Evidence for God from Science

Hey everyone. I'm a Christian who has been getting in more debates with other Christians lately than atheists. I recently realized after studying the language used in the Hebrew Bible that the Earth does not have to be young for The Bible to be true. The Bible not only is silent on the age of the universe, but the language is so broad that you can actually derive several valid interpretations from the Creation story. I live in Pensacola, FL and am friends with Eric Hovind. I have not told him about my conversion to progressive Creationism yet, but I already have other YECers getting on my back about it. I was wondering if anyone has any tips on how to show them(with kindness) that the Earth does not have to be young for The Bible to be true.

My second, and most serious question is about classical apologetics. I'm friends with a gentleman named Sye Ten Bruggencate who is the owner of proofthatgodexists.org. I find his website to be very interesting and he does a very good job with presuppositional apologetics. I had the opportunity to argue alongside him against 2 atheists. He did his persuppositional apologetics and I gave and defended the five contentions that William Lane Craig normally uses. The Contigency Argument, Kalam Cosmological Argument, Objective Morality Argument, Teleological Argument, and Ontological Argument.

The debate went great. The atheist who I debated was stumbling over his own arguments by the time he made it to his 2nd rebuttal.(He and his atheist friend suddenly stopped replying to me.) Sye's debate is actually still going on. He messaged me last night saying that my form of apologetics was unbiblical and that presuppositional apologetics are the only biblical way to defend the faith. He gave me a few Bible verses that I believe speak of the reasons that people believe in God, but supress the truth. But I do not think that this negates the need for classical(or evidential) apologetics. There are instances in The Bible where the disciples tell others about seeing Jesus. I do think that evidence does have it's place.

I was wondering what all of you thought on these subjects and what you would say to people in the two situations above. Thanks. I am sorry this is so vague but I don't have a lot of time on my hands.

Spectre, I am a big believer in presuppositional apologetics, and use that almost exclusively when debating. However, I think it is reaching a bit to say that classical apologetics is unbiblical. In certain instances I have found it useful, especially as a starting point.

In the end it is about God being glorified, and when we give the reasons for our faith, whether presuppositional, classical or evidential, if we glorify God, then His will is done. Ultimately we don't know what kind of image, message or apologetic He will use to change people's lives.

Welcome to the board Spectre.

I live in Pensacola, FL and am friends with Eric Hovind. I have not told him about my conversion to progressive Creationism yet, but I already have other YECers getting on my back about it. I was wondering if anyone has any tips on how to show them(with kindness) that the Earth does not have to be young for The Bible to be true.

I think Hugh Ross is a great example of how to respond to people that don't agree with OEC. If you watch some of his debates, he is respectful, and very patient with those that vehemently disagree with him. Ross keeps his cool even when people are calling him a heretic.
I'd love to hear what happens when you talk to Eric Hovind. I've seen him in videos before, and he acts just like his dad in many ways. I honestly don't think anything you could say to Eric would change his stance. Doesn't he have a huge financial stake in YEC?

I believe the best way to talk to anyone, including YECs, is to be as knowledgable about both sides of the
argument. Just ask God to give you the patience and wisdom in whatever situation you're in.
If you do talk to Eric, please let us know what happens.

August wrote:Spectre, I am a big believer in presuppositional apologetics, and use that almost exclusively when debating. However, I think it is reaching a bit to say that classical apologetics is unbiblical. In certain instances I have found it useful, especially as a starting point.

In the end it is about God being glorified, and when we give the reasons for our faith, whether presuppositional, classical or evidential, if we glorify God, then His will is done. Ultimately we don't know what kind of image, message or apologetic He will use to change people's lives.

This is what i told Sye, I even showed him passages in The Bible that shows that classical apologetics are not unbiblical but he won't have it. To be honest I made my starting post from a point of complete ignorance so I could get the most specific answers possible to these two situations. I just wanted to see how much in line everyone's thoughts were with mine and it appears that the two posts here agree with me so far.

RickD wrote:Welcome to the board Spectre.

I live in Pensacola, FL and am friends with Eric Hovind. I have not told him about my conversion to progressive Creationism yet, but I already have other YECers getting on my back about it. I was wondering if anyone has any tips on how to show them(with kindness) that the Earth does not have to be young for The Bible to be true.

I think Hugh Ross is a great example of how to respond to people that don't agree with OEC. If you watch some of his debates, he is respectful, and very patient with those that vehemently disagree with him. Ross keeps his cool even when people are calling him a heretic.
I'd love to hear what happens when you talk to Eric Hovind. I've seen him in videos before, and he acts just like his dad in many ways. I honestly don't think anything you could say to Eric would change his stance. Doesn't he have a huge financial stake in YEC?

I believe the best way to talk to anyone, including YECs, is to be as knowledgable about both sides of the
argument. Just ask God to give you the patience and wisdom in whatever situation you're in.
If you do talk to Eric, please let us know what happens.

I have watched his debate with Kent Hovind and Ken Ham. He did very well in both. I am very good friends with Kent(I played on his playground in dinosaur adventurer land all the time when I was little)and back when he did that debate I was a YEC. Even though he is a YEC Kent is still also someone who I look forward to. The thing that you have to understand about Eric though is that Eric was raised with the fear of God put in him by his Dad. His Dad has always been very strict on him, Eric seems to be slightly robotic in some ways, even when he is just doing something as simple as talking to his child. I think it is because of the way he was raised. All in all though he is a good guy who genuinely believes that he has the correct revelation of scripture. He admittedly doesn't know very much about creationism compared to his Dad, Eric errs on the more philosophical side of things and tends to favor presuppositional aplogetics over classical apologetics. That is why he recently hired Paul Taylor to take care of the classical side of things.

