father in law (YEC)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-01-2015, 10:20 PM (This post was last modified: 05-01-2015 10:27 PM by OceanTherapist.)
father in law (YEC)
So as some of you know I've been debating my father in law (YEC) about an article from The Wall Street Journal that he sent me "proving the existence of God".
The debate escalated in to other subjects the mythical flood and archaeology.
I'm new to debating and he is very experienced. I've never had to debate a theist and never cared to but, when the door knocked I had to open it.
With some help from from some of you I think I did ok.
My father in law is too prideful to admit when he is wrong. Here are the last couple of emails from our debate. There are more emails in the science section under "science makes case for god". I left a few parts out about my son and wife but, here's the rest.

(Him)Being an Atheist is also easy. YOU get to decide when there's enough evidence and YOU get to choose whether that evidence is of value. When you refuse to look at archaeological, Biblical, or secular scientific evidence, then you've adjusted the playing field to give you the answer you desire.


(Me) you're right I do get to decide what I choose.  You don't get choices, the Bible has already made them for you.  Archaeological evidence shows fossils perfectly in place where they should be in a timeline.  Not scattered in a unorganized pattern that a global flood would show. Where are all the kangaroo fossils that show them leaving the arc and hopping all the way across Asia then across an ocean to Australia? There aren't any. There are trees and human made structures that are 10,000 years old that would not have survived a flood. The pyramids at giza were constructed around 2589bc. The global flood according to answers in Genesis happened in 2348bc. The pyramid would not stand as they do today if it had occurred. Egyptian civilization predates a global flood, yet there are no inscriptions of one in there society.  The ice sheets on Greenland would not exist,they would have floated away.  No climate change since the time of the flood has created glaciers and ice sheets. 


Recently, studies have found that the oldest human ancestors came from Australia.  Not out of Israel. You believe we all came from an incestuous family, twice. And that most animals today would also had to have come from incestuous animals. And you called me delusional?
There are human races that have no Hebrew DNA such as; Native Americans. Europeans and asians have neanderthal DNA but, Africans don't.  How could this happen if we all came from Noah's family? 


(Him) This isn't a fact, it's an opinion., probably learned from the Mormon teachings of polytheism.

(I was raised Mormon and he tries to use it against me for some reason. In the previous email I told him that if there was proven to be a god, the next impossible task would be to figure out which one or ones it is. He's so absorbed with Christianity he forgot that some religions throughout history have more than one god.

(Me) the religions that have a base in the old testament are the only monotheistic religions in human history beside the time a Pharoah declared himself God.  All other religions have been polytheistic and the oldest know one had only animal gods and female goddesses. I didn't even think of my Mormon upbringing when I mentioned this. Even the first of your commandments mentions other gods "Thou shalt have no other gods before me". If you take this literally it says "other gods". It doesn't say "false gods". But it's your bible and allegory allows anyone reading it to make it say whatever they want, to favor their desires even though it's suppose to be the word of God. If he meant something else he would have said it, right? 


(Him) Prove it. As I go through your questions one at a time, you have yet to prove that point.(<Here I told him that his god makes mistakes)


(Me) Letting things on Earth get so out of hand that he had to wipe the slate and start over. Still failing to get his message across properly even after his Only Begotten Son had come and gone.


The king james version of the Bible was created in 1611 by 8 members of the church of England. There were (and still are) no original texts to translate. The oldest manuscripts we have were written down hundreds of years after the last apostle died. There are over 8,000 of these old manuscripts,with no two being alike. The king James translators used none of these. Instead, they edited previous translations to create a version their king and parliament would approve. So, you believe the word of god is a book edited in the 17th century from 16th century translations of 8,000 contradicting copies of 4th century scholars that claim to be lost letters written in the 1st century. Now that takes faith.


 Months ago you said "even if the Bible were proven wrong I would still believe it just incase there's a chance I could go to hell (Pascal's Wager). This is fully based on emotion (fear). When you said this, I no longer cared to converse about religion or science. My father said the same thing. In the Nye/Ham debate, when asked what would change their minds? Nye said "evidence". Ham said "nothing".


I also found an article. It doesn't prove or disprove anything.  Just like the article you gave me. It's still speculative but if proven correct has the possibility to change how life can come about. Not that it would change your beliefs anyways. 


https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-...y-of-life/


(Me) you're right I do get to decide what I choose.  


