There is no contradiction. Slow down and think about what I wrote.

<How can you think that YEC is entirely plausible but don't see any reason to think it is entirely plausible, regardless of the Bible!?>

I did not say that, those are your words not mine.

<<The earth and universe could be very old while man could be relatively recent.> What's the point of that? Why would God create the earth and universe a relatively long time ago but then create man relatively recently?>

It is not necessary for you or me to understand or explain these things in order for them to remain a possibility.

<If you're going to believe in a fully-formed Adam & Eve six thousand years ago then you may as well believe the universe was created just one week prior! I mean, why purposely create the world, then wait a long time before creating man? Why not do one right after the other?>

These possibilities do not require your approval or understanding. The whole point is that the Bible does not make explicit one way or the other exactly how old the universe is.

Do you really think that if it doesn't make sense to you that God didn't do it that way?

<Your final four points are cogent, but I would just say that point (2) begs the question, "Once I believe in God, then what?">

It doesn't entail that and has nothing to do with that. Consider, the atheist rationalizes his position on a false dichotomy. The false dichotomy should be science vs theism but it's not even that good. It's the even more mistaken science vs religion.

So,

By demonstrating that this false dichotomy isn't even presented the right way, it shows just how superficial it really is. The purpose is to take away this bit of rationalization (science vs theism) and this helps do that.

It's one thing at a time.

There is no need to answer about God's nature and commandments when the single object is to refute the science vs religion incorrect AND false dichotomy.

It takes a while for the atheist to let go of this piece of rationalization. They don't just drop it. In fact, they most likely hold on to it! Until they meet up with the refutation again or until pressed really hard on it in a situation where they are going to continue dialogue with the same person.

<<<The earth and universe could be very old while man could be relatively recent.> What's the point of that? Why would God create the earth and universe a relatively long time ago but then create man relatively recently?> It is not necessary for you or me to understand or explain these things in order for them to remain a possibility.> True, but is it necessary for you or me to understand or explain these things in the face of contradictory evidence?

<<If you're going to believe in a fully-formed Adam & Eve six thousand years ago then you may as well believe the universe was created just one week prior! I mean, why purposely create the world, then wait a long time before creating man? Why not do one right after the other?> These possibilities do not require your approval or understanding.> True, but does scientific evidence require my approval or understanding?

<The whole point is that the Bible does not make explicit one way or the other exactly how old the universe is.> Well, Fundamentalists have employed the Bible to make explicit that the universe was created around 6 pm on 22 October 4004 BC!?

<Do you really think that if it doesn't make sense to you that God didn't do it that way?> Do you really think that if evolution doesn't make sense to you that God didn't do it that way?

<<Your final four points are cogent, but I would just say that point (2) begs the question, "Once I believe in God, then what?"> ... It's one thing at a time. There is no need to answer about God's nature and commandments when the single object is to refute the science vs religion incorrect AND false dichotomy.> Okay, I think I see what you're saying.

The atheist must recognise the 'logic' of God before he can recognise His nature.

(FYI, i've been watering a box of rocks for two months now and I have to admit they're starting to wiggle.)

<The earth and universe could be very old while man could be relatively recent.> What's the point of that? Why would God create the earth and universe a relatively long time ago but then create man relatively recently?> It is not necessary for you or me to understand or explain these things in order for them to remain a possibility.> True, but is it necessary for you or me to understand or explain these things in the face of contradictory evidence?>

First things first. For now, the important thing is that we now agree that this is true. As far as contradictory evidence is concerned, we can have that discussion soon.

<These possibilities do not require your approval or understanding.> True, but does scientific evidence require my approval or understanding?>

Like my previous comment, The important thing at this precise moment is that we agree this is true. As far as discussing evidence we can begin the conversation soon as well.

I just want to be clear that this business of asking why, why, why, doesn't really go anywhere and nothing hinges on it one way or the other.

<<The whole point is that the Bible does not make explicit one way or the other exactly how old the universe is.> Well, Fundamentalists have employed the Bible to make explicit that the universe was created around 6 pm on 22 October 4004 BC!?>

Fundamentalists, your pejorative term for people who happen to be strong believers in the Christian God, are good people. You're not any closer to knowing the truth than they are. You are just as fanatical in the belief that you are right about the things you believe as they are. I think you do harm to the Christian community that you interact with when you use the word fundamentalist as some kind of pejorative label.

