Evidence for God from Science

Can anyone tell me the name of a YEC website similar to this website, that has open forums similar to these? thanks

While it is not expressly related to science, the folks over at http://www.shepherdsfellowship.org/Forums.aspx are YEC. The MO there, as at most forums, seems to be to point you to AiG articles.

I don't know of any expressly YEC science forums, although I'm sure there must be a few.

OK August, Thanks. I'll give that a look.

I have to say, Rick, that I had an extensive search and could not find one explicitly YEC forum. Like August I found a few YEC sites with no forums but many links to AIG articles. I'm surprised that I couldn't find one YEC forum...But there surely must be a few somewhere... I also noticed quite a few sites, mainly secular, ridiculing YEC and I really do find this sort of arrogant posturing unedifying. Whatever my views on YEC's like Ham, who himself is rather arrogant, this sort of ridicule of someone's beliefs still stinks.

Danny, do you mean the secular sites ridiculing YECs. I would expect that from anyone with a secular background. I don't expect that from YECs and OECs who claim to be Christian. I just think if someone is secure in his beliefs, he doesn't have to prove anything. We as Christians should pray to be led By the Holy Spirit, and not try to change peoples' beliefs by our own strength.

RickD wrote:Danny, do you mean the secular sites ridiculing YECs. I would expect that from anyone with a secular background. I don't expect that from YECs and OECs who claim to be Christian. I just think if someone is secure in his beliefs, he doesn't have to prove anything. We as Christians should pray to be led By the Holy Spirit, and not try to change peoples' beliefs by our own strength.

Rick, yes it was mainly secular, with one or two disgraceful Christian exceptions. Listen, I will debate the YEC with fierce passion if need be, but ultimately he is a Christian brother and regardless of his/my doctrine, of say, the meaning of the early "yoms," we are still both Christians and we are both saved; salvation has nothing to do with the interpretation of Genesis 1. Yes I can go over the top in debate at times, but, for me, ridicule is totally uncalled for and TOTALLY unchristian. But of course, we do, sadly, expect this from secularist sources, but this doesn't stop me finding it very sad and a very poor human trait. We can all take a laugh and a joke, but this was just miserable baiting. Just google YEC or YEC/creation science and take a look for yourself...

Danny, I know what you mean. When I started searching and studying this topic online, I did notice a lot of ridicule directed towards some YECs. I actually noticed most was directed towards Hovind. A lot was because of his incarceration and because he got his "degree" online. I think he dug his own grave on that. His knowledge of science seems to be lacking, and the evolutionists and other secular groups saw right through his charade. However sincere someone is regarding his position, people will see right through their lack of knowledge. Remember, Hovind and Ham, are both Christian. Because of that alone, they will get ridiculed. Additional ridicule will come because of their smug, unChristlike attitudes. Look at Hugh Ross as an example of someone who may receive more ridicule from other "Christians" than from secular evolutionists. The way Ross acts in patience and humility is completely different than Hovind and Ham. Do you think it's just a coincidence that they are ridiculed more by non-Christians? Besides, the YEC model just may have a few scientific flaws.

RickD wrote:Danny, I know what you mean. When I started searching and studying this topic online, I did notice a lot of ridicule directed towards some YECs. I actually noticed most was directed towards Hovind. A lot was because of his incarceration and because he got his "degree" online. I think he dug his own grave on that. His knowledge of science seems to be lacking, and the evolutionists and other secular groups saw right through his charade. However sincere someone is regarding his position, people will see right through their lack of knowledge. Remember, Hovind and Ham, are both Christian. Because of that alone, they will get ridiculed. Additional ridicule will come because of their smug, unChristlike attitudes. Look at Hugh Ross as an example of someone who may receive more ridicule from other "Christians" than from secular evolutionists. The way Ross acts in patience and humility is completely different than Hovind and Ham. Do you think it's just a coincidence that they are ridiculed more by non-Christians? Besides, the YEC model just may have a few scientific flaws.

Rick, I must appeal to your knowledge of Hovind regards evolution as from what I have seen he is pretty clued up on the subject and has indeed stumped a few noted evolutionists. Tell me more...

I agree with you about the secularist attitude - in orthodox terms - toward the YEC's, but I also now see a change in the secularists' focus towards OEC. It only had to be a matter of time before this skewed, vocal minority turned their attention from YEC to OEC. Hence we see with "Derrick's" thread that atheism will now appeal to a global flood just to oppose OEC, whereas before, so far as I can recollect, atheism used to absolutely ridicule YEC on the flood...

Danny, If Hovind stumped any evolutionists, I don't think it was because of his science knowledge. I'm saying I've seen evolutionists ridicule him for his scientific beliefs. As opposed to someone like Hugh Ross absolutely destroying Hovind in that debate. Ross was a gentleman; evolutionists that I've seen were not gentleman. I've never seen Hovind debate an evolutionist, but he must have done a better job than against Ross. If you know of any videos or links to a debate between Hovind and an evolutionist, please let me know. I'd like to see for myself. thanks

RickD wrote:Danny, If Hovind stumped any evolutionists, I don't think it was because of his science knowledge. I'm saying I've seen evolutionists ridicule him for his scientific beliefs. As opposed to someone like Hugh Ross absolutely destroying Hovind in that debate. Ross was a gentleman; evolutionists that I've seen were not gentleman. I've never seen Hovind debate an evolutionist, but he must have done a better job than against Ross. If you know of any videos or links to a debate between Hovind and an evolutionist, please let me know. I'd like to see for myself. thanks

Rick, you have to watch this series of Hovind explaing "100 reasons why evolution is stupid!" It's outrageously funny! He's right and he's also wrong, but that's not the point - it's just funny! I'm trying to find a debate Hovind had with an evolutionist in front of a class of students..bear with me. Also, I don't recall Hovind sitting in on the debate with Ross and Kaiser; could you clarify...

