-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Excellent points and I hardly ever hear of anyone stating the possibility that the animals were all young and not fully grown which would allow for plenty of room. It is simple...you either believe or you don't believe the flood story as it all stands together and or falls together. Up until the late 50's early 60's before the (ACID GURUS) like Timothy Leary...most geologists (not all) gave sound that the earth has overwhelming evidence of a world wide deludge, not to mention the fact that most ancient civilizations have a flood story which would make sense because all humanity came from 3 men and 3 women who experienced the flood and would have passed down the testimony of the flood which is time would be corrupted by most sources as Satan likes to corrupt the truth about said event so as to lead humanity further down the path of destruction and disbelief.
He was not being childish. Bill Nye was clarifying that his purpose was to debate creationism, more specifically young earth creationism. Ham and others suggest the earth is 6,000 years old, based on their interpretations of science and the Bible.
There are many people of different faiths and within Christianity who do not hold to the 6,000 model, aka Ken Ham's model.
T
TodayJunior
Guest
You have to hand it to Bill Nye for being a nice guy and not condescending like some
atheists are.
One thing, I couldn't stand about Ken Ham was his argument "Were you there?"
Well, why do detectives and the forensics teams try to solve crimes if they "weren't there"?
LOL!
atheists are.
One thing, I couldn't stand about Ken Ham was his argument "Were you there?"
Well, why do detectives and the forensics teams try to solve crimes if they "weren't there"?
LOL!
A
Anonimous
Guest
A
Anonimous
Guest
For all the debating...which I was not terribly interest in seeing...I really don't care how old the earth is. Never did. I just do not have a curious nature that way...
D
danschance
Guest
My point is Ham is not the origin of the young earth model. Yet Nye stated many times it was Ham's model.
I like Nye and Ham but that was wrong, IMHO.
D
danschance
Guest
You can watch it here:
[video=youtube;z6kgvhG3AkI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI[/video]
A
Anonimous
Guest
Early in my Christian walk I was a young earth advocate. But this was, primarily, because it was the only interpretation I had been exposed to. After doing more scripture study, and searching outside the box, it became obvious that Adam was not the first human. If he was, then Cain would not have feared "...that everyone that findeth me shall slay me" (Gen. 4:14). This tells us of pre-Adamic humans in the land which Cain was driven to. This also explains where Cain got his wife (Gen. 4:16). Young earth proponents try to get around this by stating that Cain married a sister. But there is absolutely no evidence for this. They are reading the idea into the text. A close reading of Genesis 4 reveals about six references to pre-Adamic man. These appear to be the humans described in chapter one (in days 1-7). Chapter two, it seems, is describing Adam as created after, some unknown time after the seventh day. Support for this is the references to pre-Adamic humans in chapter four. We know then, based upon Arch Bishop Ushers research, that Adam and his kind have been around about 6000 years. It's too bad that so many evangelicals build their young earth model by blindly assuming that Adam was the first human when this is likely not true. We should also recognize the extreme brevity in the creation account and try not to read into it things which are not there. Yes, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen. 1:1). This tells me that that of which the universe consists (time, space, matter and energy) was created by Yahweh God---out of nothing. It also tells me that He who created, out of nothing, created the first form of life---out of non life. As for exactly when, and how our Creator did this I do not know and Genesis does not say. We should not therefore insist that the universe is a mere 6000 years old based upon an assumption that Adam was the first human. Intelligent Design is a better explanation.
I'm indebted to the late archaeologist and Bible scholar E. Raymond Capt, whose book Biblical Antiquities: Book I shed much light on this subject.
I'm indebted to the late archaeologist and Bible scholar E. Raymond Capt, whose book Biblical Antiquities: Book I shed much light on this subject.
A
Anonimous
Guest
I am curious about something...is it at all possible that there is someone that cares less about the age of the earth than me?
T
Tintin
Guest
Bill Nye was being condescending and he played dirty but under the guise of being charming.
The CSI analogy was silly. Crime scene investigation is heavily reliant on witness testimonies and, as anyone knows, people are fallible and the reliability of these testimonies are often called into question.
T
Tintin
Guest
YEC rely first and foremost on the Bible as the standard for truth. The more and more that people move away from a plain reading of the text (day-age theory, evolutionary theory etc.), the more they have to create more non-biblical ideas to justify their jumping through of hoops.
T
TodayJunior
Guest
Physical evidence trumps eyewitness testimony.
And what about the Gospels? Aren't those supposed to be based on eyewitness accounts?
As anyone knows, people are fallible and the reliability of these testimonies are often
called into question.
My point about Ken Ham's "Were you there?" argument is that what are you supposed
to do when you want to solve a crime? Just give up because you weren't there?
No. You look around and gather evidence. That's what scientists do when they want
to figure out stuff. They don't just say "Well we weren't there so no point in doing
any work, I guess".
Last edited by a moderator:
S
Spokenpassage
Guest
T
Tintin
Guest
I see what you're saying but, no. If someone calls themself a Christian, they should take God at His Word. It doesn't stop the need for exploration but enhances it and gives it a solid framework from which to work.
