# Bill Nye-Ken Ham debate thread: LIVE play-by-play



## Tim

The debate goes live on YouTube in 12 minutes.


----------



## Tim

Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham | Answers in Genesis


----------



## dcantrell2009

As a student teacher in biology I am very interested in this debate.


----------



## Tim

why-im-debating-creationist-ken-ham

why-im-debating-the-science-guy-about-creationism


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Best thing about Ken Ham is that he is very friendly and cordial to his debate partners, uses humor and self-deprecation to disarm people and that is part of what makes him so effective. He also has that Australian accent.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> He also has that Australian accent.



That would not be part of his good credentials though would it?


----------



## Tim

Ham: there is a difference between historical science and observational science.


----------



## Tim

Nye: opens up with a discussion on bow-ties (?).


----------



## Dearly Bought

Already Nye has changed the text of the question...


----------



## Elizabeth

Bow-ties and CSI. Okay, then.


----------



## Tim

Nye: there is no difference between historical science and observational science. Present evidence gives clues about the past.


----------



## Romans922

Scripture over Science (Hamm) vs Bow Ties Hamm's view isn't viable (Nye)


----------



## Tim

Nye: plants under water [flood story] for a full year. No evidence of drowning animals swimming up to higher ground (as in Grand Canyon).


----------



## Tim

Nye: USA will be held back [from progress] if Ham's model accepted.


----------



## Romans922

Nye (Most people don't think the world is 6,000 years old therefore Hamm's view is not viable)


----------



## Tim

Ham begins 30 min opportunity to make his case.


----------



## Tim

Ham defines terms: historical vs. observational science. Gives example of a young earth creationist science (Raymond Damadian, inventor of MRI scanner).


----------



## Tim

Ham introduces another creationist scientist (Danny Faulkner, stellar astronomer). Faulkner claims that no observational evidence from astronomy disproves creationist model.


----------



## Tim

Ham links to Stuart Burgess, engineer, who speaks of many creationist scientists who are afraid to speak.


----------



## Tim

Ham claims that evolutionists borrow from creationist worldview (including laws of logic and laws of nature).


----------



## Tim

Ham further elaborates on difference between physical (present) science and historical science, using geology as an example. High school textbook quoted.


----------



## Tim

Ham: observed facts different from the interpretation of those facts.


----------



## Tim

Ham: further examples on observation and interpretation using various examples. Claims that all scientists have the same facts (different interpretation) such as dinosaur skeletons, radioactive, etc.


----------



## Tim

Ham's starting point: God is ultimate authority (vs. man as ultimate authority).


----------



## Tim

Ham: if Biblical model is true, predictions will be realized:

confirmation of intelligence
confirmation of animals producing after kind
...of flood


----------



## Tim

Ham: discussion of "Darwin's finches", leading into a discussion of "kinds".


----------



## Tim

Ham: the world "evolution": hijacked in bait-and-switch. Observation of speciation extrapolated to mean Darwinian evolution.


----------



## Tim

Ham: discussion of e. coli [supposedly] evolving. Prof. Fabich (Liberty U) states that this doesn't support evolutionary model.


----------



## Tim

Ham: previous ideas about superiority of white race based on Darwin's model. In contrast, Biblical view holds that there is only one race of humans. Recently mapped human genome confirms creation model.


----------



## Tim

Ham summarizes: difference between historical science (age of earth) and observational science (medicine, technology). Ham claims that Nye is conflating the two terms.


----------



## Tim

Ham: the historic views of those who hold the evolutionary model is also a "belief".


----------



## Tim

Ham outlines creation, corruption, catastrophe, confusion, Christ, cross, consummation as the Biblical model of history.


----------



## Tim

Ham uses this as a way to present the Gospel.


----------



## Tim

Ham: this debate necessarily includes religion, morality, etc.


----------



## Tim

Nye begins 30 minute slot to make his case.


----------



## Tim

Nye: limestone layers in Kentucky contains mature coral - millions of layers. Also thousands of layers in ice cannot be formed in the creationist timeline.


----------



## Tim

Nye: some old trees are 6000-9000 years old. The creationist timeline doesn't provide enough time.


----------



## Tim

Nye: Grand Canyon layers are "settled out" instead of "churned" as would be the case of a flood. [not sure I properly summarized this point]


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

It is a credit to Ken Ham that every answer he gives is interwoven with the gospel.


----------



## Tim

Nye: animal fossils in rock layers are separated, but in a flood, we would expect them to be mixed.


----------



## Tim

Nye: many kinds of primate skulls, but the creationist model only has a few forms.


----------



## Tim

Nye: animals were able to get to Australia over a land bridge, but there is no evidence of a land bridge. According to the creationist model, there would need to be some fossils (such as kangaroos) in Asia.


----------



## Tim

Nye: the number of species (16 million) came from 7000 kinds, according to Ham's view of 4000 years timeline. This would mean 11 new species every day.


----------



## Tim

Nye: creationists assert that heavier rocks sink to bottom, but there are big rocks on the top of the land in Pacific NW.


----------



## Tim

Nye: it is unlikely that Noah and his family were able to build an ark of 500+ ft. He cites a modern example of a constructed wooden ship (smaller than ark) that sunk.


----------



## Tim

Nye gives example of the area required for a zoo and contrasts this to the size of the ark.


----------



## Tim

Nye: example of the Canadian "fossil marsh" where fish-lizard "Tiktaalik" was found following prediction of scientists holding to evolutionary model. Nye claims that Ken Ham's model would be unable to do such prediction.

[not sure I get this point...]


----------



## Tim

Nye: asexual vs. sexual minnows - evolution predicted the transition between asexual and sexual.

[not sure I properly summarized this]


----------



## Tim

Nye: Hubble observed the stars moving apart; Hoyle supposed this was because of a "Big Bang" (hence the model of the same name). Big bang "echo" detected in subsequent years, supporting the previous astronomers' predictions.


----------



## Tim

Nye: Rubidium/Strontium provide measure of age of rock/fossils. Rubidium now used for nuclear medicine applications. 

[Tim says: this is an especially weak point, I think. I don't see how this deals with the proposition of the debate].


----------



## Tim

Nye discusses the "starlight problem".

[Tim says: I would have liked to have him discuss more about this].


----------



## Tim

Nye asks whether it is reasonable to accept creationist model based on the evidence he presented. Conclusion.


----------



## Tim

Begin 5 minute rebuttal of Ham.


----------



## Tim

Ham states that you can't "observe" the age of the earth and appeals to Biblical timeline, specifically Genesis and the genealogies of the Bible.


----------



## Tim

Ham acknowledges that we can "observe" radioactive decay. Ham cites example of wood and basalt in same layer measured to be vastly different ages. Another similar example provided to show that dating is unreliable and based on assumptions pertaining to the decay rate.


----------



## Tim

Ham acknowledges that some Christians believe in millions of years of history, but they are being inconsistent because this requires belief in millions of years of death and bloodshed. He claims that the only infallible dating method is the "One who was there" (i.e., God).


