Discuss science topics such as creation and evolution and how they relate to Christianity.

Debating Athiest and the Creation of the world

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Debating Athiest and the Creation of the world

    Okay, I have to say I don't like Ken Ham personally, I don't enjoy his style of preaching for some reason, and I was kind of biased to Bill Nye because of this. Having said that, I was expecting more from Ken Ham in this debate. The more he talked the less prepared his argument seemed to be. Unfortunately, in this round I would have to give Bill Nye a win in this debate because of how bad it was. I firmly believe that God make this world but I'm not so sure that Creationism the way Ken Ham describes in this debate makes sense. I almost wonder if a better argument is that Eden exist in it's own dimension like Heaven and Hell, and when Adam and Eve left Eden the entered a new world that has its own rules. I mean, all the animals in Eden are herbivores while this world distinctly has carnivores and parasites. Plus, we've never been able to find Eden in this world, maybe it doesn't exist here? At this point, Ken Ham's argument of how fast new 'kinds' of animals evolved from the Ark to now is certainly ridiculous because we would still see it now or at least have it mentioned throughout the bible. I'm torn. I'm starting to think that Creationism makes Christians sound ridiculous. Wouldn't it be more practical to just say God made multiple worlds besides this one? After watching this, who do you thing won?

  • #2
    Originally posted by LeapOfFaith89 View Post
    I'm not so sure that Creationism the way Ken Ham describes in this debate makes sense.
    What to you think about creation the way the Bible describes it, in six literal days.

    Originally posted by LeapOfFaith89 View Post
    all the animals in Eden are herbivores while this world distinctly has carnivores and parasites. Plus, we've never been able to find Eden in this world, maybe it doesn't exist here?
    Animals were originally herbivores but many of them became carnivores after the fall. Eden can no longer be found because it was destroyed by the flood.

    Originally posted by LeapOfFaith89 View Post
    Wouldn't it be more practical to just say God made multiple worlds besides this one?
    It might be more practical but would it be the truth?
    Clyde Herrin's Blog
    Comment>

    • #3
      Originally posted by LeapOfFaith89 View Post
      Okay, I have to say I don't like Ken Ham personally, I don't enjoy his style of preaching for some reason, and I was kind of biased to Bill Nye because of this. Having said that, I was expecting more from Ken Ham in this debate. The more he talked the less prepared his argument seemed to be. Unfortunately, in this round I would have to give Bill Nye a win in this debate because of how bad it was. I firmly believe that God make this world but I'm not so sure that Creationism the way Ken Ham describes in this debate makes sense. I almost wonder if a better argument is that Eden exist in it's own dimension like Heaven and Hell, and when Adam and Eve left Eden the entered a new world that has its own rules. I mean, all the animals in Eden are herbivores while this world distinctly has carnivores and parasites. Plus, we've never been able to find Eden in this world, maybe it doesn't exist here? At this point, Ken Ham's argument of how fast new 'kinds' of animals evolved from the Ark to now is certainly ridiculous because we would still see it now or at least have it mentioned throughout the bible. I'm torn. I'm starting to think that Creationism makes Christians sound ridiculous. Wouldn't it be more practical to just say God made multiple worlds besides this one? After watching this, who do you thing won?
      I don't find either one very interesting or compelling. Neither one are really considered experts. Nye has a B.S. in mechanical engineering and Ham has a B.S in applied science and I believe a diploma in education. Hardly the cream of the crop.

      Comment>

      • #4
        Originally posted by Origen View Post
        I don't find either one very interesting or compelling. Neither one are really considered experts. Nye has a B.S. in mechanical engineering and Ham has a B.S in applied science and I believe a diploma in education. Hardly the cream of the crop.
        I believe the debate between Nye and Ham was Ham's initial debut, having no prior debate experience. I remember watching the video when it was streamed live, and being disappointed in the debate format which didn't allow Ham to answer questions directly. Doesn't really matter much though, I know by watching AnswersinGenesis' website that it took a team of Christian/Scientist around a year to untangle all the lies that Nye just threw out there in the open.
        Comment>

        • #5
          Originally posted by William View Post
          I believe the debate between Nye and Ham was Ham's initial debut, having no prior debate experience. I remember watching the video when it was streamed live, and being disappointed in the debate format which didn't allow Ham to answer questions directly. Doesn't really matter much though, I know by watching AnswersinGenesis' website that it took a team of Christian/Scientist around a year to untangle all the lies that Nye just threw out there in the open.
          Well, as I said they are hardly the cream of the crop. Yet I know that Ham (or at least his site does) suggest certain things that are simply wrong when it comes to the O.T. To call it pure speculation would be overly generous.
          Comment>

          • #6
            Originally posted by Origen View Post
            Yet I know that Ham (or at least his site does) suggest certain things that are simply wrong when it comes to the O.T.
            What are some of these things that are wrong?
            Clyde Herrin's Blog
            Comment>

            • #7
              Originally posted by theophilus View Post
              What are some of these things that are wrong?
              The suggestion that fire-breathing dragons\fire-breathing sea monster were dinosaurs or plesiosaur or whatever.
              Last edited by Origen; 05-19-2016, 01:41 PM.
              Comment>

              • #8
                I also find Ham's method of interpretation bothersome, mainly he seems to interpret the NT according to the OT, specifically, Genesis.
                Comment>

                • #9
                  Originally posted by William View Post
                  I also find Ham's method of interpretation bothersome, mainly he seems to interpret the NT according to the OT, specifically, Genesis.
                  I can tell you this much. He knows nothing about Hebrew or the cultural and theological context of the O.T.
                  Comment>

                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Origen View Post
                    The suggestion that fire-breathing dragons\fire-breathing sea monster were dinosaurs or plesiosaur or whatever.
                    How do you know these are wrong?

                    Originally posted by William View Post
                    I also find Ham's method of interpretation bothersome, mainly he seems to interpret the NT according to the OT, specifically, Genesis.
                    Why is that wrong? Jesus himself quoted from Genesis and shows that he regards it as literal history.
                    Clyde Herrin's Blog
                    Comment>

                    • #11
                      Originally posted by theophilus View Post
                      How do you know these are wrong?
                      Because I can read Hebrew. Because I am aware of the cultural and theological context within and outside of the O.T.

                      Originally posted by theophilus View Post
                      Why is that wrong? Jesus himself quoted from Genesis and shows that he regards it as literal history.
                      There is no need to deny the historical events in the O.T. but there is a definite need to understand them within their own cultural and theological context and not force 20th and 21st ideas and interpretations upon them.
                      Last edited by Origen; 05-21-2016, 06:30 AM.
                      Comment>
                      Working...
                      X
                      Articles - News - SiteMap