My "Debate" with a Theistic Evolutionist, an Agnostic and an Athiest (I think)

Ok so, here is a "debate" I had with these three guys on G+ under one of Ken Ham's posts. I'd really appreciate comments. There were a couple of things I said that in foresight would have been better to have left unsaid, but I've left the text as it is. Some of their arguments had me kind of puzzled not knowing how to refute them. Again, comments appreciated. :)
^gotta love the replace tool in word!^

Patrick Smith:
A belief in a young Earth is an insult to God!

If God is indeed an all-powerful and all-knowing being, odds are that he created an immensely grand universe 13.7 billion years ago, not a small and closed one 6,000 years ago.

The 6,000 year-old Earth of young Earth creationism is a simple and easy to understand place with all the answers in one readily digested bite. It's only 6,000 light years across.

The 13.7 billion year old universe discovered by the scientific method is a deep, mysterious and complex place. It’s a place we have just begun to explore.

Young Earth creation sells God short by claiming that God creates simple places that are like usement parks for humans. However, if you believe in an all-powerful God, then give God some credit for creating a grand universe. To an eternal God, 13.7 billion years is a blink of an eye. Therefore, I pose to you that a 13.7 billion year old universe is a more likely creation of God.
Caleb Wong:

+Patrick Smith, I'm not quite sure about your argument. You say a 6000 year old universe is simpler? We don't believe in a different universe, we just believe in a different origin.

You wrote, "It's only 6,000 light years across"
First of all, I want to make sure you understand that no one is debating whether we can see light from stars billions of light years away, the debate is how. Here are a few proposed solutions http://creation.com/a-new-cosmology-solution-to-the-starlight-travel-time-problem

Again you wrote,"However, if you believe in an all-powerful God, then give God some credit for creating a grand universe"
We do! Glory to God! He is so powerful that he was he was able to create this grand universe in less than one week!

Claudio Ibarra:

Anything remotely resembling evidence for any of the proposed solutions? None of them are simpler than the "stuff is older than 6000 years, duh" theory.

Craig Woods:

+Caleb Wong We do! Glory to God! He is so powerful that he was he was able to create this grand universe in less than one week!

Would God be any less powerful if He created the Universe 14 billion years ago? For a Being infinitely old (and I assume you believe He is infinitely old), is difference between a day and a billion years the same for Him as it is for us?

How was the Holy Ghost going to communicate the age of the Universe to the writers of the scripture when even the term "million" didn't exist until the 13th century?

Patrick Smith:

Caleb Wong I read the page you requested. The explanations center around the rules of physics being different long ago. In other words, God changed the rules. There is no evidence that the basic rules of how matter behaves has ever changed in 13+ billion years.

If God made everything in a week, why would he have to bend the rules so much?

Caleb Wong:

+Craig Woods, It was in reply to Mr. Smith who said that it was selling God short to believe in a 6000 year old universe. I just said it was more azing.

And I agree with you that God's power is not changed by what he does. I was just trying to respond to his argument with a similar one.
And the bible does mention millions, but it says thousand thousands. It even has ten thousand times ten thousand

+Patrick Smith Ok, I'm really not an expert in this area, and I must admit I didn't quite read though the whole of that particular article(though I have read multiple ones on the topic). When God created matter, you could almost call that a bending of the rules, and one miracle more or less is not a problem for God.

Patrick Smith:

+Caleb Wong, one thing science hasn't uncovered as of yet is what happened just before this initial expansion, otherwise known as the big bang. An all powerful God could have started it all at that point. But after that, all evidence points to physics remaining unchanged. Al all powerful God could bend the rules at any time but I can't imagine why, since he's all powerful! I can't imagine God making a mistake that requires a mid course correction.

Claudio Ibarra:

"I can't imagine God making a mistake that requires a mid course correction."

And yet, people still think they should pray for things.

Caleb Wong:
+Patrick Smith Correction? I think even if God wanted us to see more of his creation and intervened, it would be more an improvement that a correction. And big bang supporters have a slowing down and speeding up in the inflation theory as a solution to their horizon problem (I think that's what its called, I'm in a phone and can't check ATM) and he can only bend the rules because he is all powerful.

