Creation debate

[dragongunner]

i used this term elsewhere .. it fits here also ...

Arguing over the 6 day creation vs the 6000 yr creation verses an undefined time of 6 dispensations (and time is measured by the earth revolving around the sun which was not created until the forth dispensation(im using that word{dispensation} for fun btw )..as God transcends time ,being eternal he is not confined by it. Being that he is at the beginning of it (created it ) and at the end of it and here in the now .. all at the same time )and it is said that the universe is spreading out ,that is to say it is both still being created while it is already created while it is yet to be created -(just threw that one in to bend our minds some ) so when you see a distant star {a distance beyond real comprehension} and the light that traveled from it taking a measurement of time defined only in increments of the number of times the earth revolves around the sun..which number began only after that a fore mentioned "4th dispensation"...

-is like arguing whether something is blue-green or green-blue

Its green-blue....LOL Check this out, when I watch it it just amazes me how awesome and great out God is...I thought of it when you said distant stars..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U

 

[Alithis]

Its green-blue....LOL Check this out, when I watch it it just amazes me how awesome and great out God is...I thought of it when you said distant stars..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U

thats a great vid ..

especially when put in to context beneath the creator . truly How great is our GOD ..as it zoomed back in all i could think of were the words ..

"what is man ,that thou art mindful of him ...."


-and it's blue/green haha

 

[classicalhero]

I just don't know how long each day was to God. Man inter pets it as 24 hrs. for each day. The bible does not say each day was 24 hrs. The evening and the morning were the first day....but the morning and evening for man was not created until the 4th day. I take it from the beginning when God started creating until the day was done was the evening and the morning...the beginning and the end.....whether it was 2 hrs. or 120 million years...it Gods time. Have you not read earlier in this thread where Peter said 1000 yrs is but a day and a night to the Lord. So I believe God has the power to do what he said, and he did. I just don't interpret it like you do. So was Peter wrong?

How about this, Jesus in Revelation says that he will come quickly.....but its been over 2000 yrs!!!! Does that sound like quickly....?.....sounds kinda slow....Until you realize God is not on mans time. According to Peter he has only been gone 2 days, if a thousand yrs. is but a day and night to the Lord.

I try my best to try and look at things the way God wants me too.....not trying to get God to look at my ways. If that goes against what you believe then we will just have to agree to disagree. I'm ok with that and I hope it does not offend you or others. If it does, then there is nothing I can do about it.

God Bless.

The first day was 24 hours since we already had a light period and a night period of darkness, just like we have now. One day one God created light and he separated the light from darkness. In fact in Revelation there is no Sun, moon or stars, since God himself is the light. We don't need to the sun for our light, but God decided to make it that way on day four, but before that there already was light. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. Do you not believe what God said? The bible uses the term "evening and mourning" which is exactly how a near Easterner would describe a 24 hour period of time, since a full day starts at night, when we consider a new day generally around sunrise. Also that term is used on day one and every other day in the creation account, so if day four means 24 hours, then so does day 1. The pattern is clear when it goes "evening and morning were the 5th day." The phrase only changes according the day number and nothing else, a pattern like shows that each and every time the writer means the similar thing each time, that each numerical day is the exact length.

What Peter was saying that God is outside of time, since one day is like a thousands years and vice versa, so that has nothing to do with what we are talking, because he was talking about the end times and why God hasn't come yet and Peter was explaining that God doesn't observe time and thus his coming is imminent. This explains why in Revelation on God's time it will be quickly, but on our time we don't know when he will come back.

Yes God is not on our time, but he does use our time to get his message across. The Bible clearly predicts the exact timing of Christ's appearance on earth using our time, the thing is that we are talking about things in the past which have already happened, but when we are talking about the future, God has specifically not given us a time when he will do it, so that we remain alert and ready any time for his coming. God clearly state what he did in the past and he used our time for it,, and yet God clearly states that we don't need to know the exact time of his coming, but we do know what God did in the past according to what he said. If you can't trust him about what he said about the past, how can you trust him about the future which we don't know the exact timing? The only reason to reject what God said in Genesis is because of man's interpretations, so again I ask do you trust what God has said?

 

[dragongunner]

The first day was 24 hours since we already had a light period and a night period of darkness, just like we have now. One day one God created light and he separated the light from darkness. In fact in Revelation there is no Sun, moon or stars, since God himself is the light. We don't need to the sun for our light, but God decided to make it that way on day four, but before that there already was light. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. Do you not believe what God said? The bible uses the term "evening and mourning" which is exactly how a near Easterner would describe a 24 hour period of time, since a full day starts at night, when we consider a new day generally around sunrise. Also that term is used on day one and every other day in the creation account, so if day four means 24 hours, then so does day 1. The pattern is clear when it goes "evening and morning were the 5th day." The phrase only changes according the day number and nothing else, a pattern like shows that each and every time the writer means the similar thing each time, that each numerical day is the exact length.