----------



## Tim

End Ham rebuttal.


----------



## Tim

[sorry, missed some points]

Nye: did fish sin? 

Nye: astronomers observe the past, this occurs when light is observed. Re-asserts that there should not be a separation between present and past observations and natural laws. Identifies point of contention is uniformity.


----------



## Tim

Nye: teeth of past animals indicate that they were not vegetarian. 

Nye also frequently mentions that the Bible is "translated into English" over long period of time, implying some sort of unreliability....

Nye: if we accept creationist model ("Bible as science textbook"), Ham's interpretation is more trustworthy than natural observation.


----------



## Tim

End Nye rebuttal.


----------



## Tim

Ham begins counter-rebuttal.

Ham: natural law hasn't changed and only makes sense within Biblical worldview.

Ham: the model is not only mine; many other creation scientists hold to this. 

Ham: Nye is confusing the terms of species and kinds. He explains the difference and states that there was lots of room on the ark for all.


----------



## Tim

Ham: we didn't see tree rings laid down, ice can build up catastrophically.

Ham: some bears have sharp teeth, even though they are vegetarians.


----------



## Tim

Ham: creationists believe in post-flood catastrophic, which might explain boulders in Pacific NW.

Ham: Nye is assuming that Noah was unsophisticated. Ancient Chinese did have some good wooden boats.


----------



## Tim

Ham: introduces the "horizon problem" which is a problem for many astronomical models. End Ham counter-rebuttal.


----------



## Tim

Nye: unconvinced that Ham addressed many layers or rock or ice mentioned by Nye at the beginning of his presentation. Also unconvinced that Ham addressed the prolifery of species.


----------



## Tim

Nye: I cannot accept that Noah was a good enough shipwright.


----------



## Tim

Nye: why did natural law change 4000 years ago? Our assumptions of rates of change are based on past observation. 

Nye: there are billions of religious people in the world, yet they are not creationists. What is to become of all those people? He again contrasts scientific observation with "a book translated into American English".


----------



## Tim

Begin 45 minutes of question & answers from the audience.


----------



## Tim

Question for Ham: how does creationism account for celestial bodies moving apart; what is the purpose of this design?

Ham's answer: God stretches out the heavens for His glory and show of His power. Earth, human beings are significant. God gives salvation. 

Nye's answer: man troubled by question of man's origin. Science provides answers of our origin. Nye questions how Ham is satisfied by the answer given and whether Ham's model can predict.


----------



## Tim

Question for Nye: where did we/matter come from, before Big Bang (?) [may have missed exact question]

Nye's answer: universe is accelerating in its expansion. Force behind this is here; we need to search for it. 

Ham's answer: Bible tells us our origin; God created matter.


----------



## Tim

Question for Ham: majority of scientists support evolutionary theory; what, other than the Bible, supports creationist model?

Ham's answer: majority are evolutionists, but majority is not always best judge. Cites past incorrect notions in medicine. Example of something supporting creationist model: if Bible is right, there is only one race. 

Nye's answer: if anybody makes discovery that changes view of natural law, we embrace that person (so majority not always maintained).


----------



## Tim

Question for Nye: how did consciousness come from matter?

Nye's answer: I don't know, but I look forward to the joy of discovery of this. 

Ham's answer: The Bible tells us. The Creator made man in His image. God gave it to us. Ham questions the point of "joy of discovery" if one ceases to exist after death. Ham expresses the joy of discovery as well.


----------



## Tim

Question for Ham: what, if anything, would change your mind.

Ham's answer: I am a Christian. I can't prove it to you, but God has shown me clearly through His word and Jesus Christ. Check the prophecies. If the Bible is the Word of God, check it out. We build models based on the Bible. These models are subject to change, but the Bible is not. As a Christian, I have a foundation. 

Nye's answer: one piece of evidence: fossil that swam from one layer to another. Astronomical and geological evidence. Any of those things...I would change immediately. Mr. Ham, what can you prove? What can you predict?


----------



## Tim

Question for Nye: outside radiometric methods, what supports your view of the earth's age?

Nye's answer: age of stars, deposition rates (geology), the necessary age of earth to allow evolution to take place. Radioactivity is why earth maintains its heat after so long. The evidence is overwhelming. Mr. Ham never addressed issue of many skulls, which has many steps. 

Ham's answer: no earth rock was dated to get 4.5 billion years. In fact [meteorite??] was dated.


----------



## Tim

Question for Ham: can you reconcile present continental drift speed with alleged speed of drift at creation [flood?]

Ham's answer: we shouldn't assume that the speeds are the same. A flood would have changed things. We do believe the [super] continent has split up.

Nye's answer: sea floor spreading provides signature


----------



## Tim

Question for Nye: favorite color.

Nye: green.

Ham: observational science: blue (referring to necktie).


----------



## Tim

Question for Nye: how do you reconcile your view with the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

Nye's answer: if your theory disagrees with 2nd law of thermo, there is no help for you. The earth is not a closed system (energy from sun). This energy drives us. 

Ham's answer: energy/matter never produces life. Things are running down now, after the fall. The 2nd law was present before fall.


----------



## Tim

Question for Ham: if evidence refuted young-earth, would you still be a Christian?

Ham's answer: there is no hypothetical; you can't ever prove that using the scientific method. I believe in a young universe because of God's Word.

Nye's answer: you can prove the age of the earth using observation. Ham wants us to take his word for it (book written 1000s of years ago, American English translated). Is Ham sure that life cannot come from non-life? What can you predict?


----------



## Tim

Question for Nye: is there room for God in science?

Nye's answer: many people believe in God. Is there anyone here who hasn't benefited from technology/medicine? This isn't connected with belief in higher power. Many of these people still believe in science.

Ham's answer: God is necessary for science. I like technology, which is in the present. God is necessary because you have to assume uniformity; where does uniformity come from, naturally speaking?


----------



## Tim

Question for Ham: should entire Bible be taken literally? Cites some OT laws. 

Ham's answer: history, poetry, prophecy should be taken naturally. There is misunderstanding of laws specific for Israelites. 

Nye's answer: it appears that parts of Bible embraced literally; others taken poetically. Scientifically, reasonably, things that contradict opening verses - difficult to accept rest of Bible.


----------



## BJClark

I notice Mr. Nye, isn't answering many questions he's asked..he merely asks Mr. Hamm different questions..it's like he doesn't have an answer..so he's avoiding..


----------



## Tim

Question for Nye: could evolution have been accomplished by higher power?

Nye's answer: can't prove or disprove higher power (agnostic). Intelligent design has fundamental misunderstanding (watchmaker) - nature has mediocre designs eaten by better designs. Nature works bottom-up. 

Ham's answer: Nye needs to provide evidence of a new function appearing that would not have been possible given present genetic information. There is no example of this.


----------



## Tim

Question for Ham: name one institution (other than yours) that uses creationism to produce its product

Ham's answer: any work of production uses creationism because they borrow from that worldview (laws of logic, nature, etc). If these aren't taught, we can't advance.

