Video Debate: Young Earth vs. Old Earth

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



ushomefree
The John Ankerberg Show: Kent Hovind vs. Hugh Ross

-second segment is unavailable due to error-

WNuHuG517lI

vWJPHSY63Gw

Zo5C95v7-aY

obVYL-vi20U

nZsvnBlFtYo

XvGpKi9AyZA

aXAv6oUXE6g

Sq1H-TsK-ZQ

tgQznjZGv7k

Digi
I don't have an hour and a half. Try talking to us instead. So you're advocating what through these videos...young earth or old earth?

ushomefree
I agree with Hugh Ross, and Kent Hovind needs to refrain from being stubborn.

Symmetric Chaos
In that case I agree with Kent Hovind.

leonheartmm
ushom i beleive no less than three times ive showed you that this man is a liar and a demagogue whose arguments have been utterly raped by science{the great flood and the grand canyon being one of those }. why then do u continue to post this stuff?

Shakyamunison
Old Earth wins. rock

leonheartmm
but new earth has a pubic mohawk.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by leonheartmm
but new earth has a pubic mohawk.


New Earth thumb down

Old Earth thumb up

We have to keep it simple. big grin

leonheartmm
what if old earth and new earth had a baby?

Digi
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 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?

http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/1416/middleearthfilm.th.jpg

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Digi
http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/1416/middleearthfilm.th.jpg

It would create a world where civilization continually rises and falls in order to maintain a technological level fitting with a specific form of romantic idealism?

Red Nemesis
Yes.

ushomefree
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.



Every video thread and/or video comment I have posted on this forum, were nothing other than legitimate sources of information.



That is a fair statement. Help me understand. Honestly.



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?"

ushomefree
Has anyone watched the video presentation of this thread? The second set of videos are now available without error, in case you wanted to view the second half. In any case, take care all.

Digi
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.

Shakyamunison
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.

thumb up

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.

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.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
1. Picking and choosing; I can find a video to support anything. This fact discredits most YouTube videos in my opinion.

Huh? I can find a book or person to support anything. That doesn't discredit them.

Shakyamunison
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.

Symmetric Chaos
You realize that isn't actually relevant, right?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You realize that isn't actually relevant, right?

I can't help you with your problem.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I can't help you with your problem.

Given that my problem is you saying something egregiously illogical that's rather telling.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Given that my problem is you saying something egregiously illogical that's rather telling.

Get a clue. If you can't understand what I was getting at, then I can't help you. I have been through this with you over and over again. All that will happen is that you will find some knit picky thing to point out and take wrong. You are thinking too much and understanding too little.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Get a clue. If you can't understand what I was getting at, then I can't help you. I have been through this with you over and over again. All that will happen is that you will find some knit picky thing to point out and take wrong.

You've been over nothing. I'm curious as to why you feel the need to defend the idea that the existence of a different stance proves that both should be ignored.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are thinking too much and understanding too little.

You really do sound like the Buddhist Jack Trick. What possible reason could I have for blindly "understanding" a claim that doesn't make sense in the first place?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You've been over nothing. I'm curious as to why you feel the need to defend the idea that the existence of a different stance proves that both should be ignored.

YouTube is what I was talking about. You ignored that didn't you? I was talking about a characteristic of YouTube. People on a one to one communication are less likely to lie or fabricate information. However, YouTube thrives off of bullshit.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You really do sound like the Buddhist Jack Trick. What possible reason could I have for blindly "understanding" a claim that doesn't make sense in the first place?

I have no idea what a "Buddhist Jack Trick", and I really don't care.

Then you watch the videos and give us a run down.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
YouTube is what I was talking about. You ignored that didn't you? I was talking about a characteristic of YouTube. People on a one to one communication are less likely to lie or fabricate information. However, YouTube thrives off of bullshit.

Anyone monologuing a position (like in a book or documentary) would be subject to exactly the same problem. I don't see how that's a reason to say they're automatically discredited. I entirely fail to see the point in giving a totally meaningless reason that something is wrong or not worth paying attention to as it makes one look evasive, if that's a "lack of understanding" I feel a bit sorry for you.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then you watch the videos and give us a run down.

Don't really have the time to watch the whole thing but it seems to me that Ross is trying very hard to reconcile his Christian beliefs with his scientific knowledge and that Hovind doesn't understand the Big Bang and strikes me as something of a hypocrite from the "if something has to be explained then it's a cult" thing.

