Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

A Christian Show Making Ken Ham Cringe

Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 8:48:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 7:27:24 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:


It seems like Ken Ham didn't understand the question.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 9:16:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 7:27:24 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:


Watching atheists and Christians argue about something that don't have a clue about can be very humorous. Neither one of them have any hard physical proof that our Creator or His creation exists.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 9:18:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 7:27:24 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:


I love seeing Ken Ham squirm. ;-)
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 9:33:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 8:48:56 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 3/4/2015 7:27:24 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:


It seems like Ken Ham didn't understand the question.

He does, he just doesn't wasn't to provide an answer, even though he's being pressed for one.
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 9:51:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 9:16:24 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/4/2015 7:27:24 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:


Watching atheists and Christians argue about something that don't have a clue about can be very humorous. Neither one of them have any hard physical proof that our Creator or His creation exists.

Atheists don't need the evidence, so long as they are Agnostic Atheists. While the Atheist part of that is a philisophical view on the standard of evidence when it comes to the question of god, the Agnostic part accurately reflects the state of our knowledge.
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 9:54:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 9:51:51 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
At 3/4/2015 9:16:24 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/4/2015 7:27:24 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:


Watching atheists and Christians argue about something that don't have a clue about can be very humorous. Neither one of them have any hard physical proof that our Creator or His creation exists.

Atheists don't need the evidence, so long as they are Agnostic Atheists. While the Atheist part of that is a philisophical view on the standard of evidence when it comes to the question of god, the Agnostic part accurately reflects the state of our knowledge.

ALL God's people are clueless to what they observe in this universe.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 10:25:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 9:33:33 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 3/4/2015 8:48:56 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 3/4/2015 7:27:24 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:


It seems like Ken Ham didn't understand the question.

He does, he just doesn't wasn't to provide an answer, even though he's being pressed for one.

Well, seeing as Creation is an event that happened in the past and regardless of whether or not it happened it'd be unreasonable to expect it to happen again, there's no way for there to be future instances of it except by human scientists.
The "Law of Biogenesis" is not technically true; there is no physical law saying that life cannot spontaneously appear from non-life. However, the real issue is the probability of it. That is, the probability of it happening by itself is pretty low. Thus, that it happened means that life probably did not appear via abiogenesis.
Or so the ID argument goes.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 10:57:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 10:25:00 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 3/4/2015 9:33:33 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 3/4/2015 8:48:56 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 3/4/2015 7:27:24 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:


It seems like Ken Ham didn't understand the question.

He does, he just doesn't wasn't to provide an answer, even though he's being pressed for one.

Well, seeing as Creation is an event that happened in the past and regardless of whether or not it happened it'd be unreasonable to expect it to happen again, there's no way for there to be future instances of it except by human scientists.
The "Law of Biogenesis" is not technically true; there is no physical law saying that life cannot spontaneously appear from non-life. However, the real issue is the probability of it. That is, the probability of it happening by itself is pretty low. Thus, that it happened means that life probably did not appear via abiogenesis.
Or so the ID argument goes.

Hugh at least admits that the Big Bang can provide evidence for the bible due to the idea that there is a beginning. Ken Ham despises the big bang because he says millions of years means bad news.