Nye's answer: I don't accept creationism because it can't predict. Nye asks about fate of those who didn't hear the Biblical message.


----------



## Tim

Question for Nye: how do you explain evidence of man's intelligence in past?

Nye's answer: man isn't necessarily getting smarter. Evolution means survival of fittest - "fitting in". Our capacity to reason has got us here, but if a germ shows up with greater killing ability, we will be eliminated even though we are smart.

Ham's answer: blind fish have been used as example of favorable evolution. Not "survival of fittest", it is "survival of those who survive".


----------



## Tim

Final question: what is the one thing, more than anything else, upon which you base your belief.

Ham's answer: Bible is unique - it tells of the origin of everything - sin, languages, nations, etc. Man is sinner, separated from God. Message of salvation. If Bible is true, it should make sense of the world. If you search for the Truth, God will reveal Himself.

Nye's answer: My beliefs based on information/process called science. This fills me with joy - to pursue answers. We are one of the ways that the universe knows itself. We have come to be because of the universe's existence. Are we alone? These questions drive us. Science is compelling. If we abandon all that we have learned, and the process by which we know it, we in the US will be out-competed to other countries. Science education must be kept in science classes.


----------



## Tim

End of debate. Archived at 

Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham | Answers in Genesis


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

The reaction to the debate on twitter is very interesting. The "atheists" and "leftists" that I follow are obviously picking Nye as a winner and think his arguments are great, but nearly all of them are talking about how respectful, gentle, and thoughtful is Ken Ham. That in itself is a testimony.

Most of the negative comments towards Ken Ham that I have seen are from fellow Christians embarrassed by Creationism.


----------



## Tim

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> The reaction to the debate on twitter is very interesting. The "atheists" and "leftists" that I follow are obviously picking Nye as a winner and think his arguments are great, but nearly all of them are talking about how respectful, gentle, and thoughtful is Ken Ham. That in itself is a testimony.
> 
> Most of the negative comments towards Ken Ham that I have seen are from fellow Christians embarrassed by Creationism.



Interesting about the gentleness of Ham acknowledged by his opponents. That's a good reminder.


----------



## Tim

I noticed on YouTube that there were 500,000 viewers at the end. That's huge.


----------



## Tyrese

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> The reaction to the debate on twitter is very interesting. The "atheists" and "leftists" that I follow are obviously picking Nye as a winner and think his arguments are great, but nearly all of them are talking about how respectful, gentle, and thoughtful is Ken Ham. That in itself is a testimony.
> 
> Most of the negative comments towards Ken Ham that I have seen are from fellow Christians embarrassed by Creationism.



I think its sad that so many Christians are embarrassed by Creationism. I will have to disagree with Ken ham when he said, "I'm not saying those who believe in a old earth are not Christians." I have a hard time believing that people can outright reject the first few chapters in the Bible knowing that Christ himself believed these things. I think this is why Christ said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." I think many people are wise in their own eyes to see that we need to humble ourselves and accept what God has taught us in His Word.


----------



## Tyrese

Tim said:


> I noticed on YouTube that there were 500,000 viewers at the end. That's huge.



I think that's great. It gives people the opportunity to hear the perspective of a Creationist. Many people have only been taught Evolution.


----------



## Frosty

Tim, I wanted to thank you for your consistent updates on the debate. It's much appreciated.


----------



## raydixon9

I watched it and in a split decision based just on debate scored it for Mr. Nye. As a 6 day creationist and supporter of Mr. Ham and the AIG ministry, I felt Mr. Ham was a bit too cordial. It reminded me of the McCain-Obama debates where McCain wouldn't attack Obama at all but just defend his positions. The same for Mr. Ham. Nye repeatedly attacked Ham misrepresenting his arguments but Ham never counter-attacked. Ham never called out Nye's misrepresentations of his positions nor his fallacious claims. He tied to bait Mr. Nye into the easily defensible(from a Christian worldview) debate about the origin of the laws of logic but Nye wouldn't go for it. He would not press it, though. Hopefully this will draw lots of media attention which will bring curious visitors to creationists websites.

Ultimately, the debate settled on not Evolution vs. Creationism but Humanism vs. Theism. "Some men you just can't teach...I don't like it any more than you do.."

It's funny that I was actually expecting something different than what I'm used to in a traditional political debate, but we got the exact same; people talking past people. Again, I hope the debate will be a cause for more conversation.


----------



## earl40

Tyrese said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reaction to the debate on twitter is very interesting. The "atheists" and "leftists" that I follow are obviously picking Nye as a winner and think his arguments are great, but nearly all of them are talking about how respectful, gentle, and thoughtful is Ken Ham. That in itself is a testimony.
> 
> Most of the negative comments towards Ken Ham that I have seen are from fellow Christians embarrassed by Creationism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think its sad that so many Christians are embarrassed by Creationism. I will have to disagree with Ken ham when he said, "I'm not saying those who believe in a old earth are not Christians." I have a hard time believing that people can outright reject the first few chapters in the Bible knowing that Christ himself believed these things. I think this is why Christ said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." I think many people are wise in their own eyes to see that we need to humble ourselves and accept what God has taught us in His Word.
Click to expand...


Just a side not. Many Christians are "emabarresed" by Ham dogmatic stance that the earth is 6,000 years old. Am I one of those? Yes in that I seriuosly doubt Jesus did the math to date creation to 4,004 BC and In my most humble opinion He (Jesus) could have understood the issue that the creation may have been around much further back. Also I would not say I am completly "embarresed" but I hold my view (old earth) based on the possibility that many read the account in Genesis incoorrectly and appreciate Ham opposing view that we could be Christians. In other words, Ham is "embarresed" by old earth creation....and for good reason if we old earth people are wrong.


----------



## Justified

raydixon9 said:


> I watched it and in a split decision based just on debate scored it for Mr. Nye. As a 6 day creationist and supporter of Mr. Ham and the AIG ministry, I felt Mr. Ham was a bit too cordial. It reminded me of the McCain-Obama debates where McCain wouldn't attack Obama at all but just defend his positions. The same for Mr. Ham. Nye repeatedly attacked Ham misrepresenting his arguments but Ham never counter-attacked. Ham never called out Nye's misrepresentations of his positions nor his fallacious claims. He tied to bait Mr. Nye into the easily defensible(from a Christian worldview) debate about the origin of the laws of logic but Nye wouldn't go for it. He would not press it, though. Hopefully this will draw lots of media attention which will bring curious visitors to creationists websites.
> 
> Ultimately, the debate settled on not Evolution vs. Creationism but Humanism vs. Theism. "Some men you just can't teach...I don't like it any more than you do.."
> 
> It's funny that I was actually expecting something different than what I'm used to in a traditional political debate, but we got the exact same; people talking past people. Again, I hope the debate will be a cause for more conversation.


