Kyle Butt is a Young Earth Creationist.  If there were no other reasons to discount his credibility, that one is easily enough.

 

Every branch of science refutes YEC.  It is logically, reasonably, scientifically, and demonstrably untrue.

 

If Butt was willing to lie about the age of the Earth, he's willing to lie about everything, and he did.

 

DF

Yes, God does exist.  Your very existance proves that.  You can argue that God does not exist all you want to.  That does not change the fact that He does.  The time will come when EVERY knee will bow down to Him.  I would not want to be in the shoes of the athiest when that time comes.

Originally Posted by oldgreymare:

Yes, God does exist.  Your very existance proves that.  You can argue that God does not exist all you want to.  That does not change the fact that He does.  The time will come when EVERY knee will bow down to Him.  I would not want to be in the shoes of the athiest when that time comes.

You are truly delusional. My existence has nothing to do with God. Neither does yours. Saying so doesn't make it true. Man created God in his own image. Believe what you like, just don't insult us both by saying that you have proof of your irrational belief.

One problem is that none of them can make their god appealing.  The god they worship is a pretty rough customer, even to the ones that love and follow him. It's like the cruel people that get their kids a puppy and let them pull, tug and torture the pup. Then when the puppy bites in self defense the cruel owner beats it. The god they describe can't be pleased no matter what they do.

Originally Posted by JimiHendrix:
One thing that I know is that you cannot prove, by evidence, that anything does not exist. Unicorns or fairies, anyone? Anyone (Contendah) who says otherwise has zero knowledge of debate. Since there is no evidence for the existence of God, debate on this subject is not possible. To claim that it is, is to be idiotic. <omitted as my reply addresses only the above>

Well then if you are certain of this then you "Atheist of the Year" has just been called an idiot  a, whether or not he titled the debate" he took the debate on the pretense that he could.  He also, during the debate, in as much said Hitchens and other atheist, who Kyle used direct quotes from, was incorrect or wrong.  He said he disagreed with them.  I apologize for not being able to cite the exact topics that he disagreed with but I do believe there was more than one.  I don't know if the debate will be out on youtube or not but possibly if some other saw the debate then can remember exactly the areas that Blair disagreed with Hitchens and other popular avowed atheist.

 

  He also, during the debate, in as much said Hitchens and other atheist, who Kyle used direct quotes from, was incorrect or wrong. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 I apologize for not being able to cite the exact topics that he disagreed with but I do believe there was more than one.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Gb, surely you can remember a little of it. My goodness, how do you claim victory if you can't? Did he disagree with them about everything or some things? Guess what, that happens. Even christians disagree with each other on many many points. Or so you all say.

Originally Posted by Not Shallow Not Slim:

Kyle Butt is a Young Earth Creationist.  If there were no other reasons to discount his credibility, that one is easily enough.

 

Every branch of science refutes YEC.  It is logically, reasonably, scientifically, and demonstrably untrue.

 

If Butt was willing to lie about the age of the Earth, he's willing to lie about everything, and he did.

 

DF


Speaking of lies or lying about the things I thought it was a very interesting part of the debate when Kyle, in the process of debating with Blair Scott, got the Atheist of the Year to pronounce openly, in public debate, that just as many proclaim in situational ethics, that it is fully permissible (morally acceptable) to lie.  A method to the means so to say.   One of the best or biggest laughter times came when, after all this talk about it being permissible and justifiable to lie, Kyle inquired of Blair, have you lied tonight?

 

As for science and scientist and Kyle and the Apologetics Press they have many scientist on their list and site which refute other scientist.  The credibility of the scientist or person, I find, depends on the position they take.  Their particular credibility is usually determined, in the minds of others, as to if they personally believe in God or not.  For instance Apologetic Press believes their credentials are not only valid but highly esteemed.  Those who advocate Atheism, Evolution, or argue that there is no God naturally dismiss their credentials and pronounce them bad scientist.  