I think your confidence in this specific area could use a little temperance, a bit of humility. < Jonathan Sarfati.> is a scientist, not a want to be scientist, and his views are informed by high education and science, yet he is a fundamentalist. I think you need to quit thinking of fundamentalists as Christian brothers who happens to have a huge universe of ignorance in their worldview.

<natural theology vs gospel>

Unlike YEC, I do not see that the Bible explicitly tells us how old the earth is. I do not think it can be proven by appealing to the Bible. I also do not have much confidence about scientific estimations of the age of the universe. Therefore, since I I am agnostic on this point, it follows that I remain open to either possibility.

https://www.facebook.com/FeedPhilos...

I too enjoy our discussions and debates.

That's why I much prefer to interact with intelligent people on individual forums where there is a genuine exchange of ideas, rather than wade through the Rogoff quagmire having to deal with terrorist cheerleaders and empty-headed nitwits!

<FYI, i've been watering a box of rocks for two months now and I have to admit they're starting to wiggle.> lol

After only two months?! And those atheists said it would take millions of years!

Okay now, let's get serious...

Setting aside the evidence for the time being, I would suggest that a great deal hinges on the business of asking why? why? why?

That's what brings us back to the concept of God.

Anyway, in regards to the term "Fundamentalist", it is not meant pejoratively since the term was self-applied by 19th century biblical inerrantists to emphasise their own opposition to theological liberalism.

Also, I must insist that my 'belief' in evolution is simply evidence-based and hardly "fanatical".

I won't make any derogatory comments about fundamentalists except to remark that their worldview is not predicated on science, but politics and ideology.

Now regarding debate with atheists, if as you say, they are more open to discussions about natural theology, would your starting point be a 13 billion year old universe from a big bang or a 1 week creation 6,000 years ago?

Would you find common ground with them discussing Darwinian evolution or attempt to explain the science behind a fully-formed man being fashioned out of clay and a woman constructed from one of his ribs?

If you do not think the age of the universe can be proven by appealing to the Bible, may I ask why you do not have much confidence about the current scientific estimations?

<Outstanding video where this guy completely calls out the whole Neo-Marxist/PostModernism Creep in Harvard.> He seems offended that university kids protest.

He says they know nothing but in the 60's they were sent off to Vietnam by their elders who "knew better".

Also the audience sounds slavishly fawning. Why didn't he speak in front of neo-marxists?

Get YOUR FAT BUTT over to the KAFFF ...

I need sum BANTZ..

(FYI, i've been watering a box of rocks for two months now and I have to admit they're starting to wiggle.)>

https://youtu.be/jyJU2136ym4

And this is for TGA https://youtu.be/7wOj4jdKy-8

Go with the science that they feel comfortable with. The Big Bang gives us a universe with a beginning, and that is the main point to focus on. For centuries atheists insisted that the universe just always existed. In this way they could avoid having to deal with a cosmic beginning, but after the Big Bang theory, and especially after the 1960s when cosmic background radiation showed an expanding universe, atheists could no longer escape the cosmic beginning.

<Would you find common ground with them discussing Darwinian evolution or attempt to explain the science behind a fully-formed man being fashioned out of clay and a woman constructed from one of his ribs?>

No. That is not an argument for the existence of God. Natural theology is that attempt to explain the existence of God sans revealed theology.

<If you do not think the age of the universe can be proven by appealing to the Bible, may I ask why you do not have much confidence about the current scientific estimations?>

I don't find it convincing.

<Setting aside the evidence for the time being, I would suggest that a great deal hinges on the business of asking why? why? why?>

Let's make sure we don't equivocate on the word "why". You were using it in such a way as to say, if you can't explain why God would do it this way, then he didn't do it that way. But now we agree that these possibilities do not hinge on your or my ability to understand or explain them.

<Anyway, in regards to the term "Fundamentalist", it is not meant pejoratively since the term was self-applied by 19th century biblical inerrantists to emphasise their own opposition to theological liberalism.>

It is meant as a pejorative word when <you> use it and it's as plain as the nose on your face.

