Evidence for God from Science

... two British atheists.

http://fundamentally-flawed.com/pods/?p ... andsye.mp3

download the podcast; well worth it.

This one has to hurt

Danny, I just finished listening to the debate. There is one main thing I'm left with at the end, And it's troubling. Jim and Alex are thinking people, who believe the evidence points to an ancient universe and earth. They believe in evolution. Exactly what kind of evolution, I'm not positive. Jim and Alex have come to the conclusion that there is overwhelming evidence of an ancient earth. They seem to be completely closed to listening to Christians who believe in a young earth. I got the impression that they think, that if someone believes the bible teaches a young age of the earth, then the bible cannot be trusted on anything else it says. This is really troubling, IMO.
I know some people here would say that Dustin and Sye won the debate, because Alex and Jim babbled incoherently when asked to define truth. I see Alex and Jim's error in that. However, I see a bigger error in Dustin and Sye's defense of YEC.
That's just the impression I was left with after listening to the ENTIRE podcast.
I would love to see Hugh Ross debate Alex and Jim. I think Hugh Ross would better be able to open communication with them.

RickD wrote:Danny, I just finished listening to the debate. There is one main thing I'm left with at the end, And it's troubling. Jim and Alex are thinking people, who believe the evidence points to an ancient universe and earth. They believe in evolution. Exactly what kind of evolution, I'm not positive. Jim and Alex have come to the conclusion that there is overwhelming evidence of an ancient earth. They seem to be completely closed to listening to Christians who believe in a young earth. I got the impression that they think, that if someone believes the bible teaches a young age of the earth, then the bible cannot be trusted on anything else it says. This is really troubling, IMO.
I know some people here would say that Dustin and Sye won the debate, because Alex and Jim babbled incoherently when asked to define truth. I see Alex and Jim's error in that. However, I see a bigger error in Dustin and Sye's defense of YEC.
That's just the impression I was left with after listening to the ENTIRE podcast.
I would love to see Hugh Ross debate Alex and Jim. I think Hugh Ross would better be able to open communication with them.

Rick, I didn't see a problem with that. I saw no attempted defence of YEC. Jim was in immediate error by saying the Bible claims the earth is 6000 years old. Sye and Dustin did not even see fit to correct this error, since they were unwilling to discuss the Bible with Jim and Alex until they answered for their own presuppositions about evidence and knowledge. The point, as I saw it, was to repeatedly show the absurdity of the atheists' position. This was emphatically achieved throughout the debate. Dustin would have won the debate on his own he was that impressive; Sye was his usual stubborn and impatient self, not wanting to allow the atheists to keep avoiding questions with immediate questions of their own!

The point is that Jim and Alex had no right to swerve the critical examination of their core assumptions while simultaneously demanding evidence for some thing or other. We could call it the bypass fallacy, since at every single turn they chose to bypass the fundamentals and continue on the road to destruction. I couldn’t even tell you if Sye believes in a young earth, and the YEC point was brought up by the atheists out of leftfield while they had questions put forward to them that remained hanging over them, unanswered.

Note: they claimed to have answered Sye’s questions, yet failed to understand the unsatisfactory nature of their ‘answers.’

Hugh Ross might well have been more open to communication with them, and in my opinion that would be his mistake. Thankfully Sye and Dustin don’t take such a route.

Rick, I didn't see a problem with that. I saw no attempted defence of YEC. Jim was in immediate error by saying the Bible claims the earth is 6000 years old. Sye and Dustin did not even see fit to correct this error, since they were unwilling to discuss the Bible with Jim and Alex until they answered for their own presuppositions about evidence and knowledge. The point, as I saw it, was to repeatedly show the absurdity of the atheists' position. This was emphatically achieved throughout the debate. Dustin would have won the debate on his own he was that impressive;

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.

I couldn’t even tell you if Sye believes in a young earth, and the YEC point was brought up by the atheists out of leftfield while they had questions put forward to them that remained hanging over them, unanswered.

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

Hugh Ross might well have been more open to communication with them, and in my opinion that would be his mistake. Thankfully Sye and Dustin don’t take such a route.