(Him) Yes, your CHOICE is to completely disregard one side, but PRETEND like your open to weighing both views. An Agnostic hears, weighs, and questions both sides. An atheist has already made up his mind and only accepts views that he agrees with. Nothing wrong with choice, just don't pretend you're giving both sides equal footing when you're not.


(Me) You don't get choices, the Bible has already made them for you.  


(Him) Nope,. I've weighed both sides and continually find the atheist as dishonest or willfully ignorant of the facts, unlike the Bible' s presentation. I didn't start out as a Christian (he told my wife he's always been Christian). Through much study, which continues today, I've come to undeniable conclusion that the Bible is scientifically factual whereas evolution is scientifically nonfactual and dishonest, as we just saw with Krauss. I don't let others think for me, or lead me through the nose to their desired outcome.


(Me) Archaeological evidence shows fossils perfectly in place where they should be in a timeline.  Not scattered in a unorganized pattern that a global flood would show. 


(Him) How do you know that. Do you know what the topography of the earth was before or directly after the flood? Of course you don't. You make assumptions on what you know NOW.


(Me) Where are all the kangaroo fossils that show them leaving the arc and hopping all the way across Asia then across an ocean to Australia? There aren't any. 


(Him) Because there doesn't have to be. Again, you're making an assumption. 

(1) The lack of fossils is certainly understandable when we consider how rare it is for a fossil to form.  Also, consider the fact that the western plains of the United States were once full of buffalo but we never find buffalo fossils there. Kangaroos probably migrated slowly and only spent a few generations in one place before they arrived in a friendly environment. 

(2) OR they could have hopped over on land bridges that are now long since gone just as Russia and Alaska were connected by a land bridge that scientists (the atheists god) called Bernicia long ago. 

(3) OR it's also possible that Kangaroos lived everywhere but became extinct everywhere except Australia, over time, because of weather, and or predators. 

(4) Or maybe they were taken to Australia in boats. Kings in ancient times loved to have exotic animals for pets. There are so many explanations. 
You're mind is just too closed to think of any reason other than one that supports your beliefs.


(Me) There are trees and human made structures that are 10,000 years old that would not have survived a flood.  


(Him) Prove it. Because the oldest known tree is the Prometheus tree is {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_(tree)} dated between 4862 and 5000 years old (Me: that's still older than when the flood would have happened). There's a tree in Sweden they say is 9550 (roughly) years old. Roughly is a pretty vague term. Let's get one thing straight though. I'm a young earth advocate but I've never been dogmatic about an exact 6000 plus year old earth. I've always been open to 6000-10000 years because (according to the atheist god of science) the earth starts suffering catastrophic problems with lunar, solar, cosmic, gravitational, magnetic...etc occurrences that would no longer support life. In any case, you're fighting over ("roughly"-their word) a few thousand years, when the evolutionist now has us at 65 billion years. Where's the million, billion, 30 billion year old tree. Doesn't exist. (Me: obviously trees don't live this long)


(Me) The pyramids at giza were constructed around 2589bc the global flood time according to answers in Genesis happened in 2348bc. 


(Him) Because you trust secular historians who, while they admit their timelines are vague and approximate, the atheist proponent presents those approximate timelines as set in stone. The pyramid timeline is a perfect example. The Historian Manetho (who lived in Egypt ABOUT 200 B.C.) and constructed the timeline, assumed the pharaohs’ reigns had been consecutive and so tallied them up sequentially to arrive at a very long Egyptian chronology. The problem, it appears, is that some of these pharaohs were reigning at the same time in different Egyptian kingdoms—the Upper Kingdom, Middle Kingdom, or Lower Kingdom. Sometimes fathers and sons seem to have reigned together for a long time, too. So the dates for the pharaohs are grossly inflated as many times they overlapped or ran concurrently. As an analogy, if we took all the past state governors of the United States and stacked their terms sequentially, the nation would appear to be much, much older than it is. The problem should be obvious.

Oh, one last point, I never said "even if the Bible were proven wrong I would still believe it just in case there's a chance I could go to hell (Pascal's Wager).

I said what if YOU were wrong, did YOU want to take that chance for YOURSELF and Lukas(my son, he thinks he needs to save him from hell) without at least diligently searching both sides of the argument. There's no doubt or question in my mind about the authenticity of the Bible. You see I fall on the side with the  facts. 