Overall from watching the first segment my main complaints would be that Hovind makes a lot of claims about science but fails to back them up with science while Ross makes a lot of points that involve real testable science and observation but tries to spin them so that Christianity must be true.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Huh? I can find a book or person to support anything. That doesn't discredit them.

Who is them? You are making no sense here.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Who is them? You are making no sense here.

The author of a particular book.


Author A writes a book about how chocolate is a flavor.
Author B writes a book about how chocolate is not a flavor.

The existence of each book does not discredit either book, rather we should judge the works on their logical merit.


Similarly:
YouTube Guy A posts about how chocolate is a flavor.
YuoTube Guy B posts book about how chocolate is not a flavor.

The existence of each does not discredit the other, rather we should judge the works on their logical merit.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The author of a particular book.


Author A writes a book about how chocolate is a flavor.
Author B writes a book about how chocolate is not a flavor.

The existence of each book does not discredit either book, rather we should judge the works on their logical merit.


Similarly:
YouTube Guy A posts about how chocolate is a flavor.
YuoTube Guy B posts book about how chocolate is not a flavor.

The existence of each does not discredit the other, rather we should judge the works on their logical merit.

See again, you didn't get what I was saying. You are definitely thinking too much. roll eyes (sarcastic)

Symmetric Chaos
So you've produced a statement that falls apart under scrutiny and the problem isn't that the idea is flawed it's that people are thinking about it?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So you've produced a statement that falls apart under scrutiny and the problem isn't that the idea is flawed it's that people are thinking about it?

No, you are being an ass who likes to find a little manusha and make a big deal about it. Sorry if I insulted you, but you just couldn't get my point.

ushomefree
I posted the video thread because I though it to be educational, if not thought provoking. If my video thread proved to be too lengthy (for some), there are plenty others to participate in. It is a free world. I understand your point, but understand, that all threads are different in topic and length.



I posted a video thread; I think you are taking such action far too serious. Your either interested in my thread or your not! No need to convince.



Again, members are either interested or they are not. No need to convince.



Again, I think you are taking this far too serious! I simply posted a video thread. Your either interested or your not. Members of the forum have a choice to view a video thread or not (and to participate). I have no obligation(s).



Okay... good luck in college! Moving on. What were your views on the video thread?

Shakyamunison
ushomefree Tell me what you think of the videos in detail and then I will decide if I want to comment. However, I am not going to watch the videos for the reasons I have already gave.

Ordo
Originally posted by leonheartmm
ushom i beleive no less than three times ive showed you that this man is a liar and a demagogue whose arguments have been utterly raped by science{the great flood and the grand canyon being one of those }. why then do u continue to post this stuff?

facts dont matter when you have ideology?

Digi
So he asked for my thoughts, genuinely seeming like he wanted to see what was going wrong. Then he ignored each and every point. Why am I not surprised?

ushome, how many people have watched more than about 3 minutes of the videos and commented on them? Don't you think there might be a reason for that? Your stubbornness reveals your ignorance.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Digi
So he asked for my thoughts, genuinely seeming like he wanted to see what was going wrong. Then he ignored each and every point. Why am I not surprised?

ushome, how many people have watched more than about 3 minutes of the videos and commented on them? Don't you think there might be a reason for that? Your stubbornness reveals your ignorance.

He doesn't want to loose the argument. wink

ushomefree
To all members of the forum-

First, please relax. Get a grip amongst yourselves.

As previously stated, this thread was posted for the pleasure of the forum. Some members, however, may not want to watch the video post in its entirety. That is fine, and more power to you! But others may want to watch the entire video post, and I was curious to get their opinions (over the video post itself). My opinion, unless asked for it, is irrelevant. Can we, as members of the forum, please refrain from future unnecessary charges and/or hot air? All I've done is posted a thread and stated (in the latter) that I'm a supporter of the "Old Earth" view, proposed by Astronomer Hugh Ross. What's the big deal?!

If no one is interested in this thread, so be it. If that is truly the case, I'm no longer interested. Understand? I'm not perfect, but I try to bring a different perspective to this forum (while communicating my views). Some of you, have got me all wrong.

With all said, let's hit the reset button and start over. Watch the video post (or do not)! Feel free to comment or don't. I do not care. However, if someone presents a question, comment and/or concern to me, I will answer to the best of my knowledge. Other than that, let it go!

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by ushomefree
My opinion is irrelevant.

