Not sure. We can come up with any question to attack any topic that is hard to answer. The verse about vegetarian animals is actually geared more towards humans able to eat meat. But all verses about animals eating are geared towards animals on the land.

Not sure. We can come up with any question to attack any topic that is hard to answer. The verse about vegetarian animals is actually geared more towards humans able to eat meat. But all verses about animals eating are geared towards animals on the land.

 

So is there a verse that excludes sea life from being vegetarians? Or is that a creationist thing?

I hope this is put on YouTube or there is a link after the fact to watch this debate.

 

I have very strong personal beliefs on this subject but don't feel like debating them tonight.

So is there a verse that excludes sea life from being vegetarians? Or is that a creationist thing?

 

I think sea creatures simply are not addressed. But I am not a bible scholar

I think sea creatures simply are not addressed. But I am not a bible scholar

 

Ham believes literally in the Old Testament. I wonder if his suit is 100% silk or cotton? If not, according to the Old Testament, he's sinning. All farmers that grow more than one crop in a field are sinning. I don't see any tassels on his suit. According to the Old Testament, he's sinning without 4 of them.

 

Again, I'm okay with creationism. However, a 6000 year old earth is lunacy. Picking the verses that fit your argument out of the Old Testament and ignoring the others is ridiculous.

I hope this is put on YouTube or there is a link after the fact to watch this debate.

 

I have very strong personal beliefs on this subject but don't feel like debating them tonight.

 

Answer this one: Do you believe in a 6000 year old earth? Ham was crushed in that regard.

I do not believe in a 6000 year old earth. I think Hamm did a little better than people give him credit for. Wen he addressed the fact that matter and energy cannot creat life, bill NYE had an impressed expression on his face.

I do not believe in a 6000 year old earth. I think Hamm did a little better than people give him credit for. Wen he addressed the fact that matter and energy cannot creat life, bill NYE had an impressed expression on his face.

 

 

I think he'd be fine arguing a higher power creating earth and life. I think he failed miserably to prove his point, which is that the earth is only 6000 years old and the diversity of life developed after the great flood.

Answer this one: Do you believe in a 6000 year old earth? Ham was crushed in that regard.

To answer that question directly... I will say no, I do not...I'm more of the "time as we measure it and the way God measures it are not necessarily the same" line of thinking. God does not work by man's time and I think it is impossible for man to measure God's time.

To answer that question directly... I will say no, I do not...I'm more of the "time as we measure it and the way God measures it are not necessarily the same" line of thinking. God does not work by man's time and I think it is impossible for man to measure God's time.

 

I think that view is perfect. Nothing to add on my part. :thumb:

I can't believe I watched about an hour of this. Absolutely know way to change either's mind. They both are very smart men, with totally different views that they believe are correct. They each never were allowed to answer the tough question each had for the other because of the format. Although, I disagree with the creationists view that historical science is unprovable and they believe in really observable science only, I understand how they base their opinions. It also to me is apparent to me that you can neither prove nor disprove there is a God, that is faith based and supported by the Bible and its ancient texts. Which then leads to various interpretations. I did think it was interesting that when Mr. Ham was asked if he believed the Bible literally, he said some parts are poetry that tell a story and some are to believed literally. What??? WE get to pick and choose what is correct?

 

So I am still where I began when I began watching, a lot more unanswerable questions that have to be reconciled. Trying to make reasonable interpretations of all things science vs the belief I have in having faith there is a God. I do believe they can and do co-exist. There is just nothing reasonable though in the 6000 year theory.

I think he was just saying that there are poems in the Bible that are not to be taken literally. Just like there are parables that JEsus told that were not true stories. THat doesn't mean we pick and choose. We just acknowledge different styles, authors, and intended audiences.

Somebody needs to build a time machine fast to go back 6001 years and see what happens in order to settle this debate once and for all. Maybe the DeLorean from the Radio Shack Super Bowl ad is available.

I think he was just saying that there are poems in the Bible that are not to be taken literally. Just like there are parables that JEsus told that were not true stories. THat doesn't mean we pick and choose. We just acknowledge different styles, authors, and intended audiences.

 

Maybe that is what he meant, but I am not sure that it is.

I think he was just saying that there are poems in the Bible that are not to be taken literally. Just like there are parables that JEsus told that were not true stories. THat doesn't mean we pick and choose. We just acknowledge different styles, authors, and intended audiences.

 

 

So since the whole Bible is meant to be the word of God who are we to pick and choose what to believe? There were originally other books in the Bible. Someone chose to get rid of them. You can't pick things out of the Old Testament to believe and then say that the New Testament did away with the things that you didn't agree with and say that there is a scientific basis for it, that is what Ham tried to do.