Featured Ross vs. Hovind Debate

I just finished watching the whole debate. This fellow was not saying he no longer believed in evolution, but he did admit that Hovind made many valid points which would affect the way he teaches the subject in the future.

But one thing is certain, Hovind can hang with any of these guys, and most of them he rips to shreds.

 

Because you have a dog in this fight?

 

Well, I believe he does, but he has a lot of experience debating.

Now, I can't stand James White and disagree with almost everything he says and believes, but he is very good at debate.

Kent Hovind is also excellent at debate. He has all his ducks lined up, he gives a very straightforward and simple presentation. He is prepared for just about any objection his opponents throw at him.

I have watched dozens of his debates online over the years, I have never seen him lose a debate.

Now, that said, I am a young earth creationist and I admit I have a bias. But I am a young earth creationist because I believe that is the truth.

 

Hovind is a unqiue debater who will not have a very large influence once he's let out of prison in 4 years. He reminds me a lot of Dr White, both are sharp rhetorical whits but lack substance upon closer evaluation.

Though I agree with much of what Hovind says about the philosophy of science and particularly the limits of science, his other theories and discussion points are hard to support.

Add to that spurious degrees and he pretty much has little value for most reasonable churches and believers.

 

That is a valid objection. Hovind simply argues that theory should not be presented as fact.

 

Hovind's problem is that our tax dollars are going to support the teaching of their religion and not ours.

Neither of them can be proved: So either both of them need to be out of the schools or both taught.

 

I tend to agree with Hovind on YEC, and he is good at debate, but yeah...his other theories I don't and can't follow.

 

The problem with him stating that reads genesis in a literal way though is that he would have to redefine the meanings of the 'day" there, and also have to discount the fall and sin in a non traditional way!

 

Four times since Darwin's On the Origins of Man was published, they've changed the definition of the word "theory" so that it has now become "fact." If there's no proof against a theory, it is now accepted "science." That's junk science, not valid science.

 

I don't understand what you are saying here, what does this have to do with Kent Hovind?

Science is what is observable. Because no one was present to record the origin of the universe and life, it must be relegated to theory. Hovind simply objects to theory being taught as fact.

Creation is also theory and should be taught as theory.

 

You said Hovind objects to theory being taught as fact, which I agree with. I'm simply pointing out that "science" has changed the definition so that "theory" actually fits into the category of "fact" now, whereas 160 years ago, a "theory" was an unproven postulation that required observation, research, and duplication of results by recreating a controlled environment similar to the one in which the original experiment succeeded, in order to be deemed "proven," and therefore no longer a "theory."

In other words, they have gone to great lengths to extend the life of their religion as "science." The original definition should never have been changed. It was accurate.

 

You are the one who said Hovind teaches junk science;

It is Hovind who objects to junk science where theory is presented as fact.

 

That doesn't mean I can't agree with him about teaching theory as fact.

And he also teaches junk science. His defense of creationism is based on shoddy, half-cocked research and pseudo-facts.

 

No, for the One who created the universe, and made man in His own image, recorded down to us what he did, so THAT is true and factual, not junk science like Darwinism and so called evolutionary process of life!

 

Creationism is theory, because there was no one present to observe it. Science is something you can observe, something you can measure. Neither evolution nor creation can be observed, so both should remain theory.

Believe me, I am a Young Earth Creationist all the way, but that does not change the fact that Creationism is a theory.

But when textbooks say things like "Dinosaurs roamed the earth 70 million years ago", that is nothing but theory. They do not have one bit of proof for that.

That said, if the speed of light is not a constant and light was much faster in the recent past, radiometric forms of dating can give very old ages for objects that are not many "solar years" old.