Patrick Smith:

+Caleb Wong The horizon problem has to do with why the universe seems to be spread out the same in all directions. It's not about slowing down or speeding up. It's about what happened the first millisecond after the 'big bang.' Regardless if that theory is adjusted or not, the horizon is 13.7 billion light years away, and there is most likely more that is beyond our field of view.

It's a grand and very old universe!

Craig Woods:

+Caleb Wong And if we want to get into the science, the speed of light didn't varied during inflation. Space itself expanded. Of course, technically light didn't exist then, because the universe was still too hot. It (or He perhaps) would have to wait another 10 seconds for the first photons.

And you want God to have created the Earth only 6000 years ago with the moon duct tape to a crystal sphere? Where's the fun in that?

Caleb Wong:

+Patrick Smith Have you looked at the inflation theory most big bangers support? They believe the matter after the big bang slowed down after the explosion in order to exchange light/heat/energy, and then sped up to the speed we have it now. That's what I was talking about.

+Craig Woods, not all distant starlight theories need the speed of light to change/vary. And what do you mean by "…the moon duct tape to a crystal sphere"? Plus, it's not what I want God to have done, it's what he did and told us he did.

Craig Woods:

+Caleb Wong In the 17th century, the Church believed that the planets and star revolved around the Earth connected to crystal spheres. When Galileo came along with his telescope show that was not the case, they declared it hearsay, banned his book and put him under house arrest.

It's not what God has told you. It's what Ken Ham and other Creationists has told interpreted from their reading of the Bible. There are many other Christians who accept Evolution and do not see it as a conflict of their faith. You choose not to listen to them.

Caleb Wong:

+Craig Woods, Hmm, I'm not sure the Galileo argument is relevant. First of all, I'm not a Catholic, and I do know that power is often corrupted. Again, I'm not an expert on Galileo. Here I found an interesting article on the subject http://creation.com/the-galileo-affair-history-or-heroic-hagiography (Again from creation.com, while I don't agree with everything they write, I find them informative) The Catholic church's belief was the Aristotalian geocentric view, and the few Bible verses which very vaugely supported that view were clearly from the poetic books. Genesis is clearly a historic book and should be viewed in that way. Remember, things must be looked at in context.

If the Bible says, God said and it happened, I take it literally. But I would not for example, take everything literally in the Psalms. In Psalm 6:6 David writes, "…all the night make I my bed to swim…" No one who can think logically is going to take that literally.

Just because there are many other Christians who accept Evolution doesn't change a thing. People can be deceived, as I'm sure you know. I'm sure I don't have everything correct, but that doesn't make me not a Christian.

Claudio Ibarra:

"If the Bible says, God said and it happened, I take it literally."

Trust in the Bible because the Bible says to trust in the Bible. Nothing circuitous about that, no no no.

This back and forth is hilarious. Not an expert in Galileo, but ready to talk about what may have happened milliseconds after the Big Bang. It's arguably much more difficult to be an astrophysicist than it is to be a Galileo historian.

Caleb Wong:

Oh sorry, +Craig Woods, I had previously misread your comment. I though you were using the Galileo argument why not to prove that taking the Bible literally instead of explaining what you meant by the Crystal spheres. It had seemed like a abrupt change of subject…
And no, I don't believe in Aristotle's model.

Caleb Wong:

+Claudio Ibarra I doubt any of us are astrophysicists, so we all are relying on other people's research. And why would I want to be an expert about the milliseconds after the Big Bang when it didn't even happen. It is all still theory. You say the expanding universe is evidence, but that fits with creationism as well. That sort of evidence can't make the Big Bang fact.

Claudio Ibarra:

"It is all still theory."

If I had a nickel for every time someone dismissed a theory as something trivial (like a hypothesis), I'd be a much wealthier man.

Creationism WISHES it had enough supporting evidence to be deemed a theory.

Caleb Wong:

I never said a theory was something trivial. I just emphasized the fact that evolution will never be fact and should not be thought of as such. And there is a lot of evidence supporting a young earth.