Here's where you and I disagree. I believe any opportunity for a better line of communication between Christians, and unbelievers is a good thing. Maybe Jim and Alex would have been more open to Ross' message, because Ross isn't saddled with an unbelievable YEC worldview.

I think that could have been held waaaaaay better then it was.

I admit, I laughed a lot when I heard the biggest silence in a podcast when asked, what is truth?

However, they should have explained what truth is. Just because you don't acknowledge God and that he is the basis of knowledge doesn't mean you can't find truth statements.

However these guys are dead on modern day Hume's and I can understand the frustration, but that world view isn't hard to refute when you keep hitting hard on knowledge claims and skepticism. You MUST speak in absolutes in order to have knowledge claims to examine. If none are made, you get this non sense

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

Heaven forbid.

Rick, I know you have your reasons for rejecting YEC. And I know there are some folks in the YEC camp that you loath, and with good reasons. However, one should never codemn a position for the reasons you state. Essentially you are saying that OEC better fits the atheists assumptions about the world, and thus that is the only reasonable position to meet an atheist or address their objections.

because Ross isn't saddled with an unbelievable YEC worldview

Certainly there are plenty of intelligent people who hold to a YEC worldview.

Does OEC better comply with Atheists? Sure, but there are several core non-negotiables of the Christian faith that conflict with the atheist's worldview that have nothing to do with the age of the earth. People rising from the dead, miracles, afterlife, etc, etc. Imagine if someone said to Jesus, "the Saducess rejection of an afterlife better fits......., therefore you should take their position when speaking to Israel." There may be valid reasons for holding an OEC position. However, conforming to the wisdom of the world is NOT the reason. I think one error in modern apologetics is that man's biggest delima in accepting Christianity is the issue of the age of the earth.

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


Heaven forbid.

Rick, I know you have your reasons for rejecting YEC. And I know there are some folks in the YEC camp that you loath, and with good reasons. However, one should never codemn a position for the reasons you state. Essentially you are saying that OEC better fits the atheists assumptions about the world, and thus that is the only reasonable position to meet an atheist or address their objections.

Jlay, I'm referring to their yec views only in how it reflects upon their interaction in this podcast. What I was trying to say to Danny, was that a common theme I've been hearing about is that atheists aren't open to discussions with people who hold to a 6,000 year old earth. In their minds, if a Christian claims the bible says the earth is 6,000 years old, then the bible is wrong. Every other claim the bible makes, is now suspect, because it is wrong about a young earth. Now, you and I know the bible doesn't give any age for the earth. But, atheists only go by what they hear Christians say, because, I would guess most atheists don't read the bible for themselves. As I've said before, I don't have a problem with Christians believing in a young earth, until those Christians claim it's the only valid interpretation, and witness to unbelievers with that belief.
I'm not saying that OEC is the only reasonable position to meet an athiest or address their objections. Jlay, I've been on this board long enough for you to realize that's not what I believe. My point was that if an atheist knows something is wrong in his mind(belief in a 6,000 year old earth), then they hear a Christian defend YEC as the only valid biblical interpretation, then the athiest can't get past that, in order to be open about the rest of scripture.

because Ross isn't saddled with an unbelievable YEC worldview


Certainly there are plenty of intelligent people who hold to a YEC worldview.

Jlay, I looked at how I wrote :"because Ross isn't saddled with an unbelievable YEC worldview", and it didn't come out the way I meant it to. What I meant was that the YEC worldview is unbelievable to the atheists. So they see associate YEC with Christians and the bible, shutting off further dialogue in many cases, because the atheist can't get past YEC equaling the bible. Of course there are intelligent people who hold to a YEC worldview. There are also many intelligent atheists who may be open to the gospel, if it weren't for Christians who are dogmatic about things that are non-essentials to Christianity.

There may be valid reasons for holding an OEC position. However, conforming to the wisdom of the world is NOT the reason.

