Haven't heard it, Rick. I'll listen to it. But if Alex "clearly won" then how so? Because I can't see it in anything you have said above.RickD wrote:I just finished listening to this podcast between Alex and Sye:http://fundamentally-flawed.com/2011/10 ... /#more-713
Alex clearly won the debate. Not because he was right, but because Sye was wrong. So wrong. If you don't want to listen to the whole hour, listen to the last minute. Especially Alex's last question to Sye. The way Sye answers it is the same unbiblical way that Ham and Hovind account for their YEC worldview. In the 44th minute, Alex asks Sye some questions about how a 6,000 year old earth doesn't match up with what we see in the world around us. This is where Sye admits he's a YEC. And, this is where a belief in YEC shows an unbeliever that "creationists" aren't logical. This is the last question:
Alex to Sye:"You will accept the word of a being that appears to you, and tells you that he's telling the truth without checking? Yes, or no?
Sye's answer:Yes
That is what I'm talking about when I say Dr. Ross would do a better job in this. Sye's answer isn't biblical. The bible says:1Thessalonians 5:21 Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Is this what the "morality" thread is all about, Rick? I'm so confused right now I'm spinningRickD wrote:Well, doesn't this just take the cake!
I replied on Jim and Alex's website, and just got 2 emails, inviting me to their podcast. Alex insulted my faith in the blog, and he wants me to come on their podcast, so I can be verbally insulted, as well. These guys are all about drama. I give them credit for coming up with the podcast though. Is there anyone here that has experience in these kind of live debates?
Yes, Danny. That's one of their posts from the blog.DannyM wrote:Is this what the "morality" thread is all about, Rick? I'm so confused right now I'm spinningRickD wrote:Well, doesn't this just take the cake!
I replied on Jim and Alex's website, and just got 2 emails, inviting me to their podcast. Alex insulted my faith in the blog, and he wants me to come on their podcast, so I can be verbally insulted, as well. These guys are all about drama. I give them credit for coming up with the podcast though. Is there anyone here that has experience in these kind of live debates?
And what do you think would have happened if they’d said they were OEC and explained the Bible does not call for a young earth? Do you think the atheists would suddenly be open to God?RickD wrote:Danny, I agree if we are looking for a winner, Dustin, would be my choice. But, knowing what I know about unbelievers and how they feel about YEC, this was a missed opportunity, IMO.
Rick, so what? OEC vs. YEC is private and between Christians. I think it is rather nice seeing both camps unite in their apologetic of exposing the absurdity of naturalism.Up until this interview, I hadn't heard of Dustin nor Sye. But, I bet if we checked, they hold to a YEC belief.
Which is exactly why they were held to account for this. Rick, I know we all love the battle of evidential apologetics, but when the atheist can be cut from the ground he walks, then why not exploit that?Although you and I know Alex and Jim couldn't answer the "truth" question, they answered it as well as anyone could have coming from their view.(it's impossible to answer from an atheistic worldview)
Danny, I'm noticing a Mindset that YECs Hovind, Ham, and now Sye, have when debating. Their belief in YEC, dispite the natural evidence to the contrary, forces them to hold to a "God said it, I believe it, that settles it", kind of mentality. That attitude bleeds over to other parts of their debating. We need to understand 1Corinthians 2:14. Atheists do not understand the spiritual basis for anything, because they aren't reasoning in the spirit. They can only appeal to their senses, and experience of the world around them. Since atheists only are able to appeal to the "natural" and logical, not spiritual, spiritual arguments don't have any validity, in their minds. So, when a YECr says that they believe in a 6,000 year old earth, because "the bible says so", the athiest correctly sees right through that, because it's not logical. No matter how many times Sye says, "how do you know that, Jim", or "how do you know that, Alex", it doesn't make any sense to them, because they are spiritually discerned. And it makes Sye sound like an annoying broken record.And what do you think would have happened if they’d said they were OEC and explained the Bible does not call for a young earth? Do you think the atheists would suddenly be open to God?
Danny, I don't know if you mean it this way, but this kinda sounds like an 'us against them' mentality. I don't look at it that way. I know that without the Holy Spirit in me, my thinking, would be completely different. I'm called to love my neighbor. That means unbelieving neighbors as well. Matthew 22:36-40 says to first love God, and then love your neighbor. Many atheists hate God, because all they know of God is self-righteous Christians, Churches with pastors that manipulate people for power and money, and church leaders that rape children and cover it up. We need to be a witness to unbelievers to who the real God is. Not the only god they know from their experience. Christians are supposed to have a real love for all people, not a love for feeling sanctimonious, by proving unbelievers wrong. Where us the love in that?Which is exactly why they were held to account for this. Rick, I know we all love the battle of evidential apologetics, but when the atheist can be cut from the ground he walks, then why not exploit that?
I don't disagree. My point is about a certain mind set that certain YECs have. Namely, Kent Hovind, and Ken Ham, and Jason Lisle. I'm not equating all YECs with them. It just happens to be, that Hovind, Ham, and Lisle, are 3 of the most well known YECs.Well, I think the whole YEC or OEC discussion is rather arbitrary to Gospel and truth
Absolutely. That's why the age of the earth is often spoken of as a non-essential, of the Christian faith.Measurements like time in the ancient world is a rather strange. I think however its important to note that the bible states "In the beginning" and not "In the beginning X years ago
Gee, I wonder why not many people wanted to listen to them?They were very advanced in mathematics and well ahead of everyone else but not many people wanted to listen to them.