(Me) In the Nye/Ham debate, when asked what would change their minds? Nye said "evidence". Ham said "nothing". You see Nye want's evidence of creation, from the creationist, from the past, yet he can't provide "evidence" either. Nice trap, if you hold only one side to the rules and nor the evolutionary side to the same rules. Hey, do you beat your wife, No? Prove it. Well just ask your wife...no, no, no she may be in fear of telling the truth. Could luck proving a negative or positive, factually. Nye's evidence for evolution doesn't hold up because it's not observational, yet he wants evidence from Ham that's not observational. You see, Nye want's his non-observational "faith" to be considered science

(Him) Did you watch the debate instead of taking someone else's one sentence (no context provided, of course) as the summation of the whole debate and what was said? Link please...no wait, let me provide it to you. Here's the you tube video with the 3 hour debate. Watch who acts like the politician and who acts like the scientist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI

You'll have to scroll to the 12 Minute 45 second for the actually beginning of the debate. The first minutes of the debate is where you'll get a flavor of where it's going. Ham goes first with 5 minutes of laying out his creation model, beliefs, etc... and explains how secularists have hijacked the term "observational science" to include "unobservant hypothetical evolutionary science" as if it was also observable science (which it's not), while excluding creation science. 

Ham spends the beginning of his 5 minutes telling a cute story about bow ties, tying science to TV shows (CSI) where he tries to equate detectives using clues from the past to provide evidence for the future where he is apparently, unknowingly, talking about "observable" science, not "unobservable evolutionary belief" which he pretends is "observable" science. Then he talks a little about how Ham needs to defend the geological Strata table.

Notice how the creationist is required, at this time, to defend his faith, but the evolutionist is not required to also defend his (scientifically unproven faith). Nye thinks Ham is on trial. It doesn't seem to occur to him that his "unobservable science" is really on trial. 

Let's just stop this. I'm wasting my time. You have no real desire to search if there's a God or not. Every single question or answer from you is geared around atheistic disbelief. No matter how many times I answer a question, instead of you being upset that your latest atheist has hung you out to dry, or pulled the wool over your eyes, or didn't honestly give you all the information, you just double down and turn to a different source.

You have too much hate in your heart toward the thought of their being a Christ, at this time, anyway.

You force me to fight every atheist's argument while you hardly ever acknowledge when they've been proven wrong, or at least willfully withheld the whole story from you.

End.

So, what do you guys think? Any suggestions. I'm still learning a lot. I'm just getting started in my research. I've never had a real reason to research anything until my son was born.
There were other things that I questioned him on that he never answered.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2015, 10:45 PM
RE: father in law (YEC)
I always tell a christian theist to assume that all science (history, geology, archeology, biology, paleontology etc) that contradicts the bible is wrong. All of it. (Science provides them with a strawman to attack.)
Then I say : Now prove your god exists without resorting to using part of your claim to prove another part of your claim.


An atheist doesn't need science to be right. A theist absolutely needs science to be wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2015, 10:50 PM
RE: father in law (YEC)
You are doing fine. He's just sticking his fingers in his ears and saying nah nah nah I can't hear you... essentially.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2015, 10:55 PM
RE: father in law (YEC)
(05-01-2015 10:50 PM)photon9 Wrote:  You are doing fine. He's just sticking his fingers in his ears and saying nah nah nah I can't hear you... essentially.

That's basically what is coming down. His ego is so big he can't admit when he's wrong. He will always come up with a way to twist facts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2015, 10:59 PM
RE: father in law (YEC)
(05-01-2015 10:45 PM)RogueWarrior Wrote:  I always tell a christian theist to assume that all science (history, geology, archeology, biology, paleontology etc) that contradicts the bible is wrong. All of it. (Science provides them with a strawman to attack.)
Then I say : Now prove your god exists without resorting to using part of your claim to prove another part of your claim.


An atheist doesn't need science to be right. A theist absolutely needs science to be wrong.

He thinks science proves creation and that science is catching up to the babble. I think my hand is raw from how many times it's made contact with my face.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2015, 11:16 PM
RE: father in law (YEC)
G'day.

Sorry, but I can't help much; things like debate and geology aren't my forte.

I noticed you focused on the flood a bit, but I didn't see you bringing up the total lack of a global silt layer which would have been deposited by an allegedly global flood, which we would have been able to detect in several points points on the Earth and all points would show up as the same age, but such a thing does not exist.

Additionally, while your correspondent does point out that fossilisation is relatively rare, fossils used in the context of during the flood would be fatal; a global flood would wipe up literally everything; all plants, all marine life, all flying and land-based animals, and due to the inevitable deposit and the total wipe out off all corpse-harming factors, we could expect a great wealth fossils of exactly the same age inside the global deposit. Of course, we don't see that.