I agree, and you know me well enough to know that jlay. The "wisdom of the world" promotes Naturalistic Evolution. You and I both know that the type of OEC that I believe, is not Naturalistic Evolution. Both naturalistic evolutionists, and progressive creationists interpret scientific evidence as showing an ancient earth. That doesn't mean that progressive creationists conform to the wisdom of the world. I know you know that old earth/progressive creationism does not equal naturalistic evolution.
My biggest concern with a dogmatic young earth belief is that it leaves many intelligent unbelievers in a position to choose between what nature tells them, and what they believe the bible tells them. Dogmatic YEC, shuts off many unbelievers from being receptive to the gospel.

I think that could have been held waaaaaay better then it was.

I think that was just because of the nature of Alex and Jim. They just seem to be two regular guys who discuss things in a casual, informal manner, to appeal to a certain audience.

I admit, I laughed a lot when I heard the biggest silence in a podcast when asked, what is truth?

My son was looking at me funny, because I was laughing so much. I'm convinced that there is absolutely no basis for atheists to believe in anything absolute, while holding to an atheistic worldview.

However, they should have explained what truth is. Just because you don't acknowledge God and that he is the basis of knowledge doesn't mean you can't find truth statements

I believe it isn't possible to explain truth, without acknowledging an absolute truth giver. Even if one doesn't acknowledge God while making truth statements, that doesn't mean one isn't using God's truth. That kinda reminds me of the joke where the atheist scientist thinks he found a way to create something without God. The scientist takes some dirt, and creates life. He then brags to God, about how he didn't need God to create. Then God tells him to get his own dirt. The scientist didn't see that God created the dirt, just like the atheist who uses truth, doesn't see that it's God's truth.

Dogmatic YEC, shuts off many unbelievers from being receptive to the gospel.

Perhaps. But sin is the real culprit that shuts the proud down from being receptive.

many intelligent unbelievers in a position to choose between what nature tells them, and what they believe the bible tells them

sure, but the same can be said for Ross' view on special creation of man from dust, miracles, talking Donkeys, Angels, resurrection, etc.

Many in Christianty have reduced most of the OT to allegory to 'make it fit.'

Dogmatic YEC, shuts off many unbelievers from being receptive to the gospel.


Perhaps. But sin is the real culprit that shuts the proud down from being receptive.

In many cases, I agree. Pride gets in the way. But, I also believe there are many cases where unbelievers are arguing against a "straw man " image of God. This image is believed because of how they perceive God. They fight against this image they have created in their minds.

many intelligent unbelievers in a position to choose between what nature tells them, and what they believe the bible tells them


sure, but the same can be said for Ross' view on special creation of man from dust, miracles, talking Donkeys, Angels, resurrection, etc.

Sure, but at least the dialogue isn't shut down before it even begins, as with one who holds to any dogmatic view that's not an essential belief(not just YEC). At least with one who holds to an OEC worldview, unbelievers can see that the believer sees what is obvious to the unbeliever. That creation appears old.
As far as an unbeliever accepting Christ's resurrection, I can't see anyone convincing an unbeliever of accepting that. That's the job of the Holy Spirit.

Rick, I don't disagree. But this thread is about these two apologists. What evidence do you have that these two are dogmatic YECers, that hold that position as orthodoxy?

jlay wrote:Rick, I don't disagree. But this thread is about these two apologists. What evidence do you have that these two are dogmatic YECers, that hold that position as orthodoxy?

Jlay, I have no evidence. Just an educated guess. Like I said before, When the host mentioned a 6,000 year old earth, I believe Hugh Ross would have used that as an opening to begin dialogue, instead of shutting it down. If we want to say the reason why Dustin didn't talk about a 6,000 year old earth, was because Dustin wanted to hear what truth is first, before he talked about it, that doesn't hold water, IMO. If you go back to the podcast after Sye was muted, Dustin answered other questions, without first getting an answer about truth. Usually when someone makes a claim that "all Christians" believe, I know I would speak up and say that if it wasn't an essential belief, not all Christians hold to that.
If what you're looking for is that Dustin won the debate, then I agree. I think that is the obvious conclusion that is reached from listening to the podcast. I just wanted to point out something that wasn't so obvious, and comment on it.
Jlay, I remember when I first came on this board, you and Jac were the most dogmatic YECers here. It seems to me that you have backed off that quite a bit in recent months. I even remember a post you made a while back, that made me stop and think if you even hold to YEC anymore. Have you changed your strict stance on YEC, or are you maybe, just tired of the heated YEC/OEC arguments themselves?