Claudio Ibarra:

No one is arguing that evolution is fact. But "theory" is not an easily earned title. The shape of the Earth is a theory. The speed of light is a theory. Gravity is a theory. Creationism is a sad and pathetic joke. The only thing supporting a young earth is a translation of a translation (etc) of generations of spoken word from people who had virtually no knowledge of how the world worked. Creationism is refuted countless times by the evidence. It's just peoples' silly clinging to the imaginary that keeps anything resembling a debate going on.

Patrick Smith:

+Caleb Wong you said:

"Have you looked at the inflation theory most big bangers support? They believe the matter after the big bang slowed down after the explosion in order to exchange light/heat/energy, and then sped up to the speed we have it now. That's what I was talking about."

Yes I'm aware of that. What I'm saying is that the inflation model deals mostly with big events in the millisecond after the big bang or whatever it was. And it deals with minor adjustments now.

When Ham or someone talks about making adjustments to physics, he's talking major adjustments, as if God had to 'fix' the universe. Either that or he's the biggest prankster in the universe, giving us all of this evidence but not telling us that the rules were different back than.

How literally do you take the bible? Even Ham said in the debate that he doesn't take the whole thing literally. How old do you think the earth is, and why?

Caleb Wong:

Gravity and the shape of the Earth can be tested repeatedly now in the present. The same kind of certainty can't be achieved for evolution without going back in time.

Spoken word? The Bible very possibly never passed down by word of mouth. And the few times it was translated saw some very meticulous careful work. Not liable to the large margin of error you seem to place on it.

"…people who had virtually no knowledge of how the world worked."
Evidence please? What makes you think that? Knowledge can be forgotten as well as learned.

And I agree with you though that this debate is pretty useless. It won't change either of our minds, and social media debates can't go very in depth.

Caleb Wong:

+Patrick Smith I wouldn't call it a "fix" because it all happened within the creation week. Which distant starlight theory are you talking about anyways?

Mr. Ham said in the debate that he takes the Bible 'naturally'. That is take history as history, poetry as poetry, etc. There is books of poetry (such as Psalms) in the Bible, which shouldn't be all taken literally as I gave an example above. Not taking it out of context and thinking of the poetry as history. There is a book I reading about the structure and divisions of the Bible called 30 Days to Understand the Bible by Max Anders. Highly recommended.

I obviously believe in a young earth, but I thought we were originally talking about your view of the age of the Earth not mine..

Craig Woods:

+Caleb Wong So when Paul says " a year to God is like a thousand years" lesser men might think that Paul is saying not to take the Bible literally. But not Ken Ham… he just doesn't take that part literally.

Claudio Ibarra:

"Gravity and the shape of the Earth can be tested repeatedly now in the present."

So can the age of the Earth! We can be very certain that the Earth is younger than the universe, and that the Earth was created before Sumerians were inventing glue.

+Caleb Wong, have you never Googled any variations on the phrase "translation errors in the Bible" ? It really doesn't take long. And if you research the history of how the KJV came about, you'll see that translation errors aren't even the biggest problems with later translations. (Unless, of course, you believe that no one can know anything about that time period, because we don't live long enough to recount those events today).

"…people who had virtually no knowledge of how the world worked."
Because they had the same ount of scientific knowledge as other desert-traveling nomads at the time. No clear understanding of physics, electromagnetism, math, biology, anatomy, etc. They were barely literate, hence lots of spoken word. There were many more literate people at the same time period in China, but god chose to reveal himself to what were essentially goat herders in the middle east? Great plan.

Caleb Wong:

+Craig Woods Paul says "a year to God is like a thousand years" Emphasis on like. Not equals or can be replaced by. You can take both literally without contradiction. To think it means not to take the Bible literally is a contradiction in itself.

Craig Woods:

So to God, a day is only like a thousand years? It could be 10,000 years or 100,000 years or a billion years to Him, couldn't it?

Caleb Wong:

+Claudio Ibarra We know about people in that time period because there was someone there to record it. That's why believing the Bible is more reasonable, because it is recorded history.
Obviously Moses could read and write, because he wrote the first five books. And God wrote the ten commandments. And I understand why you don't seem to be able to understand God's plans. God's ways are beyond human understanding. He revealed himself to Abraham because it would be his nation through which he would save us. And it was the right place because when Jesus was born, it was in that region where the Romans had developed roads, and there was a main language throughout so that the Gospel could be spread. He has a reason for everything.