Frankly, he's right in that it's a waste of time; he will refuse to answer to any allegations made and will continue to rely on the "No You!" defence; he doesn't want to even admit that other people disagree with him, let alone to consider that he could be wrong.

And one last, slightly more comical note; the bibal states that the flood covered 'the highest mountains'; that would mean the water was above Mt. Everest; how on Earth did Noah's dove find land? Also, why did Noah even bother to send the dove; it's not like the ark had so much as a rudder, and why did Noah need to send the dove at all when god was talking directly to him a few pages back.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Free Thought's post
05-01-2015, 11:28 PM
RE: father in law (YEC)
(05-01-2015 11:16 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  G'day.

Sorry, but I can't help much; things like debate and geology aren't my forte.

I noticed you focused on the flood a bit, but I didn't see you bringing up the total lack of a global silt layer which would have been deposited by an allegedly global flood, which we would have been able to detect in several points points on the Earth and all points would show up as the same age, but such a thing does not exist.

Additionally, while your correspondent does point out that fossilisation is relatively rare, fossils used in the context of during the flood would be fatal; a global flood would wipe up literally everything; all plants, all marine life, all flying and land-based animals, and due to the inevitable deposit and the total wipe out off all corpse-harming factors, we could expect a great wealth fossils of exactly the same age inside the global deposit. Of course, we don't see that.

Frankly, he's right in that it's a waste of time; he will refuse to answer to any allegations made and will continue to rely on the "No You!" defence; he doesn't want to even admit that other people disagree with him, let alone to consider that he could be wrong.

And one last, slightly more comical note; the bibal states that the flood covered 'the highest mountains'; that would mean the water was above Mt. Everest; how on Earth did Noah's dove find land? Also, why did Noah even bother to send the dove; it's not like the ark had so much as a rudder, and why did Noah need to send the dove at all when god was talking directly to him a few pages back.

I could have went a lot more in to the flood. We actually have been debating this subject for months. The last scientific fact he tried to use for his favor was the finding of giant underground water reservoirs. What I showed him was that they weren't in liquid form but in blue rock called ringwoodite. He still thought the rock was proof of a flood.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2015, 12:18 AM
RE: father in law (YEC)
I'm not sure the value in arguing with your in-laws.
You're not going to solve the world's problems. You're not going to find proof that god does or doesn't exist.

You're not going to get your father in-law to listen to you, he is in defense mode because you are arguing.

Anyways, good luck.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2015, 08:01 AM
RE: father in law (YEC)
(06-01-2015 12:18 AM)Stevil Wrote:  I'm not sure the value in arguing with your in-laws.
You're not going to solve the world's problems. You're not going to find proof that god does or doesn't exist.

You're not going to get your father in-law to listen to you, he is in defense mode because you are arguing.

Anyways, good luck.

I've tried to avoid debating him for years. It wasn't until my son was born that this started because he wants to indoctrinate him with his beliefs. I told him I wanted him to grow up with an open mind and to be able to choose on his own. If he chooses to be Christian when he grows up then I'm fine with it. But, at least I gave him a choice.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like OceanTherapist's post
06-01-2015, 08:11 AM
RE: father in law (YEC)
(06-01-2015 08:01 AM)Ocean theRAPIST Wrote:  
(06-01-2015 12:18 AM)Stevil Wrote:  I'm not sure the value in arguing with your in-laws.
You're not going to solve the world's problems. You're not going to find proof that god does or doesn't exist.

You're not going to get your father in-law to listen to you, he is in defense mode because you are arguing.

Anyways, good luck.

I've tried to avoid debating him for years. It wasn't until my son was born that this started because he wants to indoctrinate him with his beliefs. I told him I wanted him to grow up with an open mind and to be able to choose on his own. If he chooses to be Christian when he grows up then I'm fine with it. But, at least I gave him a choice.

It really should be as easy as telling your FIL what your wishes are and what your expectations are of him concerning your son.

It is no different than if he was trying to teach your son Voodoo, Santeria, Islam, Hinduism, Christian Science or Homeopathy.

"Dear FIL, under no circumstance are you to teach my son (fill in the blank). If I find that you have you will lose all rights and privileges of being alone with him, it’s that simple. End of story.”

You don’t have to convince your father that his beliefs are wrong, this isn’t a tug-of-war where the winner gets to teach YOUR son what they personally believe, you have all the control here, be firm. Good luck.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: