cant wait to hear this one. Seems like the statement “flubbered and blustered” may not be TRUE,.. but it could be by the atheistic subjective definition of truth; “that which serves my purposes.”

Truth is that which conforms to reality or actuality. – Alex

Only gods and the supernatural don’t exist, so Jesus was wrong.

A fictional character can be wrong. Boromir was wrong in The Lord of the Rings.

What’s your point?

(Alex)

IMHO, Segers and Hvind acquitted themselves well. They know how to play the apologetic debate game and held the upper hand until you started highlighting the absurdity of their claims about fossils, the geological record, etc. My intention is not to criticize – counter-apologetics is not easy, especially when you are tussling with an opponent with some philosophical sophistication like Segers (who reminds me of a folksy Frank Turek). When these guys start talking about truth, you should quickly agree that objective truth exists (i.e. that which correponds to reality) and then concede that ultimate truth is likely beyond our ken. They are the ones making the assertive claim so I would play along with them (i.e. “ok, let’s assume your presupposition is correct”) and then start exposing the contradiction between their theological beliefs and the scientific evidence. The funny thing is that these are the same people who will gladly rely on scientific consensus for medical treatment, structural integrity of buildings and the design of their GPS devices. They single out biological science for extreme skepticism (notice how uncomfortable Segers was when you asked for his cite … you should have asked for a copy of his “notes”) because they understand it totally undercuts their theology. From their perspective it literally can’t be true.

Because, at no time, does it require wishful thinking or an avoidance of the evidence.