 

Amazing that all their studies (many hold doctorates) and work is all disqualified if they have a personal belief in Christ or if they participate and contribute to Apologetic s Press.  There are many articles over there at that site that are scientifically oriented yet I realize and know they are not accepted as valid by Atheist and some other scientist.   Their validity is determined not by their education or experience but mainly by if they believe in Christ or not.  If so that is such a biased response and non-scientific in itself.

As for science and scientist and Kyle and the Apologetics Press they have many scientist on their list and site which refute other scientist.  The credibility of the scientist or person, I find, depends on the position they take.  Their particular credibility is usually determined, in the minds of others, as to if they personally believe in God or not. 

 

Link to that claim please. What happens is that christians quote so called "scientists" that are not connected in any way to the field the christians are claiming. Very few scientists believe in a god but someone in the scientific field might. Scientists are like doctors or any other people that work in one profession but in completely different areas or levels of expertise. In other words gb, would you let an orthopedic surgeon operate on your brain?

Originally Posted by JimiHendrix:
Originally Posted by oldgreymare:

Yes, God does exist.  Your very existance proves that.  You can argue that God does not exist all you want to.  That does not change the fact that He does.  The time will come when EVERY knee will bow down to Him.  I would not want to be in the shoes of the athiest when that time comes.

You are truly delusional. My existence has nothing to do with God. Neither does yours. Saying so doesn't make it true. Man created God in his own image. Believe what you like, just don't insult us both by saying that you have proof of your irrational belief.

Proof that God exist?  Physical Proof?  It all depends on who considered is valid or not.  We can and have, as has the Bible, that Proof of God exist and existed.  It is whether or not you choose to accept that as valid or not.   Some have said before if God exist why doesn't He come here in front of me and appear to me and prove Himself.  Fact is not only has He but He has offered to live with you for the rest of your Physical Life.

 

God came to man, lived with and walked, talked, etc with man as a man in the flesh named Jesus Christ.  Jesus Christ claimed to be God's son, literally God in Human Flesh, and He not only taught us and lived with us but died on the Cross as a perfect sacrifice for all who would accept Him.  For all who would accept that sacrifice for their sins and sinful nature He would (God would) give a gift of God's Holy Spirit to dwell and live with each Christian/believer.  In times when life becomes hard to bear and gets humanly tough God's Holy Spirit is there to insure that God knows and God comforts and God is real and alive.  No there is Physical Proof of God it's in Jesus Christ which is how Christianity differs from any and every other religion and god around. 

 

The question is whether or not you accept the information, the proof provided as valid.  Each person had to make that decision to themselves.  To claim, thought, when you have rejected God and have Rejected Christ, that it is all false and invalid is to say your opinion trumps and is move valid than millions of others who believe and testify otherwise. 

 

I say I have a dream and that dream was to fly.  You may or may not believe that but you most likely will consider that a valid statement based on the fact that you also have dreams.  It is something common among other people so everyone who has dreams will not find it difficult to believe.  They may not have the exact same dream but they have dreams so they believe in dreams and that they can and do exist.  If I say I have had a very bad pain in my heart and have a heart attack and this is what it is like.  You may not have had  a heart attack so you don't know what it's like but because other people, that have had heart attacks, say and testify to essentially the same thing you give it credence and say I believe in heart attacks that people have them and one day I might also.  Why is not the same consideration given unto God?  Enough people claim to have met God and live daily with God's Holy Spirit within their lives yet somehow this testimony from all these people is dismissed because you don't have the exact same experience.  How are you so certain, beyond a shadow of a doubt certain?

Speaking of lies or lying about the things I thought it was a very interesting part of the debate when Kyle, in the process of debating with Blair Scott, got the Atheist of the Year to pronounce openly, in public debate, that just as many proclaim in situational ethics, that it is fully permissible (morally acceptable) to lie.  A method to the means so to say.   One of the best or biggest laughter times came when, after all this talk about it being permissible and justifiable to lie, Kyle inquired of Blair, have you lied tonight?


gb.  The N a z i s are at your door.  You have hidden a family of Jews in your attic.  Will you lie to save their lives?


