MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)

[Esquilax]

If the man starts off with an argument that's so factually inaccurate that it isn't even addressing the topic he's purporting to debunk, what hope do we have that the rest won't follow the same meandering, fallacious path?

First off, I disagree with the notion that what he said was inaccurate. There is this thing in astronomy called "Cosmic Evolution"

http://www.astro.wisc.edu/our-science/re...evolution/

The term "evolution" is not just limited to bio phenomena...so you are the one that is factually inaccurate. But hey, this is Esquilax we are talking about...what else is knew?

Oh, so you want to take the path of sophistry, rather than factual inaccuracy? Okay...

If this is the way you want to go, then I'll just remind you that in that case, Hovind is speaking in irrelevancies, rather than inaccuracies. He's clearly talking about biological evolution, his early slides were almost exclusively biology textbooks, he quotes Dawkins talking about biological evolution- and then purports to respond directly to Dawkins on that point- before leaping directly to astronomy, which again, has nothing to do with the topic he's talking about.

So which is it, H_M? Is he wrong, or Gish Galloping? Neither says anything particularly positive about his argument against evolution, nor about your desperate need to defend him: "No, you don't understand! He wasn't wrong, he'd just immediately spun off on something completely unconnected to the topic at hand moments after starting the meat of his presentation!"

And I'd remind you, the fact that "cosmic evolution" is unconnected with what he was attempting to debunk was my sole point. You called me wrong, while confirming that I was right.