 I agree completely that Nye "debated" better. I was really frustrated by Nye's blatant misrepresentation of Christian thought, but even more so with Hams neglecting to address it at some point! For example, Nye made some claim that a fish "sinned" and that's why it dies now. The one that really grinded my gears is when Nye said that Ham and Christians are distorting the bible by deciding some parts are poetry and some parts historical... nope Nye, the reason we call some poetry is because they are poetry! Nye had very minimal knowledge of Christianity which appalled me. Although Ham did decent, he could've done a little more to combat Nye's strawmans.


----------



## Logan

Justified said:


> Although Ham did decent, he could've done a little more to combat Nye's strawmans.


I agree that I was sorry some things didn't get addressed, but it is a formal debate and if one goes off on every tangent then one is likely to get nowhere. Ham did a good job of sticking to the topic and not jumping at a lot of the bait. So did Nye.


----------



## Tim

Logan said:


> Justified said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although Ham did decent, he could've done a little more to combat Nye's strawmans.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that I was sorry some things didn't get addressed, but it is a formal debate and if one goes off on every tangent then one is likely to get nowhere. Ham did a good job of sticking to the topic and not jumping at a lot of the bait. So did Nye.
Click to expand...


I agree with Logan. The more debates I watch/hear, the more I realize that it is inevitable that some frustrating claims by the opponent need to be left alone for the sake of focus.


----------



## Romans922

earl40 said:


> Yes in that I seriuosly doubt Jesus did the math to date creation to 4,004 BC and In my most humble opinion He (Jesus) could have understood the issue that the creation may have been around much further back.



Huh? You are saying Jesus 'could have understood' that creation was much older than what it was? You do know Jesus created the heavens and the earth, and from all eternity He knew all these questions. Your wording is very troubling.


----------



## SRoper

Why is that disturbing? What does Luke mean when he says, "Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man"?


----------



## Romans922

Scott that is referring to his human nature. Earl's comment, in the context of creation, seems to ignore Jesus' divine nature altogether. Is there somewhere in Scripture where we find Jesus contemplating the dating of creation that such a statement could actually be made by Earl? I don't know of one. I'm willing to be corrected however.


----------



## BJClark

Justified;



> I was really frustrated by Nye's blatant misrepresentation of Christian thought, but even more so with Hams neglecting to address it at some point! For example, Nye made some claim that a fish "sinned" and that's why it dies now. The one that really grinded my gears is when Nye said that Ham and Christians are distorting the bible by deciding some parts are poetry and some parts historical... nope Nye, the reason we call some poetry is because they are poetry! Nye had very minimal knowledge of Christianity which appalled me. Although Ham did decent, he could've done a little more to combat Nye's strawmans.



Actually, Ham did address the sinning fish issue, he just didn't call it that--When he addressed Man's fall and how all creation suffered because of it, I would have re-watch the debate to find exactly where he discussed it but it was during his presentation. (which will have to be done later as I need to go out). It's just Mr. Nye does not understand nor does he comprehend how man's fall could possibly effect all other creation.

What would be really great to see is an after debate discussion between the two men, where Mr. Hamm could directly answer those type of questions--

But I have a question as I am not fully aware of all the details I think it's the laws thermodynamics and entropy which causes the expanse of the Universe--

If we are to consider the expanse of the universe since the time of creation, where things would be 'dying' or 'aging' (at the same time but not the same speed) would that not lead to the earths age appearing older than it really is? I don't know the rate of expansion, but lets say we could calculate the speed of expansion and go back 4000+ years...and calculate? 

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081109163155AAs5zR5





If the earth is aging at what the speed of light? That could certainly explain the appearance of an older earth..

And then do we know exactly how many 'days' or 'years' Adam and Eve were in the garden before the fall?


----------



## reaganmarsh

Frosty said:


> Tim, I wanted to thank you for your consistent updates on the debate. It's much appreciated.



Yes, Tim, thanks for taking the time to do this!


----------



## SherlockLogic

[/QUOTE]
I will have to disagree with Ken ham when he said, "I'm not saying those who believe in a old earth are not Christians." I have a hard time believing that people can outright reject the first few chapters in the Bible knowing that Christ himself believed these things. I think this is why Christ said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." I think many people are wise in their own eyes to see that we need to humble ourselves and accept what God has taught us in His Word.[/QUOTE]

I would tread carefully here. While it is true that those who are ultimately wise in their own eyes have cause to question the validity of their confession, if a professing Christian maintains the foundational doctrines (regarding creation) of the infallibility, exclusivity, and inerrancy of the Scriptures, as well as that of a historical Adam; and yet while believing these things he still interprets an old earth creationist view, we must nevertheless consider him a brother in Christ.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

SherlockLogic said:


> I would tread carefully here. While it is true that those who are ultimately wise in their own eyes have cause to question the validity of their confession, if a professing Christian maintains the foundational doctrines (regarding creation) of the infallibility, exclusivity, and inerrancy of the Scriptures, as well as that of a historical Adam; and yet while believing these things he still interprets an old earth creationist view, we must nevertheless consider him a brother in Christ.



I would agree that we should be charitable to each other and recognize that none of us possesses infallible knowledge. That being said, what is troubling about Christians who believe in a so-called "old Earth" is not so much what they believe about the age of the Earth, but the other things that seem to inevitably go along with it, i.e. non-literal six-day creation, death before the fall, etc. These are significant theological issues because death and the fall are the very reason why the cross was necessary, and if these things actually preceded the fall, then the death of Christ was needless and purposeless. Oh, and by the way, all of the reformed confessions confess creation in six literal days.


----------



## Tyrese

I will have to disagree with Ken ham when he said, "I'm not saying those who believe in a old earth are not Christians." I have a hard time believing that people can outright reject the first few chapters in the Bible knowing that Christ himself believed these things. I think this is why Christ said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." I think many people are wise in their own eyes to see that we need to humble ourselves and accept what God has taught us in His Word.[/QUOTE]

I would tread carefully here. While it is true that those who are ultimately wise in their own eyes have cause to question the validity of their confession, if a professing Christian maintains the foundational doctrines (regarding creation) of the infallibility, exclusivity, and inerrancy of the Scriptures, as well as that of a historical Adam; and yet while believing these things he still interprets an old earth creationist view, we must nevertheless consider him a brother in Christ.[/QUOTE]


Luke 24:25-27 says, "Then He said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?” And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself." 

First noticed that He began with Moses. Then notice that He called them fools for being slow of heart to believe. The reason its important to understand and believe all that is written in the Bible is so that were not worshipping the wrong Jesus.

By the way a lot of Christians deny the historical Adam. Is that considered foundational as well?

Its discouraging to see people outright denying what the Bible says and so many are ok with it. I guess its more important to "tread carefully" than to believe what the Bible actually says.


----------



## Alan D. Strange

The debate was between a flood geologist (at least in large part, though there was more to Ken's position than only that) and a naturalist. As such it brought forth some interesting points. 