Disclaimer: I do not endorse Hovind's views in this series...

DannyM wrote:

RickD wrote:Danny, If Hovind stumped any evolutionists, I don't think it was because of his science knowledge. I'm saying I've seen evolutionists ridicule him for his scientific beliefs. As opposed to someone like Hugh Ross absolutely destroying Hovind in that debate. Ross was a gentleman; evolutionists that I've seen were not gentleman. I've never seen Hovind debate an evolutionist, but he must have done a better job than against Ross. If you know of any videos or links to a debate between Hovind and an evolutionist, please let me know. I'd like to see for myself. thanks

Rick, you have to watch this series of Hovind explaing "100 reasons why evolution is stupid!" It's outrageously funny! He's right and he's also wrong, but that's not the point - it's just funny! I'm trying to find a debate Hovind had with an evolutionist in front of a class of students..bear with me. Also, I don't recall Hovind sitting in on the debate with Ross and Kaiser; could you clarify...

Disclaimer: I do not endorse Hovind's views in this series...

Danny, I've never seen a debate with Hovind vs. Ross and Kaiser. The debate with Hovind I saw was on the Ankerberg show. It was just Ross vs. Hovind. There was another debate I saw on the Ankerberg show. It had Ken Ham and I believe Jason Lisle vs. Ross and someone else who was an expert on Ancient Hebrew. If you know where I could see the funny debate with Hovind I would love to see it. If you go to Youtube, and google videos of Hugh Ross, you'll see the debates on the Ankerberg show.

But that's part of the problem. They "win" debates not on scholarship but on the bully pulpit and on making fun of their opponents. By making their audience laugh at the opponent, they win the audience but not the debate. He also tends to use the audience's fears to his advantage. By using how supposedly detrimental OEC is to the Bible in his debates, he successfully employs many Christians fears about the foundation of scripture.


I may respect their faith, I don't respect his/their tactics.

zoegirl wrote:But that's part of the problem. They "win" debates not on scholarship but on the bully pulpit and on making fun of their opponents. By making their audience laugh at the opponent, they win the audience but not the debate. He also tends to use the audience's fears to his advantage. By using how supposedly detrimental OEC is to the Bible in his debates, he successfully employs many Christians fears about the foundation of scripture.


I may respect their faith, I don't respect his/their tactics.

zoegirl, your comments bring me back to a prior point I had. Hovind has an agenda and or doesn't witness or debate by the leading of the Holy Spirit, only by his own human power.

RickD wrote:

DannyM wrote:

RickD wrote:Danny, If Hovind stumped any evolutionists, I don't think it was because of his science knowledge. I'm saying I've seen evolutionists ridicule him for his scientific beliefs. As opposed to someone like Hugh Ross absolutely destroying Hovind in that debate. Ross was a gentleman; evolutionists that I've seen were not gentleman. I've never seen Hovind debate an evolutionist, but he must have done a better job than against Ross. If you know of any videos or links to a debate between Hovind and an evolutionist, please let me know. I'd like to see for myself. thanks

Rick, you have to watch this series of Hovind explaing "100 reasons why evolution is stupid!" It's outrageously funny! He's right and he's also wrong, but that's not the point - it's just funny! I'm trying to find a debate Hovind had with an evolutionist in front of a class of students..bear with me. Also, I don't recall Hovind sitting in on the debate with Ross and Kaiser; could you clarify...

Disclaimer: I do not endorse Hovind's views in this series...

Danny, I've never seen a debate with Hovind vs. Ross and Kaiser. The debate with Hovind I saw was on the Ankerberg show. It was just Ross vs. Hovind. There was another debate I saw on the Ankerberg show. It had Ken Ham and I believe Jason Lisle vs. Ross and someone else who was an expert on Ancient Hebrew. If you know where I could see the funny debate with Hovind I would love to see it. If you go to Youtube, and google videos of Hugh Ross, you'll see the debates on the Ankerberg show.

I've seen the Ross/Kaiser versus Ham/Lisle debates; my link on the other thread was to these very discussions. Kaiser is the OT/Hebrew expert you are thinking of. What I find funny about Hovind in the link above is the absolute absurdity of it. He's right about certain things, but ruins it with his emphasis on comedy and absurdity.

Here is the debate I was thinking of...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMpk7Wer ... re=related

Again, Hovind has some good points on the faith required for the assumptions of evolution. Make of it what you will...

Danny, I started watching that debate, and listened to the first part of Hovind's opening. A lot of his predictions aren't even predictions. A football prediction would be as follows: The Indianapolis Colts have a great offense that no other team can stop, so I predict they will win the 2010 superbowl. The following is equal to a Hovind prediction: I predict the Indianapolis Colts will win the 2007 superbowl because of their great offense. His predictions aren't even predictions. He states that God created everything in 6 24 hour days. He made that as his point of debate. His predictions should be about what we should see in the future if the 6 24 hour day model is correct. He is debating on the premise that a certain evolution model or models are wrong. He should be debating on the premise of his own 24 hour day model being correct. I have a difficult time listening to his lack of knowledge covered up by his sense of humor. I don't really find him funny because some of his jokes are based on wrong interpretations or beliefs. Just my opinion. Maybe I will try to listen to more when I actually have the patience to listen to him.