For some reason, God took the time to give us a time-line starting from Adam to Moses (Adam created in Day 6, Seth born when Adam was 130 years old, Enos born .... etc). It is disingenuous to claim that this time-line is not in the Bible. Bishop Ussher, Isaac Newton, Johan Kepler, Martin Luther, etc all independently came up with the 4000 B.C. marker (plus or minus a few years -- as the co-regencies of various kings of Judah could be interpreted differently).
The reality is we have documented cultures who were writing and leaving written records long before 6,000 years ago.
Your "reality" is based on what? Would you stake your life on the "reality" of this evidence?
Really? it escapes you? You are denying the Bible now? Jesus was indeed buried in a tomb and the tomb was sealed. This analogy is exactly accurate, the young earth theory is just as nonsensical as this overlaying a body over a city and claiming where the heart would be located is the location of Christ’s tomb.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I admit, when I first read your quote: "...where Jesus was believed buried..." I thought you were saying "where Jesus was believed buried" - and not "where Jesus was believed to have been buried before He rose from the dead". But now that you've cleared up that misunderstanding -- I still have no idea what you are talking about regarding "...this overlaying a body over a city and claiming where the heart would be located is the location of Christ's tomb..." Is this something important to you? It doesn't make any sense to me.
...ignorant ... nonsense ... ignore reason and make up your own reality ... indeed just making it up.... The very idea that science and theology are in conflict is idiotic [hey, we found something we can agree on] ... too damned pig headed to remotely accept THEY DON’T KNOW WHAT THEY DON’T KNOW....insane claim of the earth is only a few thousand years stands so at odd .... etc.
Ok, you disagree that the Earth is <10,000 years old.
You wish to argue belief against observation, that is the fallacy of the young earth. The idea that mankind has walked the earth for a mere 6000 years is not supported by the facts, let alone that the earth itself has a lifespan measured in thousands of years.
You wish to take the bible in a vacuum, that is your choice, you choose to do that, its a belief, which is fine, but it is not supported by observable fact. Which facts you ask? The plethora of historical documentations from across the globe. Mankind has been writing (not merely existing, not putting pictures on cave walls), but actually using written language for more than 6000 years. We know the rough timelines of dynasties in Asia, India, the Middle East, even the new world, yes even the new world has human civilizations that predate the 6000 year claims.
To claim the world is 6000 or 10000 years old is to flat out deny observable evidence in favor of a belief... and you are free to believe what you like, but that belief is not supported by any observable fact.
While the 3 hour debate wasn’t really a debate, it did bring about a few key points that Ham flat out ignored. If you take the timeline of the Bible, and even your concession that perhaps 10000 is a more realistic number, you wind up with what according to Ham would be approximately 2000 total individual animals of 1000 “kinds” (his claim not mine) becoming the mulititude that we now visually know to exist in about 8,500 years. But not only those we know to exist today, but those we know existed from historical documents that are now extinct (And thats just in the documents from about 0AD to Today, not from historical documentations before that. With that sort of diversity required to just get to where we are today, post the flood which according to the Biblical dates is roughly ~1550 years from Adam to the flood, and about ~2000 from adam to his Noahs death) we are to believe that this all happened without ever being noticed or recorded by any living soul on the earth? That new species were sprouting out ad dozens if not hundreds or hundreds of thousands a day and not a single sole anywhere noticed or recorded it?
The reality is, we do have documents, many of them from cultures around the globe that existed during the time frame your belief tells you they could not.. yet they do. You are welcome to your belief, but your belief is not backed up by any empirical evidence, and that is why the “young earth” belief is so easy to disprove, and why the debate really had nothing to with ID or Evolution, because it never really got into that serious discussion, but was dragged down by a belief that pretty much ensured a true discussion about ID or Evolution would not occur.
I understand people believe the earth may be a few thousand years old, just as I know there are people who believe if they blow themselves up and kill jews in the process they will be rewarded by their god, but these are BELIEFS not things that withstand reasonable analysis.
You believe the documented dates in the bible (the word of god) and a whole lot of supposition by the very fallible hand of man give you all that you need. You reject all other tangible evidence recording just as accurately if not far more so, dates and timelines that counteract your belief. You are indeed free to do so, but that is your belief, and not something that is empirically observable and provable. The counter evidence is not something that needs to be taken purely on faith, we have the historical records of countless societies that attest quite well that what you believe does not coincide with the multitude of other evidence.
In fact, going by the 6000 date that Ham throws around, the reality is that the first Pharaoh of Egypt would have had to been in power right around the time Noah was born, let alone after the flood had occurred. Are we to deny the Egyptians existed? Or that they did not perceive and record time as the Hebrews did? Did their empire somehow get spared the flood that killed all life other than Noah? Yet somehow rose once again from the ashes after the flood and never have recorded the fact their nation was utterly destroyed but rose again?
Or are we more likely to accept that the 6000 age was derived by the very fallible hand of man and not correct? YOu don’t have to go to things like carbon dating to prove the earth is more than 6000 years old, we have as Mr Ham likes to state people who OBSERVED it and wrote about it. To hold that believe you must absolutely deny the recorded observations by those who lived it and did record it.