<Also, I must insist that my 'belief' in evolution is simply evidence-based and hardly "fanatical">

No, I stand by my statement that your insistence that you are right is just as fanatical as those you criticize. <Johnathan Sarfati> is a so-called fundamentalist that bases <HIS> belief on scientific evidence too, and he's a scientist (you're not), so he is familiar with more scientific evidence than you are.

So let's not be arrogant and pretend that you believe what you believe because of scientific evidence. That's like when atheists pretend that they are atheists because "they believe in science".

If you want to arrogate yourself over the fundamentalists and tell yourself that your beliefs are based on "evidence" then go right ahead. I've told you how I see it, and you, in that regard.

<<Outstanding video where this guy completely calls out the whole Neo-Marxist/PostModernism Creep in Harvard.> He seems offended that university kids protest.

He says they know nothing but in the 60's they were sent off to Vietnam by their elders who "knew better".

Also the audience sounds slavishly fawning. Why didn't he speak in front of neo-marxists?

Overall I didn't think he was very articulate.>

I thought he was very articulate, and yes, 19 year old kids don't know anything. If you are going to argue that 19 and 20 year old kids know something, then there is nothing for us to talk about.

I can't believe that you would even think about making a point about that. I'm not sure how old you are <op>, but something tells me you are very young and took this criticism personally!

Nothing wrong with being young. If you are young then I'm a little jealous since I'm 43 now.

But that was a good tune. Oasis had their own style. The song kind of reminded me of Bittersweet Symphony.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ly...

The way that they have a sort of hypnotic, repetitive yet effective background going on all the time. In some sense, the tune you shared reminded me of Kashmir.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDw...

Like Kashmir, the Oasis tune (forgot the name) has a hypnotic feel, accented by orchestral fills.

It's too bad they didn't really get ahead of the crowd here in the states. I consider Oasis to be one of the <only> good bands to come out of the 90s.

lol>

<But that was a good tune. Oasis had their own style. The song kind of reminded me of Bittersweet Symphony.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ly... >Yes! #TuxConverted. And I love The Verve, that Urban hymns is ranked 2nd or 3rd best album of the 90s for me, do you like "Sonnet" and "Lucky man?". Epic biblical and sang beautifully by Ashcroft, kinda overlooked in a way because of the big 2 bands Oasis and Blur.. Love it mate, it's not my favorite track from the album, In fact I could name 6 I prefer but that tells you what a truly timeless classic UH is.

<The way that they have a sort of hypnotic, repetitive yet effective background going on all the time. In some sense, the tune you shared reminded me of Kashmir.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDw...

Like Kashmir, the Oasis tune (forgot the name) has a hypnotic feel, accented by orchestral fills.>

I'll check it out now, you talking about "The Hindu times?" by any chance?

<It's too bad they didn't really get ahead of the crowd here in the states. I consider Oasis to be one of the <only> good bands to come out of the 90s.>

They were too much like the pistols and were MASSIVE over here by the time Don't look back in anger and Wonderwall hit the American charts...they were pretty much uncontrollable, plus you had the Chile Peppers, Foo Fighters, a lot of grunge rock going on and America is too vast for a band who'd already played to 250,000 people to start playing to 5000 seaters 5 times a week. They made up for it in the noughties, they played the Garden and have a cult following over there.

<A friend of mine told me recently that Oasis had major problems personally. They were immature and fought all the time, throwing the whole thing down the drain for nothing. What a shame.>

See above. From a council estate to the biggest band in the world in under 3 years, plus financially secure.. Rock and roll stars, more Jagger and Richards than Lennon and McCartney in their behavior.

This is probably their most Beatley song although there's about 15, I'd say they're too close for comfort here.... This is one of those Anthemic, catchy, Yellow Submarine - Peppers era tracks they could pull off, plus the front man is really charismatic and vocally superb here.

<It is meant as a pejorative word when <you> use it and it's as plain as the nose on your face.> Can you give me an example?

Do you refer to yourself as a 'Fundamentalist'?

Are you embarrassed or offended to be called a 'Fundamentalist'?

Am I being politically incorrect in using the term 'Fundamentalist'?