Flood geology is a theory set forth by some Christians to interpret the evidence in a way that they believe to be consonant with Scripture. Unguided, as Ken put it, "molecule-to-man" evolution is the only option for the naturalist who denies God and claims that nature is all there is. He has no alternative, in rejecting the Creator, but chance development over vast amounts of time. But he can't make sense of even that consistent with his naturalism. Plantinga has nicely pointed this out, especially in _Where the Conflict Really Lies_. Of course, Van Til has done much more than this and has asserted the impossibility of the contrary: deny the God of the Bible and one has no basis for affirming anything whatsoever with any consistency given an antitheistic worldview. But such antitheists affirm things all the time, because antitheism presupposes theism. 

It's too bad that the debate was not theism v. anti-theism, because, in my view, that's the only sort of debate a theist should have with an antitheist. He should have challenged him on his naturalism, keeping the focus there, and not made the debate one over what would appear to many viewers to be conflicting scientific theories. But, given all of Ken's commitments, I understand why he did what he did. Thus it was what it was and both men were at least rather well-behaved. It's hard to know otherwise what to make of it all. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## stephen2

> I will have to disagree with Ken ham when he said, "I'm not saying those who believe in a old earth are not Christians." I have a hard time believing that people can outright reject the first few chapters in the Bible knowing that Christ himself believed these things. I think this is why Christ said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." I think many people are wise in their own eyes to see that we need to humble ourselves and accept what God has taught us in His Word





> Its discouraging to see people outright denying what the Bible says and so many are ok with it. I guess its more important to "tread carefully" than to believe what the Bible actually says.



Tyrese, I'm not sure how this (last quote in particular) was meant to be read, but I want to echo what Blake has said. It may be troubling (as Bill put it) when Christians believe in an old earth, but being troubled by it is a far cry from suggesting they aren't Christian. Not only would this exclude men like Martyn Lloyd-Jones from the kingdom, it is making an inessential (though important) doctrine essential. Let's believe what the Bible says and tread carefully. I am one of many who was saved long before I properly understood even the doctrine of justification (or the doctrines of grace) let alone the age of the earth.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Tyrese said:


> Its discouraging to see people outright denying what the Bible says and so many are ok with it. I guess its more important to "tread carefully" than to believe what the Bible actually says.



Respectfully, brother, I think you are missing the point of what is being said here. Nobody is saying it is "okay" to deny what scripture teaches (I too am 6/24 and believe that the espousal of any other position is a matter for church discipline), but they are merely pointing out that you should be less extreme in your condemnation of others. Professing Christians who disagree with us on this matter should be admonished as brethren, so that we may encourage them to give up their erroneous views (2 Thess. 3:14-15; Gal. 6:1); suggesting that they are not Christians is probably not the best way to go about winning them over. Are you saying that Charles Hodge, B. B. Warfield, and J. Gresham Machen were not Christians simply because of their view of creation?


----------



## Logan

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Are you saying that Charles Hodge, B. B. Warfield, and J. Gresham Machen were not Christians simply because of their view of creation?



I don't know Machen's views, Warfield's I understand are possibly uncertain, but what are you thinking Hodge believed?

Edit: I ask this because I knew nothing other than that Hodge was a 6-day creationist, but I could be mistaken. I did read his systematic theology and several of his books/articles.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Logan said:


> I don't know Machen's views, Warfield's I understand are possibly uncertain, but what are you thinking Hodge believed?
> 
> Edit: I ask this because I knew nothing other than that Hodge was a 6-day creationist, but I could be mistaken. I did read his systematic theology and several of his books/articles



Although it has been nearly ten years since I read the first volume of Charles Hodges's _Systematic Theology_, I distinctly remember him arguing against a literal 6 day creation viewpoint. My time is limited at present, but I will try to track-down the precise reference tomorrow. As for J. Gresham Machen, he refuses to affirm 6/24 in his book, _The Christian view of man_. See this essay for more: http://www.wts.edu/about/beliefs/statements/creation.html

N.B. I dissent from the thesis of the above-linked essay.


----------



## Logan

If you're referring to the section on Geology and the Bible (vol 1, pg 570) then I think that section should be read as a hypothetical (i.e., if geologists really are correct, then the Bible _could_ be interpreted etc.). Note the second paragraph which begins "Admitting the facts to be as geologists would have us to believe" (which I take as a hypothetical admission). Perhaps there is some other place you are referring to though.

Not necessarily a strong 6-day argument, but I've not seen it as against it either. I think Hodge's short piece on "what is Darwinism" should be taken into consideration as well, in which he equates the idea to atheism.

Edit: Incidentally, Hodge speaks in that sections that Christians need not be afraid of facts of geologists and the like, it's the theories we have to contend with. I thought it fitting given Ken Ham's distinction between observational and historical science, but which he largely meant the interpretation of the facts, much like Hodge spoke about.


----------



## Tyrese

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its discouraging to see people outright denying what the Bible says and so many are ok with it. I guess its more important to "tread carefully" than to believe what the Bible actually says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Respectfully, brother, I think you are missing the point of what is being said here. Nobody is saying it is "okay" to deny what scripture teaches (I too am 6/24 and believe that the espousal of any other position is a matter for church discipline), but they are merely pointing out that you should be less extreme in your condemnation of others. Professing Christians who disagree with us on this matter should be admonished as brethren, so that we may encourage them to give up their erroneous views (2 Thess. 3:14-15; Gal. 6:1); suggesting that they are not Christians is probably not the best way to go about winning them over. Are you saying that Charles Hodge, B. B. Warfield, and J. Gresham Machen were not Christians simply because of their view of creation?
Click to expand...


If you read my original comment again you will see that I never said people can't be Christians if they hold to a old earth view. I said, "I have a hard time believing that people can outright reject the first few chapters in the Bible knowing that Christ himself believed these things. I think this is why Christ said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." Sure this is a hard saying, but does what Jesus say not apply here? 

In my disagreeing I'm not saying EVERYONE who holds to the old earth view are not Christians, Im just saying I wouldn't be surprised if many who hold this view disbelieve/doubt other important doctrines as well (and that's a scary thing). I believe this is one of the many teachings that is causeing the downward spiral in so called Evangelical Churches. 

You said, "I too am 6/24 and believe that the espousal of any other position is a matter for church discipline." And, "Professing Christians who disagree with us on this matter should be admonished as brethren, so that we may encourage them to give up their erroneous views (2 Thess. 3:14-15; Gal. 6:1);" Its being assumed here that I disagree with this. I agree that this should be our apporach. But is this what were seeing? I see prominent figures teaching these things and they're not being disciplined because these individuals have big names. For me it doesn't come down to names.


----------



## earl40

Romans922 said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes in that I seriuosly doubt Jesus did the math to date creation to 4,004 BC and In my most humble opinion He (Jesus) could have understood the issue that the creation may have been around much further back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? You are saying Jesus 'could have understood' that creation was much older than what it was? You do know Jesus created the heavens and the earth, and from all eternity He knew all these questions. Your wording is very troubling.
Click to expand...



My wording is according to His humanity. This is a proper reformed distinction.