What Peter was saying that God is outside of time, since one day is like a thousands years and vice versa, so that has nothing to do with what we are talking, because he was talking about the end times and why God hasn't come yet and Peter was explaining that God doesn't observe time and thus his coming is imminent. This explains why in Revelation on God's time it will be quickly, but on our time we don't know when he will come back.

Yes God is not on our time, but he does use our time to get his message across. The Bible clearly predicts the exact timing of Christ's appearance on earth using our time, the thing is that we are talking about things in the past which have already happened, but when we are talking about the future, God has specifically not given us a time when he will do it, so that we remain alert and ready any time for his coming. God clearly state what he did in the past and he used our time for it,, and yet God clearly states that we don't need to know the exact time of his coming, but we do know what God did in the past according to what he said. If you can't trust him about what he said about the past, how can you trust him about the future which we don't know the exact timing? The only reason to reject what God said in Genesis is because of man's interpretations, so again I ask do you trust what God has said?

Ok...now your just getting high minded. And who are you to try and judge me and try and twist what I trust or do not trust because of your intepetations?

I stand by everything I have said, I said if you disagree thats fine...however it does not seem fine to you....until I believe just like you do I'm somehow less than you and don't trust. I TRUST GOD, I BELIEVE IN GOD......I DO NOT TRUST YOU, I DO NOT BELIEVE IN YOU. Farewell brother.

This is why I love the ignore list at CF !!!!

 

[theophilus40]

Some of the posts asked how there could be days before the sun was created. On the fourth day God placed lights in the heavens but it doesn't say he created the bodies that were the source of those lights. There are times when clouds prevent us from seeing the sun but still allow light to reach the earth. That condition could have prevailed on the earth before the fourth day.

Creation – what does the Bible actually say? | clydeherrin

The days of creation were literal days but they might not have been 24 hours long.

How long were the days? | clydeherrin

 

[Alithis]

Ok...now your just getting high minded. And who are you to try and judge me and try and twist what I trust or do not trust because of your intepetations?

I stand by everything I have said, I said if you disagree thats fine...however it does not seem fine to you....until I believe just like you do I'm somehow less than you and don't trust. I TRUST GOD, I BELIEVE IN GOD......I DO NOT TRUST YOU, I DO NOT BELIEVE IN YOU. Farewell brother.

This is why I love the ignore list at CF !!!!

i agree with the concept of God being outside time ..overseeing it , being at it Beginning ,in it and at its end ,all at the same moment .
but his arrival in the form of flesh was not done on our time ..its god's all the way ,he alone established the measurements of the rotations of the planets . he set a plan in motion and established every thing and brings to completion everything he has begun

 

[classicalhero]

Some of the posts asked how there could be days before the sun was created. On the fourth day God placed lights in the heavens but it doesn't say he created the bodies that were the source of those lights. There are times when clouds prevent us from seeing the sun but still allow light to reach the earth. That condition could have prevailed on the earth before the fourth day.

Creation – what does the Bible actually say? | clydeherrin

The days of creation were literal days but they might not have been 24 hours long.

How long were the days? | clydeherrin

Each day was one rotation of the earth. Any time difference between now and then would be miniscule. Actually more than likely the earth was spinning faster, if anything. Based on observation we have, it is actually the extra water on earth that slows us down.
China's Monster Three Gorges Dam Is About To Slow The Rotation Of The Earth | Business Insider
Earthquakes also disrupt the rotation of the earth. Again this slows the rotation of the earth, the amount is minimal even for an earthquake as large as the Sumatra tsunami in Boxing Day 2004, but when we read in the Bible we see an account of massive geological change. The Bible talks about water coming up from the earth and enough water to cover even the highest mountain by 2 miles. With all this activity it means that because we know that these two events slow down the rotation, so trying to argue day being longer than 24 hours based on the rotation is foolishness. The fact that the our year is longer than what we believe was the original calender, that of 360 days, then the extra days we have show things are longer now than before, so they were shorter than our time. But the thing is that God specifically used a specific word to describe what he did.

@DR, yes I was judging you according to what you said, specifically this. "The bible does not say each day was 24 hrs. The evening and the morning were the first day....but the morning and evening for man was not created until the 4th day." Clearly you are stating that when God said the same thing regarding Day one with day four, you are saying that they don't mean the same thing. That is absurd and shows you don't really trust what God says. To be consistent you should say that both means th same hing, they can't be different things at the same time when the exact same phrase is used to describe each day.