Perhaps I should issue a 'trigger warning' at the beginning of each of my posts to avoid causing offence to those biblical inerrantists whose feelings are easily hurt?

Maybe you should post a declaration in your heading announcing that your forum is a 'safe space' for biblical inerrantists who will not tolerate hate-speech such as terms like 'Fundamentalist'?

:D)

<he is familiar with more scientific evidence than you are.>

Fundamentalists ... oops ... excuse me ... I mean, biblical inerrantists, apply bits and pieces of 'science' prejudicially.

Their arguments are not taken seriously.

The point is that it had a beginning a finite time ago. The fact that I don't find cosmological pronouncements concerning the *age* of the universe completely convincing does not mean that it isn't mainsteam science that <the universe had a beginning>.

The Big Bang was first posited by a Christian, by the way. A Catholic if I recall correctly.

<Do you refer to yourself as a 'Fundamentalist'? >

No.

<Are you embarrassed or offended to be called a 'Fundamentalist'?>

No.

<Am I being politically incorrect in using the term 'Fundamentalist'?>

No, in fact, quite the opposite.

<Perhaps I should issue a 'trigger warning' at the beginning of each of my posts to avoid causing offence to those biblical inerrantists whose feelings are easily hurt?>

It's not about offense. I certainly didn't say you were being offensive. It's about tell you that you are fanatical in your belief that you are right about the age of the universe, the origin of man and evolution.

Did I offend you by telling you this truth?

As I made clear about the age of the universe, I am not convinced either way, and for good reason, but you are extraordinarily convinced and committed to your position, such that every other paragraph contains some sort of pejorative jab at "fundamentalists".

<Maybe you should post a declaration in your heading announcing that your forum is a 'safe space' for biblical inerrantists who will not tolerate hate-speech such as terms like 'Fundamentalist'?>

I can see that my gentle rebuke has caused you to become a little butthurt. Well, it's supposed to!

<Fundamentalists ... oops ... excuse me ... I mean, biblical inerrantists, apply bits and pieces of 'science' prejudicially>

Yes, you do.

<And in regards to 19 & 20 year old kids, if they're old enough to vote and go to war, then they're old enough to protest, even if what they're protesting about is stupid!>

Yeah, they can protest, but they don't know anything about life yet lol!

Come on!

<optimal play>, don't lie, remember that God is watching and tell me, how old are you?

If you are quite young, I promise not to give you a hard time about it or throw it in your face.

You can quote that.

Okay, The Verve! For all this time I thought Oasis did that song Bittersweet Symphony!

I don't know why I thought that!

Mick Jagger and Keith Richards sued them for copyright infringement for Bittersweet. I just read it on wiki. Those old geezers have nothing better to do that stretch their imaginations to think that Bittersweet Symphony is their song?

Greedy old turds!

I'm sick of these greedy old rock stars. Zeppelin too. They don't want you to be able to listen to their music on YouTube, but I already bought their tapes and CDs twenty times over!

Doesn't that give me the right to hear their song? So what if the cassette broke, I didn't but the rights to hear it on that cassette, I bought the right to hear the damn song when I want!

How many times do I need to buy these songs to have the right to hear them?

