The following discussion is from the comments section to the video Dr Kent Hovind – Comments On Comments Q&A.
A certain John Kennedy commented:
About as controversial as an episode of Tom and Jerry. Same old regurgitated stuff.
I, Ken Ammi, commented:
John Kennedy Your hidden assumption is that it must be new, but why? You seem to have made what I term an argumentum ad chronologicum.
Daughter of Yith commented:
Ken Ammi No, it should be updated when Hovind’s been corrected. And he has, time and time again, yet he ignores all that and just goes off the same old script.
John Kennedy:
Ken Ammi No he suggested it was going to be controversial at the start and no never heard of that second thing
Ken Ammi:
Daughter of Yith I see. Well, now tour hidden assumption is that “it should be updated when Hovind’s been corrected,” etc. but why on your worldview?
Ken Ammi:
John Kennedy So it was controversial that it was the same old regurgitated stuff ;o) I coined the term “argumentum ad chronologicum” since I thought you implied that he should be presenting something new rather than the same old regurgitated stuff.
Daughter of Yith:
Ken Ammi If he’s been corrected, then he should update it. The “corrected” part implies the new information is correct. It doesn’t matter if it’s my “worldview” or not (by the way, evolution isn’t a worldview). If it’s correct then it’s correct.
John Kennedy:
Ken Ammi Nice, that you coined the term – but No, it wasn’t the least bit controversial – doesn’t the word ‘regurgitate’ imply it’s old anyway?
Ken Ammi:
Daughter of Yith But that “If he’s been corrected, then he should update it” is an assertion based on hidden assumptions so since I don’t accept your authority I will ask: why? And I don’t mean why as per your emotively subjective assertions but on your worldview. Actually, for some people (Atheistic) evolution has become their worldview.
Ken Ammi:
John Kennedy Let’s bottom line this: if you are an Atheist then on your view truth is accidental, as is our ability to discern it, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it, nor to demand/expect others to adhere to it. Since that’s the bed you made, you should sleep in it rather than abandoning your views just to argue (not that being consistent is a universal imperative on Atheism).
John Kennedy:
Ken Ammi Edit: Pointing out this is old is not restricted from Christians which is a small criticism compared etc. …
Ken Ammi:
John Kennedy Sorry friend, I can’t understand what you mean by “is not restricted from Christians” but you seem to be wanting to back us up to the beginning of the discussion but we are up the bottom line point that “if you are an Atheist then on your view truth is accidental, as is our ability to discern it, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it, nor to demand/expect others to adhere to it. Since that’s the bed you made, you should sleep in it rather than abandoning your views just to argue (not that being consistent is a universal imperative on Atheism).”
John Kennedy:
Ken Ammi yeah whatever friend!
Ken Ammi:
Friend, I’ve seen it 1,001 times: the second an Atheist even imagines facing the implications of their worldview, they run away.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, add a few more to the 1,001 count since that ended the discussion.
For more details, see my relevant books.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.