Is The Earth and Universe Really Only 6000 Years Old?
Did some of you watch the debate last week between Ken Ham, of the Creation Museum, and Bill Nye, the Science Guy?
I did.
First off there is NO DOUBT that God created everything. It is simply so illogical for folks to pretend that the complexities of the universe all the way down to the hummingbird simply came into existence out of nothing.
Of course that's exactly what most of the liberal intelligentsia want to shove down our kid's throats...it all started with a big bang, and then an single amoeba and then a frog, lizard, monkey and man.
Of course once the liberals have "proved" we are just animals made from chance, matter and energy...then we are free to do whatever our hearts desire because we are responsible to NO CREATOR. Sadly, this nation is pretty much there already...every man and woman are doing whatever they desire.
Anyway, I am unsatisfied with Ken Ham's claim that the flood happened 4000 years ago and that the universe is only 6000 years old. If the earth was covered in water that killed all living things just 4000 years ago and 1000 species (in their kind) emerged from the ark...how possibly could they have morphed into the 16,000,000 organisms that are cataloged on earth today? That would mean that dozens of new creatures would have been created every day since the waters receded...not to mention how they quickly got all the unique animals in Australia and New Zealand.
So what if the Bible's story about God creating it all in 6-24 hour days were true....and that period of time also equated to 15,000,000,000 years that some scientists are claiming is the age our our universe? What if they are both EXACTLY TRUE??
When you have a few minutes check out this video of an Israeli Doctor who has so many degrees I can't even pronounce them. He is super smart and has a great explanation as to how God's time zone is NOT within our time zone. In fact Albert Einstein proved this with his theory of relativity, E=MC squared. He gives his mathematical reasons of how BOTH ARE TRUE.
Check out the video here; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRl8vBRNc58&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DNRl8vBRNc58&app=desktop
As the Bible continues to come under attack I just wonder if we should be willing to die on the hill of insisting the earth is 6000 years old and the flood happened 4000 years ago?
If some of the Bible was written over 3000 years ago and we have numerous writings from many civilizations that are also that old, don't you think we would have heard lots of chatter about all the new animals, insects and birds that were morphing at the rate of dozens every day??....this would be necessary to go from 1000 kinds into 16,000,000 varieties.
What do you think?
Again, whether the earth is 15 billion or 6000 doesn't change the salvation story of Jesus Christ and it certainly doesn't change my unshakable belief that God created it all.
posted by dennis at
12:40 PM
5 Comments:
I tend to agree with you Dennis. I also watched the debate and was disgusted by Bill's presentation and put-downs. I also felt like too much emphasis was put on the times of events. I also wished if Ken wanted to use the Bible as a viable resource he would have proved it as a viable resouce first. He is obviously an intelligent man and a bold and faithful Christian. It is alarming how many people were fooled by Bill's political tatics more than evidence. I saw him as a lost, foolish, grasping, man.
I watched it too. I was sad. Ham didn't do very well and I'm about to shock you Dennis, I agree COMPLETELY with your post. ALL OF IT. It's sad when we try so hard to convince ourselves and ignore how big God really is. Well Saidre
Dennis-I watched the debate as well. I think it's an interesting topic and I'm glad there are Christians, like Ken Ham, with PhDs in Science. However, I'm not convinced the world is only 6000 years old. I would've like to have seen an Old Earth Creationist debate Bill Nye.
-DP
You can't get a Ph.D. in Science. Ken Ham doesn't have a Ph. D. like someone who spends 4-6 years in a specific field. His "Ph.D." was honorary and doesn't actually reflect the type of work done by a Ph.D. student. It's important to note this because calling he shouldn't be getting credit for any type of Ph.D. in "science".
well, first you need to start with the two different kinds of science: observational and historical. Most agree in everything observational. So call a "science" spade a spade anonymous and know that all historical science is interpretive. Scientifically, none can claim absolute truth in manmade interpretation. So, what do you do with the same detailed evidence. I have yet to see the debate, but there is danger, as a Christian, to reinterpret the Genesis account. We need not apologize for the Bible, our interpretive and worldview authority. Once you tear down God's foundation in Genesis, you begin to tear down all if Scripture. Would love to discussions Dennis but, on thus one, I respectfully disagree with you.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home