The Instigator
Ithacus
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
lbj123
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Are Kent Hovind's Creationist arguments logical and accurate?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/21/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,055 times Debate No: 42750
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

Ithacus

Con

BoP is shared.

As Con, I will argue that Kent Hovind's pro-Creationism and anti-evolution arguments are illogical and inaccurate.

As Pro, my opponent will argue that Kent Hovind's pro-Creationism and anti-evolution arguments are logical and accurate.

Pro is welcome to begin his/her arguments in Round 1. The debate focuses on Kent Hovind's arguments specifically -- just as I cannot win this debate by attacking Creationist arguments which Kent Hovind does not explicitly endorse, my opponent can't win by endorsing or supporting pro-Creatonist or anti-evolution arguments that Hovind never made.

Quoting valid sources is extremely important and fully expected of both parties. If quoting a video source over 5 mins long, be sure to provide the time at which the quote can be found (for instance, 20:04 or 1:48:05), otherwise the opponent and the audience is free to assume the quote was not really made, to spare everyone from the trial of wading through hours of material to find 5 seconds' worth of commentary. So quote reliably and use valid sources!

To be clear, this debate is not about Hovind's arguments in favor of the existence of God, it is about Hovind's arguments in favor of the notion that (a) an intelligent entity created the universe and (b) evolution does not exist / is false. Pro will not need to prove the existence of God to win the debate and Con will not need to disprove the existence of God to win the debate. This is a whole other debate and I have a challenge open at the time of this writing.

May the best arguments win :)
lbj123

Pro

I kindly accept your challenge, and allow me to get to my argument.

What is creationism? Well, it is the religious theory that a deity had created the universe (including the planet, Earth)(1). Now think about it. Think who created the Earth. The Earth didn't pop out of nowhere. There had to be some kind of figure that created something called the "universe". That figure (as both of us know ) is God. God created the universe because it most definitely did not just appear one day because it felt like. Whether our planets were made from natural causes or not, creationism does apply. God created the Earth and its surroundings. If you want to think of it more scientifically, think on how God created the outside particles that created the Earth. When it comes down to the very basis of things, God had created everything.

Now evolution is flawed tremendously. Research shows that fossils have no correlation to any other species (2). Also, take natural selection into consideration. Natural selection is the idea that organisms develop better physical traits over time. Though think about it. What was there in the first place? Nothing (3). Scientists just think of the evolution theory because they compare humans to ape fossils. Think how many species of apes there were? You could find a similarity. Though, when you compare it to other organisms, the same thing doesn't work (3).

Dr. Hovind's creationist theory is one-hundred percent accurate in the terms of what you wanted from this debate.

Thank you very much. Now it is your turn.

Sources:
(1): http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2): http://www.ucg.org...
(3): http://www.abovetopsecret.com...=
Debate Round No. 1
Ithacus

Con

Ithacus forfeited this round.
lbj123

Pro

lbj123 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Ithacus

Con

Ithacus forfeited this round.
lbj123

Pro

lbj123 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Ithacus

Con

Ithacus forfeited this round.
lbj123

Pro

lbj123 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Ithacus

Con

Ithacus forfeited this round.
lbj123

Pro

lbj123 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by adontimasu 3 years ago
adontimasu
If you want to debate this, contact thisisbob. He used Kent Hovind as evidence in a debate against evolution, so I assume he holds him as an authority of sorts.
Posted by chengste 3 years ago
chengste
However several independent investigators have went thru the information ALL stating nothing was illegal on what he did.
Posted by MysticEgg 3 years ago
MysticEgg
Even AiG diss Hovind. Only Medic would take this. And he's a forum kind-of-guy.
Posted by Ramshutu 3 years ago
Ramshutu
I find it strange that you can state "it was proven he was not guilty" when any google news or fact search indicates that he was found guilty of all 58 charges which included "twelve counts of willful failure to collect, account for, and pay over federal income taxes and FICA taxes, forty-five counts of knowingly structuring transactions in federally insured financial institutions to evade reporting requirements, and one count of corruptly endeavoring to obstruct and impede the administration of the internal revenue laws."
Posted by chengste 3 years ago
chengste
of which it was proven he was not guilty so they combined charges to come up with this, have you read any of it?
Posted by 2-D 3 years ago
2-D
Zing, he is for tax evasion
Posted by chengste 3 years ago
chengste
WOW what a racket, the man should not be in jail
Posted by 2-D 3 years ago
2-D
On the flip side a google/youtube search for Kent Hovind is pretty hilarious.
Posted by Ithacus 3 years ago
Ithacus
It would have taken you less time to search for "Kent Hovind" through Google

However I'm glad you did not. Please spare yourself the agony
Posted by chengste 3 years ago
chengste
who is Kent Hovind?
No votes have been placed for this debate.