If a YECer knows that an ardent atheist is going to get hung up on one issue then why jump in the quicksand pit with them?
Winning debates is great, but who cares if we aren't winning souls. Rarely do I think an objection regarding the age of the earth is genuine, or the real reason behind obstinate unbelief. I totally understand why they would not venture down that path. The ardent atheist views Ross as much of a nutjob as they do Hamm.

I've never been an ardent YECer. Of course, on a board full of OECers I may come across more so. I'd say I am more educated and sensative to the OEC positions than I once was. That in combination with understanding that my battle is not over convincing someone of the age of the earth.

Winning debates is great, but who cares if we aren't winning souls.

The ardent atheist views Ross as much of a nutjob as they do Hamm.

You sure about that? Ross doesn't promote a "Creation museum" with people running around on dinosaurs, like The Flintstones.

I've never been an ardent YECer. Of course, on a board full of OECers I may come across more so. I'd say I am more educated and sensative to the OEC positions than I once was.

Educated and sensitive. Sounds like you're starting to lean towards OEC.

RickD wrote:I think that was just because of the nature of Alex and Jim. They just seem to be two regular guys who discuss things in a casual, informal manner, to appeal to a certain audience.

Agreed, but like I said, these guys are modern day Hume's. Hume was an unfortunately an idiot. If you're hungry and you bought food yesterday, there was no reason to believe it was a fact that you can find it and eat it. Empiricism at its finest.

RickD wrote:My son was looking at me funny, because I was laughing so much. I'm convinced that there is absolutely no basis for atheists to believe in anything absolute, while holding to an atheistic worldview.

I don't know. You break it down to something simple and you begin to prove the world is not an illusion.

I think, therefore I am.

Thats a pretty good place to start sometimes.

One time I punched my friend in the arm and asked
"Can that be pain and not pain?"
he answered, "No, its pain"
"Is that a fact?"
he answered, "Yes"

Good! We just found truth! Truth are facts! and facts correspond to reality!

Sometimes they punch you back, and you can confirm it as well for them. Though that isn't too fun. But it does get the job done.

RickD wrote:I believe it isn't possible to explain truth, without acknowledging an absolute truth giver. Even if one doesn't acknowledge God while making truth statements, that doesn't mean one isn't using God's truth. That kinda reminds me of the joke where the atheist scientist thinks he found a way to create something without God. The scientist takes some dirt, and creates life. He then brags to God, about how he didn't need God to create. Then God tells him to get his own dirt. The scientist didn't see that God created the dirt, just like the atheist who uses truth, doesn't see that it's God's truth.

I agree to some degree.

I believe logic is the expression of the mind of God, and thus we cannot reason without him. However, we are his creation and satan was indeed correct when he told Eve that she would be "like" God. It was at this point where man was free to no longer accept the sovereignty of God because they obtained God like knowledge. Notice that I said God like. What that means is that only some knowledge can be obtained. I admit that the knowledge you can obtain without God is merely almost nothing, but nonetheless this is proven by the large advancements in knowledge from people who realize a sovereign God is there guiding them.

Atheists often like to think that Christians are against intelligence and advancement, but completely miss the bullseye. For example, lots of atheists deny that Christians invented hospitals, but are perfectly willing to accept that Christianity advanced in-patient care. Well, the do you think in-patient care is? Before christianity, in-patient care was laughable in terms of medicine or healing. It often involved "magic" or "witchcraft" by today's standards. The very act of nursing is an outward expression of love from God to his creation. Because of the feminine characteristics of the holy ghost, Women gained a significant advantage over men in nursing in these regards. It established an amazing discovery of the 3rd dimension of the nature of God that we didn't know until Christianity began.