*The following post contains the term 'Fundamentalist'*

*Biblical inerrantists who experience stress and discomfiture at this term are advised to prepare accordingly or go hide in their special room so the 'bad word' doesn't offend their sensitivities*

~~~~~

<it had a beginning a finite time ago. The fact that I don't find cosmological pronouncements concerning the *age* of the universe completely convincing does not mean that it isn't mainsteam science that <the universe had a beginning>.> I don't follow your reasoning here?!

The calculated age of the Big Bang is part of the theory.

Are you suggesting the Big Bang may have occured only 6,000 years ago?

Is that supposed to substitute for the opening chapter in Genesis?

<The Big Bang was first posited by a Christian, by the way. A Catholic if I recall correctly.> The Reverend Monsignor Georges Lemaître.

A 'Biblical Fundamentalist' takes the Bible literally.

A 'Biblical Fundamentalist' believes, for example, that the story of Adam & Eve in the Garden of Eden is historical fact.

Same with Noah and the Flood, Joshua and the Sun, etc

Is that the case with yourself?

As regards my 'belief' about the age of the universe, the origin of man and evolution, it is not fanatical because I am open to changing my mind based on evidence.

That is not the case with fanatics or fundamentalists.

They are impervious to evidence!

By contrast, I am prepared to change my views when presented with contradictory evidence.

Therefore my beliefs cannot be classified as 'fanatical'.

Do you see the difference there?

Anyway, I have never yet become offended or 'butthurt' by anything posted by anyone on this site.

Why would I?

That would be silly!

*Biblical inerrantists who experience stress and discomfiture at this term are advised to prepare accordingly or go hide in their special room so the 'bad word' doesn't offend their sensitivities*>

Biblical inerrancy is not synonymous with fundamentalism. For example, there may be some who believe the bible is inerrant but do not believe that it says that the universe is 6000 years old.

Now, before we go any further, I've got to point out that you are not reading my responses. For example, you are carrying on now about *trigger warnings* but I said this in response to you:

<Do you refer to yourself as a 'Fundamentalist'? >

No.

<Are you embarrassed or offended to be called a 'Fundamentalist'?>

No.

<Am I being politically incorrect in using the term 'Fundamentalist'?>

No, in fact, quite the opposite.

<Perhaps I should issue a 'trigger warning' at the beginning of each of my posts to avoid causing offence to those biblical inerrantists whose feelings are easily hurt?>

It's not about offense. I certainly didn't say you were being offensive.

***

Are you suggesting the Big Bang may have occured only 6,000 years ago?>

The answer to your question is already copy and pasted by you in this quote.

The calculated age of the universe has nothing to do with the fact that universe had a beginning.

That's all that matter. Forcing the atheist to face the cosmic beginning. I explained this clearly already, so I'm just repeating myself now.

Cosmic beginning.

Cosmic beginning.

The point is to make them confront a <COSMIC BEGINNING>.

The age of the universe is not an argument for theism.

A <COSMIC BEGINNING> is because it strongly implies a <CREATOR>.

Come back when you've settled down and you're ready to be real about this discussion. I don't want to waste my time with you pretending not to understand and being obtuse.

So as not to ruffle your feathers any further I'll 'pack up that trick and put it away'.

It wasn't my intention to upset you.

Anyway, perhaps biblical literalism is synonymous with fundamentalism rather than biblical inerrancy?

In that regard, if you believe the biblical account of Adam & Eve in the Garden of Eden to be historical, would you consider yourself to be a Biblical Literalist?

I'm just trying to pin you down on this.

You say that you don't consider yourself to be a 'Fundamentalist' yet you're not embarrassed or offended to be called such!?

~~~

How do you make an atheist confront a <COSMIC BEGINNING>?

The Big Bang is not necessarily proof of a cosmic beginning!

<What Triggered the Big Bang?>

http://www.space.com/31192-what-tri...

<The Big Bang theory is not a theory of the creation of the universe.>

<The Big Bang theory is a model of the history of the universe, tracing the evolution of the cosmos to its very earliest moments.>

Also...

<Did the Universe Have a Beginning?>

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astr...

Your remarks do not upset me, but if I want to waste time and throw eggs, I can do that and have all the fun I want on <rogoff>.

If I take the time to answer your points, I expect you to either respond to them, deny them or accept them, but not to carry on as though you aren't reading my responses, because that is a waste of time, and as such is best for a page like <rogoff> rather than here where we are tying to have something substantive going on.

<Anyway, perhaps biblical literalism is synonymous with fundamentalism rather than biblical inerrancy?

In that regard, if you believe the biblical account of Adam & Eve in the Garden of Eden to be historical, would you consider yourself to be a Biblical Literalist?>

Perhaps that is a bit closer, but even that may have some problems. Consider the dragon from the book of Revelation. Would you think that a literalist would consider that a real dragon, just like one imagines it to be?

Or, does the literalist only take literally those verses that ought to be taken literally?

<an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads>

Does the literalist see this and everything else as literal? Or does he somehow discern what ought to be literal and what ought to be taken as symbolic or poetic?

<You say that you don't consider yourself to be a 'Fundamentalist' yet you're not embarrassed or offended to be called such!?>

Right.