Something we can all agree on wink

Da Pittman
So ushomefree I'm not about to watch all of it but I do wonder what the Young Earth guy says about how the light that we see from other galaxies takes billions of years to reach us but the universe is only 6,000 years old? Does this guy think that the speed of light is BS?

King Kandy
Originally posted by ushomefree
But others may want to watch the entire video post
Who?

ushomefree
Inwardly no; outwardly yes! Let me explain, please. Kent Hovind, who is stubborn man, in my opinion, presses the notion that the speed of light (in the finite past) was different. Mr. Hovind knows that the speed of light has always been constant, but he tries to circumvent the problem with obscured objections. The speed of light may have been different in the finite past, but current science, does not support the view. And Mr. Hovind knows this all to well. He is being stubborn.

Da Pittman
Originally posted by ushomefree
Inwardly no; outwardly yes! Let me explain, please. Kent Hovind, who is stubborn man, in my opinion, presses the notion that the speed of light (in the finite past) was different. Mr. Hovind knows that the speed of light has always been constant, but he tries to circumvent the problem with obscured objections. The speed of light may have been different in the finite past, but current science, does not support the view. And Mr. Hovind knows this all to well. He is being stubborn. I'm aware of the VSL theory but even that wouldn't fit into a model of a 6,000 old universe, light would have to be slowing down in an exponential rate for light from the distant galaxies to reach use and then to keep its current speed. Then that would mean that the speed of light would have to stop slowing down for us not to see this change when calculating the speed of light.

Mindship
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.
No wonder you're a moderator. cool

OE ftw.

Digi
Originally posted by ushomefree
To all members of the forum-

First, please relax. Get a grip amongst yourselves.

Heh. We're calm as sh*t, dude. We're just trying to help you see some reason.

You're still not going to get responses until you change your tactics. I wasn't giving you that advice to attack you. I was giving it because it's true.

Originally posted by ushomefree
If no one is interested in this thread, so be it. If that is truly the case, I'm no longer interested. Understand? I'm not perfect, but I try to bring a different perspective to this forum (while communicating my views). Some of you, have got me all wrong.

With all said, let's hit the reset button and start over. Watch the video post (or do not)! Feel free to comment or don't. I do not care. However, if someone presents a question, comment and/or concern to me, I will answer to the best of my knowledge. Other than that, let it go!

Now who needs to relax? People would indeed be interested in talking, ushome. You just have to present it differently. I'm ironically trying to help you reach more people. God must have a sense of humor.

wink

Originally posted by Mindship
No wonder you're a moderator. cool

OE ftw.

Yeah, that's how I roll.

cool

Ordo
VIDEO FAIL!

Ush, I'd love to respond to you, but I never feel you take equal time to respond to me. It makes me feel unwelcome sad

Originally posted by Da Pittman
I'm aware of the VSL theory but even that wouldn't fit into a model of a 6,000 old universe, light would have to be slowing down in an exponential rate for light from the distant galaxies to reach use and then to keep its current speed. Then that would mean that the speed of light would have to stop slowing down for us not to see this change when calculating the speed of light.

Steelers suck!

*runs away*

Red Nemesis
Originally posted by Da Pittman
So ushomefree I'm not about to watch all of it but I do wonder what the Young Earth guy says about how the light that we see from other galaxies takes billions of years to reach us but the universe is only 6,000 years old? Does this guy think that the speed of light is BS?

That'd be Dr. Schroeder; he uses time dilation/frames of reference to rationalize differences in biblical and scientific timelines. It doesn't work, but it is interesting. (I think it doesn't work. I'm not very fluent in physics .)

http://www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Age_of_the_Universe.asp

Da Pittman
Originally posted by Ordo
VIDEO FAIL!

Ush, I'd love to respond to you, but I never feel you take equal time to respond to me. It makes me feel unwelcome sad



Steelers suck!

*runs away* YOU, YOU stinky poop-poop head stick out tongueOriginally posted by Red Nemesis
That'd be Dr. Schroeder; he uses time dilation/frames of reference to rationalize differences in biblical and scientific timelines. It doesn't work, but it is interesting. (I think it doesn't work. I'm not very fluent in physics .)

http://www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Age_of_the_Universe.asp Looks interesting, I'll have to give it a read.

ushomefree
Adam & Eve

bp6TUoXFHq8

Da Pittman
Spamming mad

ushomefree
It's a joke! Relax. smile

leonheartmm
^so is creationism. relax!

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.