Evidence for God from Science

is the golden rule right? "of course it is"

I wonder how many atheists actually believe that. There is no WRONG in the species not continuing, it's simply beneficial for society to exist for us. Is that a goal we ought to have? In atheism, you cannot account for the ought so the point of the goal doesn't go very far as to morality.

Good podcast, at any point.

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.

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?

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.

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: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?

Is this what the "morality" thread is all about, Rick? I'm so confused right now I'm spinning

DannyM wrote:

RickD 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?

Is this what the "morality" thread is all about, Rick? I'm so confused right now I'm spinning

Yes, Danny. That's one of their posts from the blog.

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.

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?

Up until this interview, I hadn't heard of Dustin nor Sye. But, I bet if we checked, they hold to a YEC belief.

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.

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)

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?

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'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.

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?

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?

Well, I think the whole YEC or OEC discussion is rather arbitrary to Gospel and truth.

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"

It was highly debated with every western philosopher if there even was a beginning until Einstein proved it scientifically to bring closure to the question. However, a philosopher answered the question correctly about 1000 years ago. Al-Ghazali was actually the original champion of the question. Interesting thing though was that it was controversial and he was as you may know a Muslim. Lots of credit should be awarded to our middle eastern friends for discovering that quantitive infinity does not exist. They were very advanced in mathematics and well ahead of everyone else but not many people wanted to listen to them.

If the western thinkers would have listened to them, we would have more people convinced and well established in dualism world view.

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.

Well, I think the whole YEC or OEC discussion is rather arbitrary to Gospel and truth

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.

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

Absolutely. That's why the age of the earth is often spoken of as a non-essential, of the Christian faith.

They were very advanced in mathematics and well ahead of everyone else but not many people wanted to listen to them.

Gee, I wonder why not many people wanted to listen to them?

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.

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.
I noticed that the group that does the podcast, has some very glaring misconceptions about basic Christian theology. One in particular, was when the Trinity was brought up. They have no understanding of the basics of what the trinity is. This, and other misconceptions, lead me to think, they are battling a "straw man" god. A god they perceive. They also have a difficult time with what they believe are major inconsistencies between the God of the Old Testament, as they perceive Him, and the God that Christians claim to worship. I honestly don't see anyone debating them right now, will do any good. They seem to have built up a "wall of protection" around them, that needs to be addressed. As I said before, they don't, and can't understand the things of the spirit. IMO, it is fruitless to go down that path with them right now. Christians bashing them over the head with bible verses, and spiritual arguments, just frustrate them, and help build their wall even higher.

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.

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."

Being candid, it seems like you are on a witch hunt.

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?

I'd also like to see, verbatim, the email you sent these other two, and their response.

We need to be a witness to unbelievers to who the real God is. Not the only god they know from their experience.

Are you saying that a YECr is precluded from doing such?

Rick, let's please refrain from these broad generalization attacks on YEC. People who believe in YEC, aren't "forced" into this position.

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.

It seems as if you are being just as dogmatic as you accuse them of being.

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.

that they can't be logical apologist because they hold the YEC position.

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.

.Despite the natural evidence that men don't rise from the dead after being buried for three days.

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.

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."

maybe some OECs do feel that way,. I haven't met any.

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?

Again, jlay. I'm separating the spiritual from the physical. I already told you why I believe there is a distinction.

I'd also like to see, verbatim, the email you sent these other two, and their response.

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.

Are you saying that a YECr is precluded from doing such?

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.
Jlay, Before you misrepresent what I'm saying any further, I suggest you reread my posts in this thread, and put them all in context. I think you'll see what I'm saying, and I wouldn't have to be defending something I never said.

Guys, since I came to this site about 2 years ago, and I've learned more about YEC and OEC, the one main objection I've heard about YEC, is that YEC hinders the unbeliever from coming to a relationship with God, through Christ. In the church, among believers, it isn't really an issue. One can be saved, whether OEC or YEC. The issue comes into play, when witnessing to intelligent, logical unbelievers. They can see the obvious physical evidence of an ancient earth. Then, when a Christian tries to tell them that the earth is only 6,000 years old, because the bible says so, the unbeliever, in his mind, has to make a choice at that moment. He has to choose between what logic and his senses tell him(ancient earth), and what Christians say the bible says(young earth). What choice do you think an unbeliever who can't understand the spiritual, will almost always make?

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.

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.

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 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.

The evidence of the age of the earth is not a spiritual thing. It is physical evidence in the world around us.

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.

Again, jlay. I'm separating the spiritual from the physical. I already told you why I believe there is a distinction.

You see it as spiritual. The non-beleiver certainly doesn't.

They can see the obvious physical evidence of an ancient earth.

Begs the question.