Posted on 02/05/2014 7:12:10 AM PST by edcoil
And because of length contraction, London could either be 6,000 or 6 miles from LA!
18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”[a] 20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.
22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.
I was a little disappointed by Hamm (with whom I agree). He failed to use a variety of arguments and physical examples that I’ve heard him present in his earlier videos.
Both of these guys are nuts.
"The question was not really about the ark or sediment layers or fossils. It was about the central worldview clash of our times, and of any time: the clash between the worldview of the self-declared “reasonable man” and the worldview of the sinner saved by grace." - Albert Mohler
I like Mohler's analysis better than yours.
I’ll accept that proving evolution wrong is a great place to start.
(Note: Adaptation within a species is NOT proof of evolution from one species to another)
With all due respect the bible never claimed a 6000 year old earth. .ever! This 6000 year claim is some crap a bad bible scholar came up with...
George McCready Price. Creationists have created a little cargo cult based on his "flood geology".
While the whole idea of a 6000 year old world is a no brainer, there is nothing to suggest that our universe wasn’t concocted by someone 12 billion years ago.
Ken Ham argued no such thing. He argued that because there is a God that created us that we can be sure of the laws of logic and the laws of nature that were set in place by Him. He argued that Bill Nye was borrowing from the biblical worldview when believing in things like logic and laws of nature. He wasn’t arguing against the laws of nature.
You are doing the same thing that Bill Nye tried to do last night. You are setting up a straw man and then knocking it down. Ken Ham is a young earth creationists who loves science and discovery. He isn’t trying to shut down scientific progress. To equate him with Islamic fundamentalists that hate science is dishonest at best.
He clearly demonstrated that there are many published and accomplished scientist that also believe in a young earth and six day creation. Dr Damadian who invented the MRI is one of them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOM0v0dQnjI
The reason the debate came about is because Bill Nye claimed that creationists should keep their ideas to themselves and not teach them to their own children and he equated it with the destruction of scientific progress in the USA. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHbYJfwFgOU begin at 1:45 mark. Also, scientists like Richard Dawkins equate teaching creation to child abuse.
Answers is Genesis posted a video refuting Nye’s argument and the debate was born out of that. Ken Ham isn’t forcing his worldview on anyone. The people that listen to him want to learn what he has to say and they want their children to learn it too. You have a problem with that? Bill Nye does!
That is the basic premise of the “Ultimate Proof of Creationism”.
That there is logic at all for the unbeliever to attempt to use to “debunk” the Creator.
Agreed! How does logic and consciousness evolve?
Young Earthers force themselves into that position, and yes he argued that.
Show me exactly where Ken Ham argued that?
Atomic Dating.
Nye brought up the rather obvious point that light from distant stars (that we see) takes millions of years (or more) to reach earth.
That is an obvious example where Young Earth narrative falls apart.
I read a creation book once that argued that God created the light on route so we could see it immediately, but if you can believe that then its perfectly logical to assume that he created everything on Earth to look old, as he did the star light (it also means the star light really doesn't come from stars), if that's your argument.
And if they believe that then Creation Science makes absolutely no sense at all, which is the case for the young Earthers obviously.
I guess they could argue that stars that are millions of miles away are really only a few miles away.
“there is not a single law of science observed today that we can assume applied even a few hundred years ago.”
This is what you said he argued. Not a single law?
There are problems with dating methods. That isn’t arguing against every single law of science. There are lots of assumptions used in dating methods. Ken Ham addressed them. What law of science did he assume doesn’t apply even a few hundred years ago when he argued about dating methods?
You don’t have to agree with him but don’t make arguments that he didn’t make. That is dishonest.
Have you ever read the “potato peeler” analogy of the assumptions inherent in atomic dating?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
