Ken Ham, Jason Lisle Vs Hugh Ross, Walter Kaiser

[Kairos2014 3]

Hey y'all,

 

Hope all is well. I watched an interesting youtube vid on John Ankerberg show:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuWAUnQN1HQ

 

Old earth vs Young earth. There were some very interesting and captivating responses from all of them.

 

I wanted to see if you would of said anything different from what was spoken on the show?

 

Also, I have a few questions:

- Is John Ankerberg bias against young earth?

- Does the genesis account truly support young or old earth in your opinion?

- 35min Hugh Ross - "for ye number and length of six days, by what is set above, you may make ye first day as long as you please, and ye second day too."

Did Issac Newton believed in old earth?

 

Many thanks in advance

[mike the wiz 1,210]

Hi, I watched all of this program over about a week, I watched and listened to it all. 

 

I think our human problem is we tend to all have our own way of thinking. That's what really stands out with these types of debates. Hugh Ross very much has every old-earth angle, covered, he has a set-mind as to what the bible says, and clearly, strongly believes the bible matches with some sort of Big-Bang creation event.

 

Ken Ham is also very dogmatic that he is right.

 

I guess for me it is a question of facts. If the created world is clearly showing us that something is factual beyond dispute, do we contradict an established fact because our plain reading of the bible might indicate that what happened was contrary to the fact?

 

For me personally, I can't see a way around starlight. It seems galaxies are as old as an extrapolation of 13 billion years. My question is, do I believe God created a fantastic miracle that solves this problem or do I go with the fact? Or, does the bible not say?

 

On that issue I am not convinced the bible says. I admit the YEC intepretation seems to "fit" well, or fit the best, with what Genesis is saying, overall.

 

Like Mike Summers says, some things we won't know. Maybe God will tell us one day, or maybe He just doesn't tell us everything He does (in detail), after all He must have done millions of things we may never know about.

 

Conclusion: There can't be one.  (And I really do believe that on this particular issue, it's best not to have an opinion about a specific date. However i do accept a global flood and I don't accept that animals and humans have been around for millions of years).

[Mike Summers 454]

Hi all
I think we need to remind ourselves just how creative we are so that we are aware when we are creating which is much more than we care to acknowlledge. Our so callled 'facts' are often created (puns intended). Even evo was created. lol ID rules even when it comes to evolution. Can we "know" or do anything without using our intelligence?

I don't know what you are going to create for me. However, I have decided what I will and won't create you.

God, because He is a creator can do things anyway He wants. He may tell us if we ask Him instead of us "creating" in our mnd how he "had" to do it. Just some of my thoughts--not "the truth". LOL Fallible Mike's thoughts. LOL






 

[mike the wiz 1,210]

 

[MarkForbes 167]

If you take a literal 7 day week for creation and view the genealogy from Adam to Jesus as complete sequence of Lifetimes and fathership years of the patriarchs then of course, you also have to accept a young earth, theological speaking.

 

There is archaeological, paleontological and historical evidence that points to the earth or at least mankind being far younger then commonly assumed. 

 

The Old Earth view is to some extent plausible, if you accept all their assumptions. With is extrapolating from present beliefs towards a distant past. The whole Materialist cosmology is conjecture based widely on academic consensus. It's however a paradigm. And those have turned out wrong a couple of time in history. It's just that people have more confidence in it, given that bang-to-bureaucrat Evolution believers are mostly "hard scientists". Hard science deals with a lot of stuff that has got hard proof backing up like in physics, used in engineering for example. That's why people tend to believe it. Commonly people are far more skeptical of the "soft sciences" since a lot of in it consists of vague models of human behavior and actually story telling rounded of with some theorizing. The later are for some interesting reasons mostly Evolutionists as well.  But they do have more social influence given their work with languages and in public positions like teachers, pastors, journalists, politicians, lawyers, social workers etc. 

[Kairos2014 3]

I think it more than reasonable to believe in a young earth.

[indydave 1,942]

On 7/10/2016 at 4:02 PM, mike the wiz said:

For me personally, I can't see a way around starlight. It seems galaxies are as old as an extrapolation of 13 billion years. My question is, do I believe God created a fantastic miracle that solves this problem or do I go with the fact? Or, does the bible not say?

 

On that issue I am not convinced the bible says. I admit the YEC intepretation seems to "fit" well, or fit the best, with what Genesis is saying, overall.

In the recent topic about theistic evolution I provided my interpretation of what Russell Humphreys wrote about in 1994, where a white hole of creation has matter being sent outward and that causes a time dilation at the event horizon which is shrinking inward. This allows for millions or billions of years to take place in the cosmos while only seconds occur on Earth. That solves the light from distant stars problem.

[piasan 1,402]

4 hours ago, indydave said:

In the recent topic about theistic evolution I provided my interpretation of what Russell Humphreys wrote about in 1994, where a white hole of creation has matter being sent outward and that causes a time dilation at the event horizon which is shrinking inward. This allows for millions or billions of years to take place in the cosmos while only seconds occur on Earth. That solves the light from distant stars problem.

Except that Humphreys' event horizon collapses too soon.   You proposed an event horizon of 50 light years.  That horizon requires the mass of over 100 Milky Ways to sustain it according to the calculator you found.  By the time that mass has reached 200 light years, the "white hole" has collapsed to smaller than the radius of the Earth.   You should be able to find the mass of many galaxies within 6000 light years.   Yet, the center of THIS galaxy is 4x more distant.

[indydave 1,942]

1 hour ago, piasan said:

Except that Humphreys' event horizon collapses too soon.   You proposed an event horizon of 50 light years.  That horizon requires the mass of over 100 Milky Ways to sustain it according to the calculator you found.  By the time that mass has reached 200 light years, the "white hole" has collapsed to smaller than the radius of the Earth.   You should be able to find the mass of many galaxies within 6000 light years.   Yet, the center of THIS galaxy is 4x more distant.

You chose to exit the discussion just after I presented another scenario where sn1987a was around .5 light-years from Earth when the expansion began so by the time the event horizon shrunk to reach sn1987a, it was a white hole with the mass of the Milky Way within it. Then sn1987a passed through the event horizon and began its expansion outward to its present position of 170000 light years. All of the time needed for that took place in cosmic time which was speeding at a rate millions of times faster than Earth time.

So please address that scenario. When I threw out 50 light-years as a hypothetical distance I was just speculating without thinking through the numbers very carefully. These I have given to you are more realistic. I will post this also in the theistic evolution thread which is where we were discussing this.