February 5, 201412 yr Yet there is scientific proof that shows the world older than 6000 years. Here is a question I have. Since Ken Hamm says he only believes what is in the bible. Where in the bible does it say the earth is only 6000 years old and where does it say that when God created the universe it wasn't through a Big Bang? I agree with you. I believe the earth is millions of years old. I also believe God created the world and it started with Adam and Eve. I just do not believe he did it in six consecutive 24 hour days. I think he deliberately took multiple centuries between the days. Science is not the enemy of Christianity. I believe that sometimes science is wrong. But it is usually right.
February 5, 201412 yr Those people would be absolutely and completely wrong. "Proof" may be the wrong word as I'm not crazy about it from a scientific perspective. It implies an absolute nature that works for Euclidian geometry but not so much for evolutionary biology or cosmology. That said, the evidence for evolution on a cellular level is overwhelming. The evidence for it on an anatomical level might be more compelling still. Even so, I like Habib's thought on this. I'm not crazy about a dichotomy consisting of science on one hand and faith on the other for many reasons -- not least of which being that I consider myself a strong proponent of both. But the primary reason I don't like is that I don't think a discussion of the two need be confrontational on its face. No doubt that the two will clash from time to time, but it's turned so malicious that I think it's easy to forget the NUMEROUS people that are students of science and believers in faith. Correct, and I put myself in that same group. I am a believer in both. That is why I asked numerous times why isn't it possible that God couldn't have caused the big bang? Why does it have to be one or the other?
February 5, 201412 yr I agree with you. I believe the earth is millions of years old. I also believe God created the world and it started with Adam and Eve. I just do not believe he did it in six consecutive 24 hour days. I think he deliberately took multiple centuries between the days. Science is not the enemy of Christianity. I believe that sometimes science is wrong. But it is usually right. I agree also. There are even theologian scholars who have said that in genesis 6 days is not meant to be 6 24 hour periods. At the same time I am of the belief God can d whatever he wants and if he wanted to speed up the process who is to say he couldn't?
February 5, 201412 yr I agree also. There are even theologian scholars who have said that in genesis 6 days is not meant to be 6 24 hour periods. At the same time I am of the belief God can d whatever he wants and if he wanted to speed up the process who is to say he couldn't? Similar to what I said earlier, God's time and Man's time aren't necessarily the same.
February 5, 201412 yr Those people would be absolutely and completely wrong. "Proof" may be the wrong word as I'm not crazy about it from a scientific perspective. It implies an absolute nature that works for Euclidian geometry but not so much for evolutionary biology or cosmology. That said, the evidence for evolution on a cellular level is overwhelming. The evidence for it on an anatomical level might be more compelling still. Even so, I like Habib's thought on this. I'm not crazy about a dichotomy consisting of science on one hand and faith on the other for many reasons -- not least of which being that I consider myself a strong proponent of both. But the primary reason I don't like is that I don't think a discussion of the two need be confrontational on its face. No doubt that the two will clash from time to time, but it's turned so malicious that I think it's easy to forget the NUMEROUS people that are students of science and believers in faith. I was surprised with the responses to the debate on my timeline yesterday. I was anticipating the giddiness about it from some of the more aggressive atheists, but I was surprised how many Christian friends of mine were taking up the "religion versus science" angle. Florence Baptist Church had a "screening party" and I saw more than a few antagonistic posts about how Nye and those that agreed with him are "naive" or "just don't get it." That just seems like a terribly counterproductive way to expose people to your religion, as if accepting the scientific method disqualifies a person from Christianity.
February 5, 201412 yr Another view of how it went. These Are the 2 Charts Bill Nye Used to Defeat Ken Ham in Their Creationism Debate - PolicyMic
February 6, 201412 yr That just seems like a terribly counterproductive way to expose people to your religion, as if accepting the scientific method disqualifies a person from Christianity. This is exactly how I feel, and you verbalized it better than I ever could have.
February 6, 201412 yr The whole ark discussion was something I didn't expect. They spent a lot of time talking about it. I think Nye spent time there because it is something that he was able to use science to disprove more easily than the creation story.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.