"Six Thousand Years with Ken Ham"

[Deacon]

... one world view is to see the scriptures as being the foundation truth standrad, and the others accepted scientifi[c] facts!

It's not quite a simple as that.

Speaking broadly...

An Old Earth Creationist (OEC) accepts the written revelation (that which is revealed in Scripture) and what God created (that which is revealed in his creation, Psalm 19) and expect to find convergence (an agreement between the two).
If there is divergence, their interpretion of nature or Scurpture needs to examined and the theories or presuppositions adjusted.

A Young Earth Creationist (YEC) presumes their literal interpretation of Scripture is correct and picks and chooses (molds) what science has to offer them to support their position.

Rob

 

[Yeshua1]

It's not quite a simple as that.

Speaking broadly...

An Old Earth Creationist (OEC) accepts the written revelation (that which is revealed in Scripture) and what God created (that which is revealed in his creation, Psalm 19) and expect to find convergence (an agreement between the two).
If there is divergence, their interpretion of nature or Scurpture needs to examined and the theories or presuppositions adjusted.

A Young Earth Creationist (YEC) presumes their literal interpretation of Scripture is correct and picks and chooses (molds) what science has to offer them to support their position.

Rob

Both of them would be using though the same 'scientific evidence" though to support their cases, and the younger model has far less confict wih Genesis and how Jesus and Paul viewed this issue!

 

[Deacon]

I really don’t see Jesus or Paul taking a stand on the age of the earth.
Can you point out where?

Rob

 

[Yeshua1]

I really don’t see Jesus or Paul taking a stand on the age of the earth.
Can you point out where?

Rob

Teir stand was more on the historial Adam was a real person, not a whole tribe, and that God used no evolutionary process in creation!

 

[Deacon]

The issue of a historical Adam is a separate one from the age of the earth.

Take a gander at the Evolutionary Creatioist site, Biologos [LINK]. You’ll find that the issue of Adam’s historicity is debated there with some insisting upon it and other supporting quite a variety of different opinions.

I'm also quite certain the issue of evolution never came up in Scripture... but I'll search with the concordance again....

Rob

 

[Yeshua1]

The issue of a historical Adam is a separate one from the age of the earth.

Take a gander at the Evolutionary Creatioist site, Biologos [LINK]. You’ll find that the issue of Adam’s historicity is debated there with some insisting upon it and other supporting quite a variety of different opinions.

I'm also quite certain the issue of evolution never came up in Scripture... but I'll search with the concordance again....

Rob

IF God did use evolution, why did he state that he created everything after its own Kind, and the historicity of Adam is indeed part of the theistic evolutopn problems with bible!

 

[Deacon]

I know that we've covered this ground before.

We're all creationists of different flavors,

God is The Creator.
God want to communicate to us,

he does so in his creation and in Scripture - he's spoken to us clearly in his Son.​

Everything God makes is good, very good.
The creation proclaims his greatness and glory
We are made in the image of God​

The bible's use of "kind" [min] is not defined scientifically.
I don't believe its use parallels the scientific use of "species".
I believe that its use tells us that God created with order, nothing was made out of his express will.

Rob

 

[TCassidy]

I think that they say that the small and simple creatures died first because they could not climb to higher ground in a last attempt to escape the waters.

In talking with Dr. Henry Morris, Ph.D., Hydraulic Engineering (who lived right down the street from me) he said that the smaller, less complex creatures, settled first, with the larger creatures settling later, due to the relative buoyancy differences. The smaller creatures were less bouyant than the larger due to greater surface area per mass of the larger animals. Or something like that.

 

[Yeshua1]

I know that we've covered this ground before.

We're all creationists of different flavors,

God is The Creator.
God want to communicate to us,

he does so in his creation and in Scripture - he's spoken to us clearly in his Son.​

Everything God makes is good, very good.
The creation proclaims his greatness and glory
We are made in the image of God​

The bible's use of "kind" [min] is not defined scientifically.
I don't believe its use parallels the scientific use of "species".
I believe that its use tells us that God created with order, nothing was made out of his express will.