Claudio Ibarra:

+Caleb Wong There were more people speaking Chinese in another part of the world. Why didn't god reveal himself to them?

Recorded history? So you actually think a burning bush spoke to Moses? Or that a talking serpent spoke to Adam and Eve? (keep in mind, that conversations with snakes are tough, because most of them are deaf. edit: also, they're snakes. try talking with one today ) And that a woman was made from a rib?

That's not recorded history. Those are fairy tales. And not even very good ones.

Caleb Wong:

+Craig Woods I'm sure it doesn't seem any different to him because he is not constrained by time. But when God is writing to man, that doesn't explain why God would use "day".

"So to God, a day is only like a thousand years?"
That's what Paul wrote isn't it? He wrote, a year to God is like a thousand years.

Caleb Wong:

+Claudio Ibarra I don't know the purpose behind God's every move, and we must remember that it was man's fault that things are as bad as they are. That's why God had to rescue us through the Cross.

If God revealed Himself through a bush, I wouldn't expect the bush to ever be the same again. Satan managed to make the snake talk, so making the snake hear as well is no big deal. And because God is so powerful that he can make matter out of nothing, making a woman out of a rib is nothing to him I'm sure.

Craig Woods:

+Caleb Wong But when Jesus said "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place" he did not say like a generation. Does that mean He was wrong, or did Paul extend that concept by saying not to take it literally?

Claudio Ibarra:

The problem is that none of those things are based in reality. Which is okay for the average person, I guess. Less okay for people doing actual research, teaching in schools or running for public office.

+Caleb Wong If all the holy books in the world magically disappeared tomorrow, in a few generations the various religions in the world would be replaced by other religions. But the math that we use to put rockets into orbit and make your cellphone work would not change. If a part of you agrees with that statement, a part of you realizes what bunk religion is.

Patrick Smith:

+Caleb Wong, if you want to study the Bible, don't take someone else's word for it by reading a guide. Just read it as a single volume from beginning to end. You don't need someone to interpret it for you.

That's the problem I have with the way the Bible is presented. It's presented in bits and pieces (like sound bites today) to illustrate one idea or another.

I went to a Catholic school and took a religion class every day until 11th grade. Once I did a book report on the Bible. I read it from cover to cover and went in front of the class to present it as everyone else did for the books they read.

I got sent to the principal's office for taking the Bible out of context. Excuse me, but I was the only one to take it IN context. Everyone else takes what they want and dismisses the rest.

I re-read it as an adult. It's an astonishing read. But it's not a science text.

Caleb Wong:

+Craig Woods Jesus was talking about the future. The statement was prophetic. Prophets often use metaphors, similes, and the like.

+Claudio Ibarra, it is true that if a book with history in it is lost, that history is lost forever. But that just shows the difference between historical and observational science.

+Patrick Smith , I agree with almost everything you wrote. I agree there is great danger of error if you blindly believe someone else's word about the Bible. However, the book that I recommended is useful because it gives an overview of the eras, main events and structure – looking from the big picture. It also clearly identifies which books are poetry, history, prophesy, etc. (Confirming what I already knew, no one is really debating whether Psalms is poetry or not)

I've really enjoyed chatting with you guys, but I'm afraid I don't really have time to continue. I've got a lot of schoolwork to keep up with, so maybe I should stop here. I'm praying for you all. Cheers!

Oi! That was quite a conversation! I think you did well. :)

You did way better than I could have done. :)

Thanks! Any comments? Did I use faulty reasoning at some point? :)

You did a really good job!

You did well!

Thanks! It was pretty scary three against one =D

I'll bet! I probably wouldn't have done it.. then again, I might have. I'm just thankful you did! :)

I didn't really want to get into a debate, but the guys reasoning was just so strange I had to point it out. :)

Can you give me the link please?

https://plus.google.com/116440192412104838895/posts/CmWJcRMXGYB

Thanks!

