The Instigator
ErwinRommelDesertfox
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Akshay2012
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Ken ham's " Were you there " and " Observable history strategy " is very bad and weak.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 4/21/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 447 times Debate No: 53028
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

ErwinRommelDesertfox

Pro

R1 = acceptance
Akshay2012

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for proposing this challenge and hope this will be a fun and interesting debate!
Debate Round No. 1
ErwinRommelDesertfox

Pro

ErwinRommelDesertfox forfeited this round.
Akshay2012

Con

Seeing as my opponent has forfeited this round I will not post my arguments out of courtesy. VOTE CON!!!!!
Debate Round No. 2
ErwinRommelDesertfox

Pro

ErwinRommelDesertfox forfeited this round.
Akshay2012

Con

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
ErwinRommelDesertfox

Pro

ErwinRommelDesertfox forfeited this round.
Akshay2012

Con

Akshay2012 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
It's just a typical Apologist's away of avoiding or escaping all the circumstantial and other evidences, William Lane Craig uses the same tactic.
We will ignore all fossil evidence, all Cosmological Evidence, all Geological Evidence and all Genetic Evidence, because nobody was there to witness it first hand.

Yet, there is a staggering amount of evidence for Evolution Theory and even the Big Bang Theory, which are completely separate theories. One is Biological and the other is Cosmological, so they have nothing to do with one another, yet some Creatards think they are the same Theory.

As far as Eye Witnesses go, even Christianity suffers badly there:
As we can more Rationally than Craig or Ham, completely disregard Jesus as being Divine or God, because even though they claim to have witnesses there, nobody witnessing the event recorded/wrote anything down for 30+ years, so such memories are not accurate. So it is the same as having nobody there to witness it, because there is no evidence it took place.

Ham's argument is an "Arguments From Ignorance Fallacy"

The Jesus is not God argument is not a Fallacy, it is an argument from rationally considering all the available evidence.

Thus the Latter has far more Honest Truth.
Ham is completely Dishonest.
Posted by edibleshrapnel 3 years ago
edibleshrapnel
I'm christian, but Ken ham is a bad debater, Regrettably.
Posted by Mhykiel 3 years ago
Mhykiel
I've seen the same argument from atheist for we can't know anything of God. Seen them describe a jar of something pickled. Said we can't know with 100% certainty how many pickles are in the jar. Even if a math mathematician calculates the volume says 52 pickles, it's a guess. Even if our grandmother says she was there when they filled the jar and she says there is 52 pickles. We can't know for sure unless we open jar. Yeah I got it I wasn't there, I can't know 100% certain. I to keep an open mind to the evidence. Not so open my brain falls out. And no one goes through life saying well that seems 90% true but I don't know if the world is round.
Posted by Curci 3 years ago
Curci
Oh hell yeah, it was a terrible argument. "Winston, you are being acquitted, despite overwhelming DNA evidence and loads of witness testimony, because none of us actually saw the murder, did we? How do we know the murder even took place? We didn't see it, even though we found the body." That's his ridiculous logic.
No votes have been placed for this debate.