----------



## Romans922

earl40 said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes in that I seriuosly doubt Jesus did the math to date creation to 4,004 BC and In my most humble opinion He (Jesus) could have understood the issue that the creation may have been around much further back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? You are saying Jesus 'could have understood' that creation was much older than what it was? You do know Jesus created the heavens and the earth, and from all eternity He knew all these questions. Your wording is very troubling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My wording is according to His humanity. This is a proper reformed distinction.
Click to expand...


And where is that we see Jesus in His humanity consider the dating of creation?


----------



## earl40

Tyrese said:


> Its being assumed here that I disagree with this. I agree that this should be our apporach. But is this what were seeing? I see prominent figures teaching these things and they're not being disciplined because these individuals have big names. For me it doesn't come down to names.



What discipline would you suggest? Just curious?  BTW One can be a 6 day creationist and still believe in an old earth.


----------



## earl40

Romans922 said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes in that I seriuosly doubt Jesus did the math to date creation to 4,004 BC and In my most humble opinion He (Jesus) could have understood the issue that the creation may have been around much further back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? You are saying Jesus 'could have understood' that creation was much older than what it was? You do know Jesus created the heavens and the earth, and from all eternity He knew all these questions. Your wording is very troubling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My wording is according to His humanity. This is a proper reformed distinction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where is that we see Jesus in His humanity consider the dating of creation?
Click to expand...


Good question that I will answer with the same to you. Where in scripture do we read He (Jesus) dating the earth to approx 4,000 (edited from 6,000) years? Could Jesus have read Genesis and surmised that the time we observe today after the sun moon and stars were created, is different than before the sun moon and stars were created?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Tyrese said:


> If you read my original comment again you will see that I never said people can't be Christians if they hold to a old earth view.





Tyrese said:


> I will have to disagree with Ken ham when he said, "I'm not saying those who believe in a old earth are not Christians." I have a hard time believing that people can outright reject the first few chapters in the Bible knowing that Christ himself believed these things.



Tyrese, it may not have been your intention to say that OECers were not Christians, but that is what it sounded like. I am not saying your basic point is wrong, however, but by overstating the case you may be weakening your argument.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Logan said:


> If you're referring to the section on Geology and the Bible (vol 1, pg 570) then I think that section should be read as a hypothetical (i.e., if geologists really are correct, then the Bible could be interpreted etc.). Note the second paragraph which begins "Admitting the facts to be as geologists would have us to believe" (which I take as a hypothetical admission). Perhaps there is some other place you are referring to though.



I have just looked it up; that was the very section which stuck in my mind. The comments about the meaning of the word "day" do not, to my mind at least, appear congruous with a hard-core 6/24 position. If there is any contrary evidence that he did believe in 6/24, I would like to see it.



Logan said:


> I think Hodge's short piece on "what is Darwinism" should be taken into consideration as well, in which he equates the idea to atheism.



He does, but rejecting Darwinism is not the same thing as affirming 6/24. Many people in the past, and many people in the present, have rejected Darwinism without embracing 6/24. It is crucial to make these distinctions.


----------



## earl40

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you read my original comment again you will see that I never said people can't be Christians if they hold to a old earth view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will have to disagree with Ken ham when he said, "I'm not saying those who believe in a old earth are not Christians." I have a hard time believing that people can outright reject the first few chapters in the Bible knowing that Christ himself believed these things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tyrese, it may not have been your intention to say that OECers were not Christians, but that is what it sounded like. I am not saying your basic point is wrong, however, by overstating the case you may be weakening your argument.
Click to expand...


Though I have found many OECers to deny many essential doctrines of The One True Faith. So I can see where Tyrese can say "I find it difficult to believe".


----------



## Tyrese

earl40 said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its being assumed here that I disagree with this. I agree that this should be our apporach. But is this what were seeing? I see prominent figures teaching these things and they're not being disciplined because these individuals have big names. For me it doesn't come down to names.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What discipline would you suggest? Just curious?  BTW One can be a 6 day creationist and still believe in an old earth.
Click to expand...


Being that I'm not a pastor I can't completly answer this question for you. I can't tell you what you should do in your church. I would think it should be treated like any other false teaching. But I will say if a pastor is in a Church that claims to believe the 1689, and he's teaching things contrary to that confession, he should be removed from his position. There's no telling what he will begin to go against next. I wouldn't be interested in finding out. 

Let me ask you a question, do you think a church should discipline false teaching?


----------



## arapahoepark

Found this:Ham Nye debate


----------



## Tyrese

earl40 said:


> Reformed Covenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you read my original comment again you will see that I never said people can't be Christians if they hold to a old earth view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will have to disagree with Ken ham when he said, "I'm not saying those who believe in a old earth are not Christians." I have a hard time believing that people can outright reject the first few chapters in the Bible knowing that Christ himself believed these things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tyrese, it may not have been your intention to say that OECers were not Christians, but that is what it sounded like. I am not saying your basic point is wrong, however, by overstating the case you may be weakening your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Though I have found many OECers to deny many essential doctrines of The One True Faith. So I can see where Tyrese can say "I find it difficult to believe".
Click to expand...


This is what I've been seeing as well. It's a scary thing. Others may disagree but I think the old earth view deserves more attention than it gets.


----------



## earl40

Tyrese said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its being assumed here that I disagree with this. I agree that this should be our apporach. But is this what were seeing? I see prominent figures teaching these things and they're not being disciplined because these individuals have big names. For me it doesn't come down to names.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What discipline would you suggest? Just curious?  BTW One can be a 6 day creationist and still believe in an old earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being that I'm not a pastor I can't completly answer this question for you. I can't tell you what you should do in your church. I would think it should be treated like any other false teaching. But I will say if a pastor is in a Church that claims to believe the 1689, and he's teaching things contrary to that confession, he should be removed from his position. There's no telling what he will begin to go against next. I wouldn't be interested in finding out.
> 
> Let me ask you a question, do you think a church should discipline false teaching?
Click to expand...


One can hold to the WCF totally and still be old earth. See post #49 in this thread. 

Also I strongly suspect there are many "old earthers" in both the PCA and OPC in positions of pastor and teachers that may not teach the age of the earth because of the knowledge that many "young earthers" will completely throw the baby out with the bathwater. This is a valid and true observation I have seen through the years. The same goes the other way also and I respect the young earthers for the diligence they hold to scripture as God's infallible Word. This reason alone almosts makes me a young earther.


----------



## Romans922

earl40 said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes in that I seriuosly doubt Jesus did the math to date creation to 4,004 BC and In my most humble opinion He (Jesus) could have understood the issue that the creation may have been around much further back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? You are saying Jesus 'could have understood' that creation was much older than what it was? You do know Jesus created the heavens and the earth, and from all eternity He knew all these questions. Your wording is very troubling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My wording is according to His humanity. This is a proper reformed distinction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where is that we see Jesus in His humanity consider the dating of creation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good question that I will answer with the same to you. Where in scripture do we read He (Jesus) dating the earth to approx 4,000 (edited from 6,000) years? Could Jesus have read Genesis and surmised that the time we observe today after the sun moon and stars were created, is different than before the sun moon and stars were created?
Click to expand...