DF

II Kings 8:10- Elisha, God's prophet, instructs Hazel to give Ben-hadad a false prophecy, which he does.

I Kings 22:22- Granted that this takes place by a spirit speaking through a false prophet which Ahab should not have been listening to in order to bring Ahab into judgment for his own wickedness. But it is still God-ordained deception.

John 7:1-10- There seems to be some uncertainty about the word "yet" in verse 8. Whether this should be included or not, Jesus tricked his brothers into thinking he was not going to the feast- but once they were gone he went up " in cognito".

Jeremiah 38:24-27- King Zedekiah instructs Jeremiah to lie to the king's officials about the subject of Jeremiah's conversation with the king as a means of saving Jeremiah's life. We see no condemnation from God towards Jeremiah when he follows this advice. Does the end justify the means?

Exodus 1:15-21- The midwives blatantly lie to Pharoah about their disobedience to his obviously wicked command. Their motives were obviously good (v 17), intending to save the Israelite babies out of fear for God. Not only does God not disapprove of their deception, but He compliments and rewards their methods (v20,21). Is it OK to do a "small" sin to avoid doing a "large" sin?

I Samuel 16:1-5- God instructs Samuel to mislead the elders of the city (and Saul, indirectly) about the true intentions of Samuel's visit. Samuel tells them he is simply there to sacrifice, but in reality he is anointing the next king of Israel.

I Samuel 21:1-3- David lies to Ahimelech the priest about his mission. David tells the priest that he is on a secret mission for Saul, when he is really running from Saul. Again we do not see any condemnation from God or remorse from David. Keeping in mind that David was so sensitive that he was distraught over cutting Saul's robe a short time later, it seems odd that lying to the priest does not bother him a bit.

I Samuel 27:8-12- David lies to the Philistine king Achish, telling him that he was attaching Jewish towns, when he was actually raiding other Philistine settlements. Again, no condemnation from God and no remorse from David.

Originally Posted by Not Shallow Not Slim:

Speaking of lies or lying about the things I thought it was a very interesting part of the debate when Kyle, in the process of debating with Blair Scott, got the Atheist of the Year to pronounce openly, in public debate, that just as many proclaim in situational ethics, that it is fully permissible (morally acceptable) to lie.  A method to the means so to say.   One of the best or biggest laughter times came when, after all this talk about it being permissible and justifiable to lie, Kyle inquired of Blair, have you lied tonight?


gb.  The N a z i s are at your door.  You have hidden a family of Jews in your attic.  Will you lie to save their lives?


DF

Don't try to read too much into my post.   You post indicated that Kyle Butt lied, as if he deliberately lied, about the Young Earth.   You know as well as I do that Kyle has a very good reason and basis he believes what he does as do you.  He happens do disagree with you and you with him but neither of you lie you are just voicing your beliefs based upon that which you consider to be the factual theory.  I don't see deception going on.  

 

I did though think that was one of the better parts of the debate where Kyle ask Blair if he had lied anytime during the debate.  It was just one point he got a large laugh and caught Blair off guard.

 

As to your question I hope you are being facetious.  Of course I would as would most anyone.  There is however one thing I would never lie about even at the sacrifice of my own life and an even harder decision at my families and that would be to deny my savior and God.  To that I could and would never do.  Not for saving my own life or for as much wealth as you could accumulate would I deny my Savior or the Holy Spirit of God within me.  Any other scenario and the answer to that I could potentially lie about depending on the situation.  I can't say I would feel right or good about it and would have to ask forgiveness for my sins as I do with my current shortcomings.  Man/women, the flesh, is sinful in and of itself and capable of any and all sins. 

The only twisting or changing of words was when Blair called it rape when that word is never used in the Bible.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The bible uses ravish or ravished. Saying that is twisting or changing words is like saying you can't say the word some instead of an unspecified amount.

Add Reply

Likes (0)
Post

×
×
×
×