I do have respect for their ministry, they are very nice people but I disrespectfully disagree with them and believe that the universe doesn't have to be young for The Bible to be true. I did kind of want to work for his ministry when I was a Young Earth Creationist. I wrote a great article on The Big Bang but it seems that Eric never read it even though he asked me out to lunch and to see a copy of it. It isn't anything I hold personally against him, but still, don't ask me for a paper if you aren't even going to read it. What made me cross the line to old earth creationism was the reading of Hebrew scripture which appears to make a stronger case for an older universe.

The only two debate videos of Hugh Ross that I know of are Kent Hovind and Ken Ham. I also listened to a radio debate between him and Jason Lisle(I was disappointed in Lisle's performance. Sometimes I don't think that Lisle really believes that the universe is young. Are there any other videos of Ross debating?

The only two debate videos of Hugh Ross that I know of are Kent Hovind and Ken Ham. I also listened to a radio debate between him and Jason Lisle(I was disappointed in Lisle's performance. Sometimes I don't think that Lisle really believes that the universe is young. Are there any other videos of Ross debating?

Other than some debates with athiests on YouTube, those are the debates I saw as well. I really can't understand how any astrophysicist can honestly see the universe as young. Ironically, Kent Hovind, especially in his debate with Ross, is a major reason why I no longer hold to a YEC worldview. He's probably the nicest of men to his friends, but after seeing the way he talked down to Hugh Ross, it really showed his true attitude towards those that disagree with him.

What are some links to him debating atheists? I have yet to find any but I'd love to watch the videos to see how he approaches it.

Spectre wrote:What are some links to him debating atheists? I have yet to find any but I'd love to watch the videos to see how he approaches it.

Sorry, Spectre. I can't find any of the debates with athiests. I even searched YouTube. I just don't remember where I saw them. Maybe reasons.org has links to them?

What made me cross the line to old earth creationism was the reading of Hebrew scripture which appears to make a stronger case for an older universe.

That's interesting, because the reason I started studying OEC, was because I heard a rabbi on the radio, talking about how yom has many literal meanings, and doesn't have to mean 24 hours.

. I wrote a great article on The Big Bang

I'd love to read your article. Post it up if you want.

The only "biblical" apologetics are the ones in the bible, beyond that we have the classical works of guys like Origen, Ireneous, Martyr, Augustine of course and many others.
You will notice that the "only" thing consistent in any of theirs is God and Christ and the power of the HS, beyond that they all tackle the issues in their own particular way, They, like any good apologist, aim their arguments to specific people(s) and specific arguments.
Augustine, for example, warned against the literal and concrete interpretation of Genesis.
Origen had issues with people celebrating special days ( Bdays, festivals, etc) and castrated himself ( I think it was Origen that did that)...
I believe it was Ireneaus or was it Ignatius> believed that bishops had virtually supreme authority ( having been raised by one, we can understand why).
And so on and so forth.
Apologetics is a HUGE field and even now we have the likes of Habermas, Craig, McGrath, Wright and so many others, all very different in their apologetics but all doing it for the glory of God and Christ.

Welcome, Spectre!

Spectre wrote:Hey everyone. I'm a Christian who has been getting in more debates with other Christians lately than atheists. I recently realized after studying the language used in the Hebrew Bible that the Earth does not have to be young for The Bible to be true. The Bible not only is silent on the age of the universe, but the language is so broad that you can actually derive several valid interpretations from the Creation story. I live in Pensacola, FL and am friends with Eric Hovind. I have not told him about my conversion to progressive Creationism yet, but I already have other YECers getting on my back about it. I was wondering if anyone has any tips on how to show them(with kindness) that the Earth does not have to be young for The Bible to be true.

My second, and most serious question is about classical apologetics. I'm friends with a gentleman named Sye Ten Bruggencate who is the owner of proofthatgodexists.org. I find his website to be very interesting and he does a very good job with presuppositional apologetics. I had the opportunity to argue alongside him against 2 atheists. He did his persuppositional apologetics and I gave and defended the five contentions that William Lane Craig normally uses. The Contigency Argument, Kalam Cosmological Argument, Objective Morality Argument, Teleological Argument, and Ontological Argument.

The debate went great. The atheist who I debated was stumbling over his own arguments by the time he made it to his 2nd rebuttal.(He and his atheist friend suddenly stopped replying to me.) Sye's debate is actually still going on. He messaged me last night saying that my form of apologetics was unbiblical and that presuppositional apologetics are the only biblical way to defend the faith. He gave me a few Bible verses that I believe speak of the reasons that people believe in God, but supress the truth. But I do not think that this negates the need for classical(or evidential) apologetics. There are instances in The Bible where the disciples tell others about seeing Jesus. I do think that evidence does have it's place.

I was wondering what all of you thought on these subjects and what you would say to people in the two situations above. Thanks. I am sorry this is so vague but I don't have a lot of time on my hands.

I've spoken with Sye before over at Premier. He is usually pretty good, and he is right insofar as it is dishonest to cede a level playing field to the unbeliever.

1 Corinthians 9:20-23 states, "To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."

1 Corinthians 15:12-19 states, "But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied."

Paul did not try to win people to Christ by starting with the assumption that his view was correct. He used whatever arguments were most likely to reach his audience. He did not even assume the Resurrection when talking to people, just told them what it would mean if the dead were not raised. If two people have presuppositions that they are not willing to examine, they will never have a viable conversation. I find that the best way for me to soften the ground for the work of the Spirit is to assume that the presuppositions that the person I am speaking with are correct... and showing him how even given these beliefs, God is the most likely answer.