Ken Ham .vs. Bill Nye (Deists, myth, churches, Israel)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The debate addressed the issue of the age of the earth. I am not, and never have been a young earth creationist. The Bible does not teach that the earth is only a few thousand years old. While the events in Genesis 1:2b and following took place in six literal 24 hour days, these events do not speak of the original creation of the heavens and the earth which is mentioned in Genesis 1:1.
I hold to the ruin-restoration gap view. These two sites address that. Since the first site may be a King James only site, I will state that I am not a King James only advocate. I simply post it because it concerns the ruin-restoration view of which I am speaking. One need not be a King James only advocate to accept the ruin-restoration gap view.
Genesis says God created all living creatures during the six day period, so even if earth and heavens existed before day 1, it says it was empty and void, so it would suggest the origin of all living creatures must be only 6000 years old.
Genesis says God created all living creatures during the six day period, so even if earth and heavens existed before day 1, it says it was empty and void, so it would suggest the origin of all living creatures must be only 6000 years old.
Hi Finn. God did create all living creatures. The ruin-restoration gap view recognizes that. But there is a difference between original creation and the restoration mentioned in Genesis 1:3 and following. But I don't want to get into a discussion of the ruin restoration gap view on this thread because it's not the topic. I mentioned it only because I did not want it thought that because I am an old earth creationist that I believe in the day-age theory which I do not.
If you are interested, read 'WITHOUT FORM AND VOID' by Arthur C. Custance. It's online so you don't have to go buy the book. Here it is. Without Form and Void - Frontpage
The idea that the earth 'became' something in 2:1a is not possible given Hebrew grammar. Genesis 1:1 was not a creative act as can be seen by the context and the grammar. Genesis 2:1 'Thus the heavens and the earth and all the host of them were finished.' The creative acts began in verse 3, on day 1, 'let there be light' and were finished on day 6.
We can paraphrase as:
When God said let there be light, the earth was without form and empty, darkness was upon the surface of the waters, and the wind of God was moving over the surface of the waters. God called the light day....
The Hebrew word "bara" stands for an act of creation in Gen1:1. Isa 45:18 says that God creates nothing void, but He made the earth in Gen1:1 inhabitant. The earth was or became a chaos in Gen 1:2. That speaks of a judgement and not of an creation. The scientific record of the earth proofs that the earth was more a development of catastrophes than evolution. There was death on the earth before Adam sinned, the geology gives record. The earth is as much a testimony of God as the bible is and both cannot contradict each other. There was a world that perished in Gen1:2 and you are right, the re-creation began in Gen1:3 on an old earth that existed but was made empty and void through water.
Science Guy: Observable Evidence, Decay Theories, Investigative Hypotheses, Naturalist explanations, No magic, Agnosticism to unanswered questions, etc.
Creationist Museum Guy: Genesis must be pure History, Decay Theories are bunk, God's Magic, Believe by Believing, If you think my way you'll think my way, Got to have an answer to everything or else life is meaningless to me, etc.
A lot of Christians disliked the Creationist Museum Guy's arguments.
Completely false statements. Creationists also observe evidence, decay theories, etc. By your logic, Isaac Newton wasn't a real scientist.
Hi Finn. God did create all living creatures. The ruin-restoration gap view recognizes that. But there is a difference between original creation and the restoration mentioned in Genesis 1:3 and following. But I don't want to get into a discussion of the ruin restoration gap view on this thread because it's not the topic. I mentioned it only because I did not want it thought that because I am an old earth creationist that I believe in the day-age theory which I do not.
If you are interested, read 'WITHOUT FORM AND VOID' by Arthur C. Custance. It's online so you don't have to go buy the book. Here it is. Without Form and Void - Frontpage
I did, but didn't see much about living creatures. I'll google around a bit,
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 02-07-2014 at 11:26 AM..
Genesis says God created all living creatures during the six day period, so even if earth and heavens existed before day 1, it says it was empty and void, so it would suggest the origin of all living creatures must be only 6000 years old.
Latest evidence released just today, suggests that MAN in Europe, is about 800,000 years old.
Quote:
Archaeologists announced Friday that they have discovered human footprints in England that are between 800,000 and 1 million years old — the most ancient found outside Africa, and the earliest evidence of human life in northern Europe.
A team from the British Museum, London's Natural History Museum and Queen Mary college at the University of London uncovered imprints from up to five individuals in ancient estuary mud at Happisburgh on the country's eastern coast.
British Museum archaeologist Nick Ashton said the discovery — recounted in detail in the journal PLOS ONE — was "a tangible link to our earliest human relatives."
Preserved in layers of silt and sand for hundreds of millennia before being exposed by the tide last year, the prints give a vivid glimpse of some of our most ancient ancestors. They were left by a group, including at least two children and one adult male. They could have been be a family foraging on the banks of a river scientists think may be the ancient Thames, beside grasslands where bison, mammoth, hippos and rhinoceros roamed.
--------------- Ashton said the footprints are between 800,000 — "as a conservative estimate" — and 1 million years old, at least 100,000 years older than scientists' earlier estimate of the first human habitation in Britain. That's significant because 700,000 years ago, Britain had a warm, Mediterranean-style climate. The earlier period was much colder, similar to modern-day Scandinavia.
Natural History Museum archaeologist Chris Stringer said that 800,000 or 900,000 years ago Britain was "the edge of the inhabited world."
"This makes us rethink our feelings about the capacity of these early people, that they were coping with conditions somewhat colder than the present day," he said.
"Maybe they had cultural adaptations to the cold we hadn't even thought were possible 900,000 years ago. Did they wear clothing? Did they make shelters, windbreaks and so on? Could they have had the use of fire that far back?" he asked.
Scientists dated the footprints by studying their geological position and from nearby fossils of long-extinct animals including mammoth, ancient horse and early vole.
John McNabb, director of the Center for the Archaeology of Human Origins at the University of Southampton — who was not part of the research team — said the use of several lines of evidence meant "the dating is pretty sound."
Once uncovered, the perishable prints were recorded using sophisticated digital photography to create 3-D images in which it's possible to discern arches of feet, and even toes.
Isabelle De Groote, a specialist in ancient human remains at Liverpool John Moores University who worked on the find, said that from the pattern of the prints, the group of early humans appeared to be "pottering around," perhaps foraging for food.
She said it wasn't too much of a stretch to call it a family.
"These individuals traveling together, it's likely that they were somehow related," she said.
Only to the point that it contradicts their theology. I'm confident that provided the data we currently have, Isaac Newton would not be a theist.
I think you've believed a delusion. There are plenty of non-religious folk that are unwilling to look at truth because it contradicts what they've come to believe. The Theory of Evolution is a prime example--there is a huge lack of fossil evidence for it...but it contradicts their belief system so they refuse to think honestly on it. Darwin himself stated that this fossil evidence would be found...but it hasn't. But people still cling to the idea.
Another example is the cosmological argument for the existence of God. It's logical to assume that there was EITHER a personal, creator God, or there was not. If we disprove one option, by necessity the other must be held as true. I can disprove logically the idea that the universe had no cause....but I've met many atheists that would rather believe in a third option that they can't define...but they just KNOW it MUST be there.
I'm sorry...your side is only willing to accept that which does not contradict their presuppositions.
Anyone can observe something. Understanding and observing are two different things.
And the arrogant ones are the ones that say that ONLY they have the correct understanding.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