You made the statement so you should back it up...

But instead of avoiding the question like Bill Nye, I can answer. I can say very easily Jesus Himself said it in His Word. Genesis 5, 11, etc. Once you get to ch. 11 and Abraham it is fairly easy to date to the exodus and wilderness wanderings to the time all the way to Solomon. We know when Solomon lived, everyone pretty much agrees on that. Thus you get around 4,004 B.C. I won't say that it was exactly that, but pretty close to that date. Even if you have gaps in the genealogy which aren't really possible in these genealogies it would only throw it out to 10-11k years, not an old earth at all. 

The reason there are no gaps is in the very words of Jesus Himself in those texts. Genesis 5 is very specific. If there may be gaps, then there wouldn't be "there were other sons and daughters" - those would be the gaps, but he gives you the son and his name for a reason and says the age, and years until the next one. Again, very specific. It is the same with Genesis 11.

Is there any reason to doubt what Gen. 5 and 11 say?



And the rest of the answer you gave,


> Could Jesus have read Genesis and surmised that the time we observe today after the sun moon and stars were created, is different than before the sun moon and stars were created?


 is again very troubling. Why are you even tempting yourself to sin by asking "Could Jesus have". The only road you will go down by what if's and could've's with the Lord God Jesus Christ Himself is a whole lot of heresy.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

earl40 said:


> One can hold to the WCF totally and still be old earth



Yes, the WCF does not mention age of the Earth, but it does mention the duration of creation, and I have yet to meet an Old Earth Creationist who also believes in a literal six-day creation.


----------



## earl40

Romans922 said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes in that I seriuosly doubt Jesus did the math to date creation to 4,004 BC and In my most humble opinion He (Jesus) could have understood the issue that the creation may have been around much further back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? You are saying Jesus 'could have understood' that creation was much older than what it was? You do know Jesus created the heavens and the earth, and from all eternity He knew all these questions. Your wording is very troubling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My wording is according to His humanity. This is a proper reformed distinction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where is that we see Jesus in His humanity consider the dating of creation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good question that I will answer with the same to you. Where in scripture do we read He (Jesus) dating the earth to approx 4,000 (edited from 6,000) years? Could Jesus have read Genesis and surmised that the time we observe today after the sun moon and stars were created, is different than before the sun moon and stars were created?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made the statement so you should back it up...
> 
> But instead of avoiding the question like Bill Nye, I can answer. I can say very easily Jesus Himself said it in His Word. Genesis 5, 11, etc. Once you get to ch. 11 and Abraham it is fairly easy to date to the exodus and wilderness wanderings to the time all the way to Solomon. We know when Solomon lived, everyone pretty much agrees on that. Thus you get around 4,004 B.C. I won't say that it was exactly that, but pretty close to that date. Even if you have gaps in the genealogy which aren't really possible in these genealogies it would only throw it out to 10-11k years, not an old earth at all.
> 
> The reason there are no gaps is in the very words of Jesus Himself in those texts. Genesis 5 is very specific. If there may be gaps, then there wouldn't be "there were other sons and daughters" - those would be the gaps, but he gives you the son and his name for a reason and says the age, and years until the next one. Again, very specific. It is the same with Genesis 11.
> 
> Is there any reason to doubt what Gen. 5 and 11 say?
Click to expand...



I agree that the age of man may be around that time frame. The question is how old is the earth and how do you assign age before the sun moon and starts were created. "14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; _and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:_ "


----------



## Romans922

earl40 said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes in that I seriuosly doubt Jesus did the math to date creation to 4,004 BC and In my most humble opinion He (Jesus) could have understood the issue that the creation may have been around much further back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? You are saying Jesus 'could have understood' that creation was much older than what it was? You do know Jesus created the heavens and the earth, and from all eternity He knew all these questions. Your wording is very troubling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My wording is according to His humanity. This is a proper reformed distinction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where is that we see Jesus in His humanity consider the dating of creation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good question that I will answer with the same to you. Where in scripture do we read He (Jesus) dating the earth to approx 4,000 (edited from 6,000) years? Could Jesus have read Genesis and surmised that the time we observe today after the sun moon and stars were created, is different than before the sun moon and stars were created?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made the statement so you should back it up...
> 
> But instead of avoiding the question like Bill Nye, I can answer. I can say very easily Jesus Himself said it in His Word. Genesis 5, 11, etc. Once you get to ch. 11 and Abraham it is fairly easy to date to the exodus and wilderness wanderings to the time all the way to Solomon. We know when Solomon lived, everyone pretty much agrees on that. Thus you get around 4,004 B.C. I won't say that it was exactly that, but pretty close to that date. Even if you have gaps in the genealogy which aren't really possible in these genealogies it would only throw it out to 10-11k years, not an old earth at all.
> 
> The reason there are no gaps is in the very words of Jesus Himself in those texts. Genesis 5 is very specific. If there may be gaps, then there wouldn't be "there were other sons and daughters" - those would be the gaps, but he gives you the son and his name for a reason and says the age, and years until the next one. Again, very specific. It is the same with Genesis 11.
> 
> Is there any reason to doubt what Gen. 5 and 11 say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that the age of man may be around that time frame. The question is how old is the earth and how do you assign age before the sun moon and starts were created. "14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; _and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:_ "
Click to expand...


*I added more to my last comment after I first posted so please read that.*

As to this one, I assign it to what Jesus Himself said. morning and evening. Morning and evening. Morning and evening (each of the first 3 days of creation). Seems pretty simple. Praise the Lord for His clarity and His sufficiency. As for the age of man, man was obviously created the 6th day just as Jesus said.


----------



## Logan

Reformed Covenanter said:


> The comments about the meaning of the word "day" do not, to my mind at least, appear congruous with a hard-core 6/24 position. If there is any contrary evidence that he did believe in 6/24, I would like to see it.



Sure, I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page. Hodge appeared to take the position that he'd believe in six 24-hour days unless shown otherwise. Not a hard-core 6/24 position by any means but I don't know that it necessarily puts him in the "old earth" camp. I wonder if he ever wrote about this in the _Review_?


----------



## ReformedChristian

Here are my thoughts on the Ken Ham and Bill Nye debate: On Ken Ham's side he did ok but I was disappointed because he really did not really challenge Nye too and let him get away with too much and switched from the presupp to evidential view and woulf of done better using the presuppositional method.

In regards to Nye he brought up predictions in science and how science works, Ham should of challenged him more on the Laws of Logic in science and the uniformity of Nature especially when there were certain points where Bill said idk in the question of consciousness for example which to me sounded like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, if that is the case how can he know anything for certain given the universe according to naturalism is a closed system how does he know it exist? he dodged the question and gave a rather bizarre description of consciousness rather then account for it which to me sounded like Ayn Rand's view that existence is proof of consciousness.

I would of challenged him and said sorry Nye but existence is not proof of consciousness, but it is consciousness that brings us into existence. If existence is proof of consciousness how do you know you exist? maybe your an illusion and in reality as BF Skinner said it's just chemical reactions in you brain. 

