the infinitely complex "simple" cell accidentally came together and came alive by blind, unguided chance!

[MrDEEPTRUE]

THE SIMPLE CELL THE CELL IS AS COMPLICATED AS NEW YOUR CITY." The well-known evolutionist Loren Eisely likewise admitted in his book, The Immense Journey, that "Intensified effort revealed that even the supposedly simple amoeba was a complex, self-operating chemical factory. The notion that he was a simple blob, the discovery of whose chemical composition would enable us instantly to set the life process in operation, turned out to be, at best, a monstrous caricature of the truth

[MrDEEPTRUE]

@Venaloid The likelihood of this happening is so far-fetches that Princeton University Professor of Biology Edwin Conklin has said: "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop

[MrDEEPTRUE]

@Venaloid In other words, INANIMATE MATTER NEVER INCREASES ITS OWN ORDER, ORGANISATION OR COMPLEXITY--THESE ALWAYS DECREASE! And even if the elements could arrange themselves into a certain definite pattern, as is necessary for life, they could not make themselves a living cell because LIFE is not a mere physical arrangement of chemicals!

[MrDEEPTRUE]

@Venaloid This assumption is completely contrary to a universally accepted and proven law of science, known as the second law of thermodynamics, which states that "All processes (left to themselves) go toward a greater state of disorder, disorganisation, disarrangement and less complexity