Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You might have to watch it on YouTube. I just started watching it, but I got from a good source that Aron Ra eviscerates Kent.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Aron Ra Kent Hovind discussion
- Thread starter Subduction Zone
- Start date
You might have to watch it on YouTube. I just started watching it, but I got from a good source that Aron Ra eviscerates Kent.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
That is something that is not that hard to do...
Unfortunately for the people in his camp, it will be viewed as an attack on their way of life and not an intelligent debunking of their outlandish claims. After all, "the Enemy is always out there, trying to destroy faith."
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
Aron Ra is amazing. Sounds kind of dull, but if I still lived in TX, I would've voted for him.
It was a rout. Hovind was more respectful and polite, but Aron Ra skewered him intellectually.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, and please note, it was a discussion, not a debate. So whenever Kent repeated a lie Aron was free to interrupt. Something he had to do continually. Kent was a sputtering mess by the end. He is too used to repeating his lies without interruption.
Skwim
Veteran Member
I watched as much as I could---not easy listening to Hovind misconstrue just about everything explained to him, and then have to have it reexplained time and again--so I bailed. Not sure if this inability is because of a natural lack of intellect or that it's become an ingrained unconscious response fostered by his absolute need to be right about creationism. Whatever the case, it's like trying to explain negative numbers to a four-year-old. It's fruitless, and the discussion soon turned boring.
.
.
Last edited:
Sapiens
Polymathematician
Hovind is nothing but a sophist who is relying on willfully misconstruing words that have different shades of meaning in the scientific community and the general public. His whole argument about elephants and pine trees requires that you not understand the difference between your line of descent (father, grandfather, great grandfather, etc,) and cousins many times removed who still might share the same last name with you.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I like Aron Ra. He's a bit like Thunderfoot as they are very studious and tend to base commentary/critique backed by research most every time. He's a very interesting guy.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The ever increasing amount of sputtering of Kent Hovind was the only interesting thing by the end. He was so frustrated that he was not allowed to get away with his typical lies.
Buddha Dharma
Dharma Practitioner
Beating Kent is no difficult task. I'm pretty sure an intelligent middle schooler could do it.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Buddha Dharma
Dharma Practitioner
His kind of apologetics are easy to defeat with other philosophical arguments. I know Kent's style of argumentation. I debated Eric once. No joke. Euthyphro's dilemma sweeps the floor with Hovind-style apologetics. As does divine difference argumentation.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
How did it go?
Buddha Dharma
Dharma Practitioner
We ran short on time because Eric kept avoiding. Since presuppositionalism is all he knows- he has no argument once it's been shown flawed.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I find Kent hovind to be extremely entertaining in a sad way.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
That's about the level of science education Kent has, if even, givin his pechant for making up his own type of "science" even that may be a stretch. He's definitely no Dr as much as he likes to be called one. That's for certain.
Buddha Dharma
Dharma Practitioner
Ah @Nowhere Man, but the thing about Kent and Eric is science won't work on them. They'll suggest 'first cause' to seemingly bring the science to their aid.
Their kind of argumentation is philosophical. Only a stronger philosophical argument counteracts such a position as theirs.
Anything you say about science they'll grant. They expect their opponents to go running to science.
Their kind of argumentation is philosophical. Only a stronger philosophical argument counteracts such a position as theirs.
Anything you say about science they'll grant. They expect their opponents to go running to science.