Rob

Theistic evolutionists, at least some of them, really though deny historical accuracy of the Genesis account, see it more akin to myth/metaphor, and sttil trying to find ONE sure change of species throughout history!

 

[church mouse guy]

In talking with Dr. Henry Morris, Ph.D., Hydraulic Engineering (who lived right down the street from me) he said that the smaller, less complex creatures, settled first, with the larger creatures settling later, due to the relative buoyancy differences. The smaller creatures were less bouyant than the larger due to greater surface area per mass of the larger animals. Or something like that.

Oh, very interesting! Thanks!

 

[shodan]

I am hoping that old earth people will explain what they do with the human family tree from Adam to now.

Human family tree has nothing to do with the age of the Universe but rather with the age of human life.

 

[shodan]

What Hamm does is to take 'Day One' out of context. We really ought to first read Scripture in context before speculating. In The Beginning

 

[church mouse guy]

Human family tree has nothing to do with the age of the Universe but rather with the age of human life.

Why do you say that since Scripture says that Adam was present at Creation?

 

[church mouse guy]

What Hamm does is to take 'Day One' out of context. We really ought to first read Scripture in context before speculating. In The Beginning

Do you believe millions and millions of years? Do you believe Darwin?

 

[shodan]

Just to be clear (since normally no one will actually read the linked article): However one interprets the "days" (24 hr or ages), it does not give us an age for "In the beginning..." Gen. 1:1. Day One (v. 3) is not the "beginning."

"Let their be light..." remedies the "darkness" on earth of verse 2.

 

[shodan]

Why do you say that since Scripture says that Adam was present at Creation?

Was Adam present on "Day One"? (That is a novel idea.) Or present in verse 1 or 2 ?

 

[shodan]

Do you believe millions and millions of years? Do you believe Darwin?

No I do not believe Darwin. My starting point is Scripture. But If you cannot read a simple article on Gen. 1, there is little point in discussion

 

[church mouse guy]

No I do not believe Darwin. My starting point is Scripture. But If you cannot read a simple article on Gen. 1, there is little point in discussion

So do you believe in millions and millions of years?

 

[just-want-peace]

So do you believe in millions and millions of years?

I don't BELIEVE this, nor do I dis-believe; same for billions of years.
Was there an extensive period between vs1-2 and vs3 ??? I don't know nor does it matter to me.
I do believe that there is the very definite possibility of a massive time gap, but vs 1-2 tell us nothing more about that time frame, so I'm OK with whatever.
An awful lot depends on the ACCURACY (????) of the translation of these two verses, so it's a wash as far as I'm concerned.
It's certainly not a hill to die on!

 

[church mouse guy]

I don't BELIEVE this, nor do I dis-believe; same for billions of years.
Was there an extensive period between vs1-2 and vs3 ??? I don't know nor does it matter to me.
I do believe that there is the very definite possibility of a massive time gap, but vs 1-2 tell us nothing more about that time frame, so I'm OK with whatever.
An awful lot depends on the ACCURACY (????) of the translation of these two verses, so it's a wash as far as I'm concerned.
It's certainly not a hill to die on!

The preponderance of scientific evidence is against deep time. The church made a catastrophic mistake on geology before Darwin in that they accepted the rudimentary thoughts of the deists and atheists of the Enlightenment because the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries were a time of difficult communication and little knowledge of the incipient science of geology. The men who overthrew religion before Darwin were so scientifically ignorant that no one much remembers their names and certainly no one studies their works anymore. Some clergy in England and America stood against the Enlightenment but when they died and were not replaced, the notion of deep time, an allied concept of evolution, undermined the foundation of the gospel worldwide until the 1960s when Morris and Whitcomb stood and modern creationism was launched--Young Earth Creationists. However, most of the professors and most of the pastors are still old earth creationists. However, God's word is the authority.

Here is a four-minute clip from the kind and brilliant Dr. Terry Mortenson as to why Christians should reject the unscientific notion of deep time:

Why Shouldn’t Christians Accept Millions of Years?