What are the reasons for OEC?

[joel]

I don't think we're ever going to agree on this, because we have different beliefs on natural laws of the universe. I would just not recommend trying to debate with non-Christians on this.

What, specifically, about what I am saying do you think would be inadviseable for debating with non-Christians?

And I am interested in your view of natural laws and what reasons you have for your view. Do you see non-sentient matter as requiring God's sustinance for its existence but being otherwise autonomous, perfectly obeying commands given to it at its creation? And I'm not sure what is the significant distinction between that and what I am saying: that God's hand is moving non-sentient matter.

On the other hand, I don't think the distinction has any bearing on my original question in this thread. We both agree that nature itself was governed differently before the fall. We only have a technical disagreement on the nature of that governance. It seems that my original point still stands, that things in nature occurred differently before the Fall, and that dating methods rely on uniformity. Therefore such dating methods can only be reliable as far back as the Fall. Do you at least agree with me on that point?

[MrManNo1]

What, specifically, about what I am saying do you think would be inadviseable for debating with non-Christians?

Most (if not all) non-Christians aren't going to accept that God drastically altered the laws of physics post-Fall, and some may even mock you for it.

And I am interested in your view of natural laws and what reasons you have for your view. Do you see non-sentient matter as requiring God's sustinance for its existence but being otherwise autonomous, perfectly obeying commands given to it at its creation? And I'm not sure what is the significant distinction between that and what I am saying: that God's hand is moving non-sentient matter.

I believe that God set into motion particular laws at the beginning of creation in such a manner that He would not be required to actively babysit them, and so that things can (for example) move without God actively "moving" them. Basically, I believe that God created the universe to function according to its own laws, and not requiring God to "uphold" those laws. I think as long as God upholds the universe, the laws will function as they are.

On the other hand, I don't think the distinction has any bearing on my original question in this thread. We both agree that nature itself was governed differently before the fall. We only have a technical disagreement on the nature of that governance. It seems that my original point still stands, that things in nature occurred differently before the Fall, and that dating methods rely on uniformity. Therefore such dating methods can only be reliable as far back as the Fall. Do you at least agree with me on that point?

I do agree that certain dating methods are unreliable (I don't, for example, see any way around dendrochronology), because we don't know how the universe functioned prior to the Fall (and as a matter of fact, we don't know the exact constituents of the atmosphere and what effect it would have on the dating techniques, even in the uniformitarian universe). I don't, however, think that nature was essentially different before the Fall.

[joel]

Most (if not all) non-Christians aren't going to accept that God drastically altered the laws of physics post-Fall, and some may even mock you for it.

Firstly, what reason does the non-Christian have for believing that the laws of nature have always been the way we observe them now? What is the basis for belief in uniformity?

Secondly, if the non-Christian is asserting a logical contradiction between Christianity and Nature, then they cannot use their non-Christian assumptions to prove that contradiction--they would have to deal with the concept of God on His own grounds.

Thirdly, they already mock Christians for their belief in God. Should we then be silent about the fact that God created, since we are mocked for it?

we don't know how the universe functioned prior to the Fall

On that we agree. That is my core point.

I don't, however, think that nature was essentially different before the Fall.

Neither do I, but I don't think "how matter moves today" is necessarily an essential quality of the physical realm. But, as I said, I think this is a technical side matter, and that we actually do agree on the core of my OP--that we don't know how the universe functioned prior to the Fall.

[MrManNo1]

Firstly, what reason does the non-Christian have for believing that the laws of nature have always been the way we observe them now? What is the basis for belief in uniformity?

There isn't, except that we've never personally experienced catastrophic alterations in the laws of nature.

Secondly, if the non-Christian is asserting a logical contradiction between Christianity and Nature, then they cannot use their non-Christian assumptions to prove that contradiction--they would have to deal with the concept of God on His own grounds.

I agree with this, however, that will not stop them from doing it. As those who are defending the faith, we have to find ways around their logic, and either turn it against them, or simply show them why it is wrong.

Thirdly, they already mock Christians for their belief in God. Should we then be silent about the fact that God created, since we are mocked for it?

No, but there is a difference. Lives are at stake for the latter. Believing in a Young Earth isn't as essential an issue, and tends to only push people further away (as many people believe that it is a proven fact that the universe functioned the way that Neo-Darwinists state).

Neither do I, but I don't think "how matter moves today" is necessarily an essential quality of the physical realm. But, as I said, I think this is a technical side matter, and that we actually do agree on the core of my OP--that we don't know how the universe functioned prior to the Fall.

I do agree, but I don't believe that God made it so the fundamental laws would have to be altered. As I stated earlier, I think things like dating techniques would have been essentially the same, except that certain changes in the atmosphere of earth drastically altered the rate that, for example, radioactive elements break down.