Posted on 02/06/2014 8:33:34 AM PST by PapaNew
Creationist Ken Ham is having his 15 minutes, following a live debate on evolution held between himself and Bill Nye “The Science Guy” on Tuesday.
And while you’d expect most folks to deem Nye the winner (which they have), Ham is receiving criticism from a source you might not expect: televangelist Pat Robertson.
On the Wednesday edition of his TV show, “The 700 Club,” Robertson indirectly implored Ham to put a sock in it, criticizing Ham’s view that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
“Let’s face it, there was a bishop [James Ussher] … who added up the dates listed in Genesis and he came up with the world had been around for 6,000 years,” Robertson began. “There ain’t no way that’s possible … To say that it all came about in 6,000 years is just nonsense and I think it’s time we come off of that stuff and say this isn’t possible.”
“We’ve got to be realistic that the dating of Bishop Ussher just doesn’t comport with anything that’s found in science,” Robertson continued, “and you can’t just totally deny the geological formations that are out there.”
“Let’s be real,” Robertson begged, “let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”
(Excerpt) Read more at salon.com ...
If anyone here has read the Midrash/ Midrashim of the Jews they would discover that according to some of the more compelling commentaries in it that at least one Rabbi posited 6 prior creations each with its own Sun (Shekinah Glory), its own Eden or landscape- and the men and women in the one before “ours” were naked, however they were covered in a hard, thorny outer skin, with a rosy mist that covered their genitalia preventing awareness of their “nakedness” - but on disobeying the command of God and becoming self aware their rough outer skin cracked and fell away and they appeared for the first time without them, the mist having fled as well. Although, the commentary doesn’t turn to how long these ages last - it does show that they continued to think about prehistory and attempted to explain as rationally as they were able what possibly came before. It seems to me that creation is the long process of what we term self-awareness or consciousness and that it is not a constant and this fact was recognized by the ancients. Anyone interested in these commentaries can find them in their entirety under the name The Legends of the Jews (Ginsburg) at SacredTexts dot net I believe.
Although this is really off point from the ID-Darwinist debate, Genesis chapter one shows that after God created the heavens and the earth something catastrophic happened. By “perfect” I mean “whole, “complete.” However, as you may know, God allows free will and delegates stuff to his free-will created beings. One of the things that happened between verse one and verse two was the fall of the angel Lucifer who introduced darkness into the universe which was his delegated realm.
Free Republic is populated almost entirely by crazy uncles / aunts. From geriatric men leering at celebrity photos to holy warriors locked in mean spirited combat for the last decade to preppers who post from their bunkers though seven proxy servers this place is chock full of 'em. Calling young earthers the crazy uncles of FR is a slap in the face of moderately to severely disturbed FReepers everywhere.
The most important thing we need to believe as Christians is the first verse of Genesis, and that's the whole enchilada. That's the fundamental principle in all of this. It's a solid truth, and someday we'll likely know the whole truth about all of this.
I'm not a Darwinist at all, but forcing people to believe in a young earth is not only not necessary, it's flat out wrong.
“I will ask you the very same question that Mr. Ham asked Mr. Nye in that debate where Mr. Nye got slaughtered.
“Where you there 6000 years ago?”
“If you were not there, how do you know?”
I wasn’t at the debate, so I doubt it actually happened.
“If you were not there, how do you know?”
The pursuit of truth in all branches of organized knowledge involves
1) the addition of new truths to the body of settled or established truths already achieved
2) the replacement of less accurate or less comprehensive formulations by better ones
3) the discovery of errors or inadequacies together with the rectification of judgments found erroneous or otherwise at fault
4) the discarding of generalizations - or hypotheses and theories - that have been falsified by negative instances or counterexamples
Agreed - redemption is more important than creation and is what the gospel of the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ is all about. Nevertheless, truth is important. The relevance of creation, IMO, are the societal issues of what is taught in schools and bringing a God-consciousness to kids and society which strengthens a healthy society and keeps atheism at bay. It can also be a door opener to one receiving Christ.
I believe you when you say that you do believe.
I do not count out completely any possibility that man does not know everything there is or has been.
Man use to believe many things that have been proved wrong, yet the bible has even become more true over time.
I just don’t believe in wasting energy going in directions that do not point toward Christ.
If you believe your calling from God is proving the 6000 year old earth then fine, I’m just saying I do not think it matters to God whether you prove anything.
Don’t waste to much effort on me, I work on cars, trucks and machines, things made out of melted down rocks that are man made for a living, proving that we are indeed made in The Creators image.
Right now, I need to find a job, I made a mistake and was fired proving the theory that man does make mistakes.
God will provide. Good day. Keep a thick skin.
Rocks are composites of compounds formed (at some time after creation) from the same primal, created elements to which you refer.
And new water is formed every time something carbon-based burns... Is it the same age as the oldest water?
~~~~~~~~~~~~
By your dumb@$$3d logic, You are the same age as Moses!
Agreed. It is ‘ adiaphora ’ - not necessary for salvation.
Understood. The Bible leaves it open for discussion and, as someone else pointed out, the more important issue is redemption by Jesus Christ. There’s strong Biblical reasons to go with the Gap Theory but to each his own. What really matters is our redemption through the cross of Jesus Christ.
Yes, that’s one way of looking at it. I think a stronger argument is The “Gap Theory” which I talked a little bit about. The earth already existed when verse two through the rest of the chapter took place.
They weren't there 6,000 years ago either.............
Yeah, I've always considered you as a little nuts.....
:-)
Mr. Ham said that Radio Carbon Dating is all hogwash!
“No human being alive today was there 6000 years ago, but fortunately, others were. The Mesopotamians, for example, who were actually around from 8000 BC.”
I think that’s a bit of a stretch... It seems to me that what makes a being “human” is not so much his body, but his mind (and perhaps his soul). You can’t make that determination through fossil remains. Even if the body were perfectly preserved you wouldn’t be able to make such a declaration.
You ain't alone in thinkin' that, Brother.
I don’t think the young earth argument is reasonable, but I also think people are being rude to those who make arguments on its behalf.
The argument against a young earth that is easiest for me to understand (and therefore explain) is stellar parallax. The best current measurement of star distances can find stars out to about 1600 light years distance. This only proves the universe is at least 1600 years old.
Fortunately about 6 weeks ago a new satellite was launched that should be able to measure parallax distances up to the 10s of thousands of light years. If this mission is successful then we would know that we are seeing light that left its star more than 6000 years ago.
At that point the remaining argument would be that the mission scientists are untruthful about what they report or that God created the universe with light already partly on its way to us.
Of course many other self consistent observations in astronomy already indicate tremendously older stars, but those self consistent observations are beyond something I completely understand.
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.