I honestly don't know, domo. I've listened to more of their podcasts, and I'm trying to get a feel for what they're all about.By the way, Rick. Are you going to take those guys up for discussion? I would love to join you in discussion with them. Live discussions are actually far easier then going back and forth in writing, imo. I usually take 2 sheets of paper and write "Philosophy" on 1, then "Science" on the other and map the discussion out as we go along. Usually that helps in immediately knowing if yourself or anyone else can answer a question.
Rick, let's please refrain from these broad generalization attacks on YEC. People who believe in YEC, aren't "forced" into this position. It seems as if you are being just as dogmatic as you accuse them of being. In essence saying, that they can't be logical apologist because they hold the YEC position. Atheists could make similar statements. ......Despite the natural evidence that men don't rise from the dead after being buried for three days. That water doesn't turn into wine. Etc. Evidence always is subject to interpretation. YECers do have interpretations that explain and support a young earth. It seems like there is a snobbery from many in OEC that says, "look, we line up with the secular evidence (interpretations). We're better."Their belief in YEC, dispite the natural evidence to the contrary, forces them to hold to a "God said it, I believe it, that settles it", kind of mentality.
Nor is it logical for a man to resurrect. Are virgin births logical? What about any miracle? I'm not saying you don't have valid reasons for disagreement with Hamm and others. But to reduce Lilse and Hamms positions down to this is wholly unfair. Have you ever heard Lilse's presentation on presuppositional apologetics or on logic?So, when a YECr says that they believe in a 6,000 year old earth, because "the bible says so", the athiest correctly sees right through that, because it's not logical.
Are you saying that a YECr is precluded from doing such?We need to be a witness to unbelievers to who the real God is. Not the only god they know from their experience.
Jlay, you're reading far too much into what I'm actually saying. When I say 'their belief in YEC', I only mean specifically Sye, Ham, Hovind, Lisle. Not other YECs who don't hold to YEC as an essential of Christianity, as they do.Rick, let's please refrain from these broad generalization attacks on YEC. People who believe in YEC, aren't "forced" into this position.
If I believed all people who hold to YEC, then I would be dogmatic. It's just a specific kind of YEC belief I'm referring to.It seems as if you are being just as dogmatic as you accuse them of being.
Wrong again. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying anyone that says, like Sye said in the podcast, that the bible says the earth is 6,000 years old, so since the bible says it, I believe it, and that's all I need. That's what I'm saying. You and I both know the bible doesn't give an age of the earth. Sye said it did.that they can't be logical apologist because they hold the YEC position.
Now we're talking about spiritual things. I already said that the unbeliever can't understand spiritual things, jlay. The evidence of the age of the earth is not a spiritual thing. It is physical evidence in the world around us..Despite the natural evidence that men don't rise from the dead after being buried for three days.
maybe some OECs do feel that way,. I haven't met any.YECers do have interpretations that explain and support a young earth. It seems like there is a snobbery from many in OEC that says, "look, we line up with the secular evidence. We're better."
Again, jlay. I'm separating the spiritual from the physical. I already told you why I believe there is a distinction.So, when a YECr says that they believe in a 6,000 year old earth, because "the bible says so", the athiest correctly sees right through that, because it's not logical.
Nor is it logical for a man to resurrect. Are virgin births logical? What about any miracle? I'm not saying you don't have valid reasons for disagreement with Hamm and others. But to reduce Lilse and Hamms positions down to this is wholly unfair. Have you ever heard Lilse's presentation on presuppositional apologetics or on logic?
Jlay, everything I said to them is on their blog on their website. I didn't reply to their emails to me. When one posts on their blog, you need to enter an email address. There was a problem with the system they use for their blog. They were corresponding via email to each other. They sent an email to me, where they were telling each other that they think I should be on their podcast.I'd also like to see, verbatim, the email you sent these other two, and their response.
no, jlay. I'll repeat it again. Only specific YECs with a specific "the bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" kind of mentality.Are you saying that a YECr is precluded from doing such?
Are you saying that Ham and Lisle hold YEC belief as necessary for salvation? Because I've read and heard on multiple occassions that they do not. That doesn't mean they endorse OEC. That doesn't mean they don't argue against OEC. That doesn't mean they don't point out their beliefs where they perceive OEC as undermining the foundations of faith. They most certainly do. But I can assure you, I've probably read more from AIG than most here, and I consistently have heard them say, that YEC is NOT necessary to be saved. Nor is OEC prohibitive.When I say 'their belief in YEC', I only mean specifically Sye, Ham, Hovind, Lisle. Not other YECs who don't hold to YEC as an essential of Christianity, as they do.
That is a fair criticism. But again, for many, the bible does seem to give an age. It is interpretive. The same thing you are doing when you state, "obvious, ancient," when referring to the age of the earth. I haven't heard Sye say that, so I'm relying on your quote.I'm saying anyone that says, like Sye said in the podcast, that the bible says the earth is 6,000 years old, so since the bible says it, I believe it, and that's all I need. That's what I'm saying. You and I both know the bible doesn't give an age of the earth. Sye said it did.
Maybe this is where we disagree. There is nothing you can pick up or look at that says, "made in 2 million BC." it seems your starting point is bathed in reification. Plus, the unbeliever, as you say (and I agree) can not discern spiritual things. There is NO difference to the unbeliever. They are all intellectual, physical issues.The evidence of the age of the earth is not a spiritual thing. It is physical evidence in the world around us.
You see it as spiritual. The non-beleiver certainly doesn't.Again, jlay. I'm separating the spiritual from the physical. I already told you why I believe there is a distinction.
Begs the question.They can see the obvious physical evidence of an ancient earth.