No probs!

I had a similar experience a long time ago, with like five against me on one of Ray Comforts posts. :-/ I think I did terribly, and now I can't find that post…

Oh dear, I wonder why other people didn't join and help you. There must be other Creationists following Ray Comfort right? The problem with debating people like that, is that they keep throwing heaps of arguments at you, and not saying anything about it when you refute them.

Exactly!!! Yeah, I don't know why no one "showed up" to help…

Ok, so these are the two arguments, I spent the most time wondering what to reply, and then didn't really come up with a convincing answer. Any help what I should have said?

+Caleb Wong If all the holy books in the world magically disappeared tomorrow, in a few generations the various religions in the world would be replaced by other religions. But the math that we use to put rockets into orbit and make your cellphone work would not change. If a part of you agrees with that statement, a part of you realizes what bunk religion is.

Trust in the Bible because the Bible says to trust in the Bible. Nothing circuitous about that, no no no.

For the first: If all the holy books in the world magically disappeared tomorrow, in a few generations the various religions in the world would be replaced by other religions. But the math that we use to put rockets into orbit and make your cellphone work would not change. If a part of you agrees with that statement, a part of you realizes what bunk religion is.

Perhaps all 'religions' would be replaced, but those following Christ would still do so. There would still be scripture until they had all been killed, but yet God's plan could not be thwarted, When the Almighty God says 'Heaven and earth shall pass away but my word shall not pass away' He means it. Throughout history all attempts to end Christianity, or ban and destroy the word of god have only served to see the church grow, and God's word be spread.

For the second: Trust in the Bible because the Bible says to trust in the Bible. Nothing circuitous about that, no no no.

Yes that would be an example of the circular reasoning fallacy, but I say Trust in the Bible Because it is trustworthy. Every instance of history, and science in the Bible is completely accurate. In addition, the whole compilation agrees in its entirety.
When it says that the Hittites existed, be sure they did. When it mentions Ocean currents, dinosaurs, or that the earth is round, Its spot on, and science confirms the truth of the Bible.

Thanks for your input! That's very helpful!

"If all the holy books in the world magically disappeared tomorrow, in a few generations the various religions in the world would be replaced by other religions. But the math that we use to put rockets into orbit and make your cellphone work would not change. If a part of you agrees with that statement, a part of you realizes what bunk religion is."

First of all, this is impossible. Obviously, God would not allow this to happen, because "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." This has been proven time and again - when rulers tried to annihilate Scripture, it was only spread more to the far corners of the earth. Of course, the atheist will not agree with this; but, even in the naturalistic worldview, "magically" going out of existence is not going to happen. Naturalists are not supposed to believe in "magic".
Secondly, even assuming statement p can happen, the Bible would still not go out of existence, All the Christians in the world would still have the Word in their hearts.
Most importantly, though, I wonder if Mr. Ibarra realizes that his own worldview of what seems to be naturalism is religion as well. Atheism is a religion. There is not a person in the world who believes nothing.

Some good points there. Haha, I knew his argument was not even relevant, but I just wasn't sure how to word an appropriate response. :)

+Caleb Wong If all the holy books in the world magically disappeared tomorrow, in a few generations the various religions in the world would be replaced by other religions. But the math that we use to put rockets into orbit and make your cellphone work would not change. If a part of you agrees with that statement, a part of you realizes what bunk religion is.

The problem is that these two things have nothing to do with each other. Knowledge about truth is different from truth itself. He is comparing a book that speaks the truth about the nature of God and reality, to natural laws that define how reality works. If you were going to attempt to give a fair analogy, you'd need to compare the possibility of losing the Bible (yes, I know that won't actually happen, but most atheists won't accept arguments that are based on this grounds) to the possibility of losing all the science books in the world ever written, OR, compare the truths contained God's Word which never changes to the natural laws. But comparing the Bible to natural laws just doesn't hold up as a reasonable analogy, much less as a convincing one.

Yes, and even that would not be a fair analogy. History of course cannot be "rediscovered". But the Laws of life, like if you sin you will bear consequences, etc. will never change. Thanks for your input!