Video Debate: Young Earth vs. Old Earth
The John Ankerberg Show: Kent Hovind vs. Hugh Ross
-second segment is unavailable due to error-
Video Debate: Young Earth vs. Old Earth
The John Ankerberg Show: Kent Hovind vs. Hugh Ross
-second segment is unavailable due to error-
Originally posted by ushomefree
I agree with Hugh Ross, and Kent Hovind needs to refrain from being stubborn.
Lawl. So in response to "I can't watch that, state your own thoughts" you refer to the videos themselves in a manner that we can't possibly respond to because we don't know the context? Way to communicate. Still, it's a step up from spam-posting videos without discussion or a direction for debate.
Seriously, it's not the things you believe in that gets you criticism [editor's note: well....], but it's the way you approach other viewpoints, and also your methods of debate (or lack thereof). That reply is either intentionally spiteful toward my comment, or simply doesn't comprehend how to approach an adult discussion.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
what if old earth and new earth had a baby?
Originally posted by DigiLawl. So in response to "I can't watch that, state your own thoughts" you refer to the videos themselves in a manner that we can't possibly respond to because we don't know the context? Way to communicate.
The videos were posted for the pleasure of the forum, not necessarily to have books written over the thread. The context of this thread are the videos themselves.
Originally posted by DigiStill, it's a step up from spam-posting videos without discussion or a direction for debate.
Every video thread and/or video comment I have posted on this forum, were nothing other than legitimate sources of information.
Originally posted by DigiSeriously, it's not the things you believe in that gets you criticism [editor's note: well....], but it's the way you approach other viewpoints, and also your methods of debate (or lack thereof).
That is a fair statement. Help me understand. Honestly.
Originally posted by DigiThat reply is either intentionally spiteful toward my comment, or simply doesn't comprehend how to approach an adult discussion.
It was not spiteful; I do not embrace the young Earth interpretation of Scripture and/or Science. I support Hugh Ross, not Kent Hovind. What does such have to do with "adult discussion?"
Originally posted by ushomefree
That is a fair statement. Help me understand. Honestly.
Fair enough...
The average KMC poster doesn't have an hour+ to spend watching a series of videos on a topic that they likely already have a basic understanding of and have formed an opinion on. If you want to engage people in debate without being trolled, you're going to have to take a few points that you think are valid or interesting from the videos, put them into your own words, and present them in a way that doesn't scream "Here, watch this" but rather "Here's a few things I think, why don't we talk about them some?" and use it as a jumping off point for discussion.
If you want people to invest their time into something, anything (including KMC discussion), you have to give them valid reasons to want to pursue it. It would be like a teacher throwing Shakespeare at kids and telling them to read, instead of first introducing the topic, providing some introductory exercises, and finding ways to engage them with the material before beginning, or helping them to connect the work to their own lives. I've seen the first kind of teacher. Nobody likes those teachers.
Originally posted by Digi
Fair enough...The average KMC poster doesn't have an hour+ to spend watching a series of videos on a topic that they likely already have a basic understanding of and have formed an opinion on. If you want to engage people in debate without being trolled, you're going to have to take a few points that you think are valid or interesting from the videos, put them into your own words, and present them in a way that doesn't scream "Here, watch this" but rather "Here's a few things I think, why don't we talk about them some?" and use it as a jumping off point for discussion.
If you want people to invest their time into something, anything (including KMC discussion), you have to give them valid reasons to want to pursue it. It would be like a teacher throwing Shakespeare at kids and telling them to read, instead of first introducing the topic, providing some introductory exercises, and finding ways to engage them with the material before beginning, or helping them to connect the work to their own lives. I've seen the first kind of teacher. Nobody likes those teachers.
👆
To add, I don't care what some guys on a YouTube video have to say.
There are two problems with a YouTube video as the primary driving force behind a debate thread:
1. Picking and choosing; I can find a video to support anything. This fact discredits most YouTube videos in my opinion.
2. I can't debate with the person on a YouTube video. This fact kills any kind of back and forth about ideas, because I will be debating with a third party.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Huh? I can find a book or person to support anything. That doesn't discredit them.
Originally posted by Da Pittman
So just from the bit that I watched they are only debating about how old the Earth is but both believe that God created the Earth. The old Earth guys logic will be completely flawed with this stance and with his "God creates more whales and horses" will throw off any evolution time line.