You may think your conscious but then again whats to say its not just the reactions giving you this illusion and your not really conscious at all? and if that's the case that you cannot explain it then you cannot be certain of science and your whole foundation is destroyed because your using your consciousness to do the scientific work. Perhaps Bill needs to read Alvin Plantiga's Argument against Evolutionary Naturalism which destroys his whole premise of his view of consciousness ,this is where I think Ken had the moment to shine and if he had used that argument to his advantage he would of pulled the rug under Nye.

The rest of the time Nye spent going off topic into issues of morality, ethics, theology ,attacking the Bible and its trustworthiness and launching into a politcal rant about defending science against those who challenge Materialism and even engaging in name calling by referring to those who challenge the scientific establishment as Communist.

Those are my thoughts on the Post Debate between Bill Nyle and Ken Ham


----------



## SolaSaint

I watched the debate tonight and thought Hamm clearly did a great job. I thought he stuck to God's special revelation instead of attacking Nye's poor points of observation. Most of what Nye said has been explained by creationists in the past. Nye seemed lost in a few places in some of the audiences questions. It is no wonder Nye seemed lost, it is because he is LOST. He represented the wisdom of this world and we all know what God feels about that as recorded in 1 Cor. At least many unbelievers got to see the side of Creation which is mainly distorted or ignored on academia today.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

I wrote it was a stalemate in my review.
I focused on the arguments and clarity of presentation from the view of one who has little training in radiometry, for instance. They both were cordial. In fact, I could see Nye's tie spinning but he kept his composure. Ham seemed a less energetic according to one friend's opinion. I do think the debate form should have required answering some questions from each side.


----------



## Afterthought

Shawn Mathis said:


> I wrote it was a stalemate in my review.


A good review, and I agree to some extent it was a stalemate. However, it seemed to me the main question of the debate was never properly answered by Ken Ham. It seemed to me that the main question required giving **empirical evidence** to support his Creation model in the manner that modern scientists would do, and that is something I did not see Ken Ham address.

Thinking on the debate some more, it seems to me Ham's argument was along the lines of (1) I grant that I cannot prove my Creation model in the manner that a modern scientist would do, (2) but this is because modern scientists do not use the term "science" properly when applied to explanations of origins. (3) When "science" has been properly defined, it is seen that scientists are actually doing "historical science" and "science" properly means "operations science." (4) "Historical science" cannot be proven in the manner that modern scientists would use but instead depends on one's preconceived framework of the world and other factors. (5) My Creation model is my preconceived framework for the world, and those other factors show it to be a viable model. (6) Therefore, my Creation model is scientifically viable.

If some think the term "evolution" is used in a bait-and-switch manner, the term "science" in the debate question is at the very least confusing because of this change in meaning (well, I guess Ken Ham would say there is no real change in meaning but rather choosing to use the term as scientists mean it, i.e., "operations science," and showing it does not apply to the "science" used in the question), which leads to vagueness for the term "scientifically viable" and (to a lesser extent) "modern science." Perhaps if the question had been on what constitutes scientific viability, the debate points made by Ken Ham would be more on target. Or maybe simply requiring answering questions from the other side (as you suggested) might have been conducive to that end. Instead, when challenged to provide hard empirical evidence, Ken Ham ultimately appealed to faith....only he implicitly accused the other side of doing the same thing by his earlier distinction between "historical" and "operations" science.

At any rate, while this probably did nothing to advance this old debate, I think it does an excellent job of showing a quintessential empiricist's philosophy of science, along with the empiricist's ultimate epistemic authority and frame of mind to approach questions (e.g., as you noted, "I don't know, but let's find the empirical evidence needed to figure that out!") versus a quintessential "creation science" philosophy of science, along with that viewpoint's ultimate epistemic authority and frame of mind to approach questions (e.g., as you noted, "I do know because I have a book, and that book being true and unchanging, nothing can change my mind"), and some of the questions at the end were especially useful for that purpose. Indeed, I think the difference between the nature of faith and the nature of empirical observation was helpfully and pointedly illustrated by the debate.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Logan said:


> Reformed Covenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The comments about the meaning of the word "day" do not, to my mind at least, appear congruous with a hard-core 6/24 position. If there is any contrary evidence that he did believe in 6/24, I would like to see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page. Hodge appeared to take the position that he'd believe in six 24-hour days unless shown otherwise. Not a hard-core 6/24 position by any means but I don't know that it necessarily puts him in the "old earth" camp. I wonder if he ever wrote about this in the _Review_?
Click to expand...


It might be worth consulting this book (which I only came across today): http://www.amazon.co.uk/Process-Pro...700058&sr=1-1&keywords=Process+and+providence

Finding out if Charles Hodge fundamentally disagreed with James McCosh would certainly be a worthwhile endeavour with respect to this question.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Afterthought said:


> Perhaps if the question had been on what constitutes scientific viability, the debate points made by Ken Ham would be more on target.



That was my thought at the beginning. The Google+ Hangout allowed questions and I asked: "Which philosophy of science do you adhere to (eg, falsificationism, etc.) and does that make a difference in what you consider "reasonable" evidence? [ see Science and Pseudo-Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) for more examples ]"

Of course, if they asked that one, they would lose most the American audience.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Here's another review by a young earth site. It's an informative site for current evolution-creation news. Short articles.


----------



## augustacarguy

Ham just posted that tonight's Nightline will cover the debate, if y'all are interested...


----------



## SherlockLogic

Tyrese said:


> I will have to disagree with Ken ham when he said, "I'm not saying those who believe in a old earth are not Christians." I have a hard time believing that people can outright reject the first few chapters in the Bible knowing that Christ himself believed these things. I think this is why Christ said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." I think many people are wise in their own eyes to see that we need to humble ourselves and accept what God has taught us in His Word.



I would tread carefully here. While it is true that those who are ultimately wise in their own eyes have cause to question the validity of their confession, if a professing Christian maintains the foundational doctrines (regarding creation) of the infallibility, exclusivity, and inerrancy of the Scriptures, as well as that of a historical Adam; and yet while believing these things he still interprets an old earth creationist view, we must nevertheless consider him a brother in Christ.[/QUOTE]


Luke 24:25-27 says, "Then He said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?” And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself." 

First noticed that He began with Moses. Then notice that He called them fools for being slow of heart to believe. The reason its important to understand and believe all that is written in the Bible is so that were not worshipping the wrong Jesus.

By the way a lot of Christians deny the historical Adam. Is that considered foundational as well?



> Its discouraging to see people outright denying what the Bible says and so many are ok with it. I guess its more important to "tread carefully" than to believe what the Bible actually says.



Brother, while i commend you for contending for the truth, I don't appreciate the sarcasm. A historical Adam is a foundational belief. I myself am a young earth creationist, but our brothers who espouse an older earth and maintain a historical Adam aren't blatantly refusing to believe what the Scripture says, they are using a flawed hermeneutic.


----------