Now you answer my question:

Do you consider yourself smarter and wiser than every single "fundamentalist" that ever lived or that is alive today?

Not looking for an evasive answer here. Just a simple yes or no will do.

Just trying to pin you down on this.

<How do you make an atheist confront a <COSMIC BEGINNING>?>

The Big Bang, especially coupled with evidence for an expanding universe via cosmic background radiation, and the Borde Guth Vilenkin Theorem point to a cosmic beginning.

It is this cosmic beginning that motivates atheist cosmologists to find another way, which leads to string theory and things like that, none of which is observable.

<The Big Bang is not necessarily proof of a cosmic beginning!>

<Sean Carroll>

Proponents of natural theology don't mind at all if atheists are forced to abandon mainstream science and go trolling on the outer fringes in search of some kind of escape from the cosmic beginning.

You need to understand how these sort of debates start. Remember, it starts with the atheist usually declaring, confidently, that he believes in science rather than "religion". So when he finds himself having to run away from mainstream science in order to preserve his atheism, while the theist sits perfectly comfortable smack dab in the middle of "science", that makes a very large point!

Regarding <Carroll> and others like him, such as <Krauss>, it's important to realize where physics ends (their discipline) and where metaphysics (where they might as well wear a hard hat, not a lab coat) begins. Most people don't know where that line is and swallow everything these people say, hook, line and sinker without regard to the fact that once the physicist steps into metaphysics, he's an amateur.

He's no more qualified to speak than a professor of communications or theater.

I wrote about this in my forum a few years ago, <Then, around the 1960's, lots of evidence started coming in and cosmology entered a new era. Cosmologists discovered a cosmic background radiation that indicated a massive past event. Also, it became apparent that the universe was expanding. Indeed, there was now for the first time, real evidence for universe that began to exist.

Yet the scientific community at the time did not want to accept this because it would make the theists "too comfortable". So the scientific community strongly opposed this development with everything they had, even though it was THE BREAKTHROUGH for cosmology in the twentieth century!

The editor of the leading UK scientific journal at the time denied the big bang, despite mounting evidence, because he didn't want to give in to the Christian world view.

That depends entirely upon what a literalist considers ought to be taken literally!

Certainly the dragon is not meant to be taken literally but is intended to be understood as apocalyptic imagery.

<Does the literalist see this and everything else as literal? Or does he somehow discern what ought to be literal and what ought to be taken as symbolic or poetic?>

If the literalist sees the dragon in Revelation as symbolic or poetic, then why not the seven days of creation?

Why not the serpent in the Garden of Eden?

Or Noah's ark? Or Joshua stopping the Sun? Or Jonah's three days in the whale?

<Do you consider yourself smarter and wiser than every single "fundamentalist" that ever lived or that is alive today?> No.

<The Big Bang, especially coupled with evidence for an expanding universe via cosmic background radiation, and the Borde Guth Vilenkin Theorem point to a cosmic beginning.>

I notice that William Lane Craig and Sean Carroll engaged in debate on this matter.

https://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/...

Carroll attempts to counter the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem (which seems to point the universe as having a beginning, an inference friendly to theism)...

"The second premise of the Kalam argument is that the universe began to exist. Which may even be true! But we certainly don’t know, or even have strong reasons to think one way or the other. Craig thinks we do have a strong reason, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem. So I explained what every physicist who has thought about the issue understands: that the real world is governed by quantum mechanics, and the BGV theorem assumes a classical spacetime, so it says nothing definitive about what actually happens in the universe; it is only a guideline to when our classical description breaks down."

Now okay, in debating theism, you can't just dismiss Carroll and his ilk as atheists who "abandoned mainstream science to go trolling on the outer fringes in search of some kind of escape from the cosmic beginning."

You're still faced with the problem of forcing the atheist to confront a cosmic beginning.

They'll continue to hide behind Carroll and his ilk until you can pin them down with conclusive evidence that the Big Bang does indeed point to a cosmic beginning.

At this stage that still seems elusive.

<the Big Bang implies theism so strongly that the new evidence of the expanding universe from observing for the first time the cosmic background radiation was actively suppressed by the scientific community!>