 

[Alithis]

its blue/green.....................

 

[Achilles6129]

So, how does everyone think Ken Ham is doing?

 

[Alithis]

So, how does everyone think Ken Ham is doing?

have listened to not quite half ...
i find bill nye seems ..i dont how to put it .. ..lost?
i think the issue of admitting much of what they state is "belief" rather then verifiable science of observation is a very huge issue .
honesty is required .
so much argument is based on the "age " of things . yet no one was around that long ago to say i planted this tree when i was 20 years old and now it is 2014 that makes it X,XXX,X years old .. So i sort of switch off when an evolutionist uses "AGE" for an argument because they are basing the foundation of their argument on the assumption that their measurement of age is correct -but have no way of verifying the fact ..so in truth they base their argument on their BELIEF that the tree or rock or fossil is XXXyears old .. and then they say its science ..but it is the science of conjecture .. it is not observational -we were not there,not testable -we would have to prove the point of beginning to prove the age ,thus not verifiable . hence - it is belief .

 

[KWCrazy]

I would just like to point out that the "light" and "darkness" that were created on day 1 were not referencing a source of light/darkness, but rather the creation [beginning] of time.

No, sorry, there was light.
4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

There was a source of light and a rotation of the earth; one day.

 

[Alithis]

No, sorry, there was light.
4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

There was a source of light and a rotation of the earth; one day.

I can see that ..makes sense
------------------------------------------------------------------

God is light and in him there is no darkness nor shadow of turning .
we only know 'light" ..mostly , by that which it illuminates, by that which it reflects off .we have not known light directly

 

[KWCrazy]

So, how does everyone think Ken Ham is doing?

Bill Nye mouthed the same stupidity I've seen on this and other forums for years.
We only have cell phones because of the Toe;
Geology proves the earth is millions of years old (Science never proves anything).
The 2nd LoT doesn't apply to the universe because the sun sends energy to the earth.
He demands absolute proof while stating the unprovable; increasing complexity which has never been observed.
I thought Ham missed a chance when asked what would change his belief. He should have said that he's had more more evidence of God's existence than of Bill Nye's existence.

Overall, both men were articulate and well prepared. Neither scored a knock-out victory and neither ever really stunned the other. It was a cordial, professional debate.

 

[Alithis]

Bill Nye mouthed the same stupidity I've seen on this and other forums for years.
We only have cell phones because of the Toe;
Geology proves the earth is millions of years old (Science never proves anything).
The 2nd LoT doesn't apply to the universe because the sun sends energy to the earth.
He demands absolute proof while stating the unprovable; increasing complexity which has never been observed.
I thought Ham missed a chance when asked what would change his belief. He should have said that he's had more more evidence of God's existence than of Bill Nye's existence.

Overall, both men were articulate and well prepared. Neither scored a knock-out victory and neither ever really stunned the other. It was a cordial, professional debate.

i had never heard of bil nye before today ..but here was my reply

have listened to not quite half ...
i find bill nye seems ..i dont how to put it .. ..lost?
i think the issue of admitting much of what they state is "belief" rather then verifiable science of observation is a very huge issue .
honesty is required .
so much argument is based on the "age " of things . yet no one was around that long ago to say i planted this tree when i was 20 years old and now it is 2014 that makes it X,XXX,X years old .. So i sort of switch off when an evolutionist uses "AGE" for an argument because they are basing the foundation of their argument on the assumption that their measurement of age is correct -but have no way of verifying the fact ..so in truth they base their argument on their BELIEF that the tree or rock or fossil is XXXyears old .. and then they say its science ..but it is the science of conjecture .. it is not observational -we were not there,not testable -we would have to prove the point of beginning to prove the age ,thus not verifiable . hence - it is belief .

 

[Resha Caner]

i had never heard of bil nye before today ...

This is probably the most important comment on the whole debate. Why does Bill Nye get to carry the banner of evolution? And why is Ken Ham representing creationism?

Bill Nye is a mechanical engineer like me ... except as far as I can tell all he has is a bachelor's and I actually have a master's. He has some engineering accomplishments to his credit, but other than that his credentials are that he's a celebrity - he found a niche entertaining children to build their interest in science. Not really the type of thing I'm looking for to understand biology.

Ken Ham might be a bit better since he has a bachelor's degree in environmental biology. Still, because of his reputation amongst evolutionists, I doubt anyone would actually listen to his view. They just like shouting at him and mocking him.

The whole thing is more spectacle than of any academic value.

 

[Alithis]

This is probably the most important comment on the whole debate. Why does Bill Nye get to carry the banner of evolution? And why is Ken Ham representing creationism?

Bill Nye is a mechanical engineer like me ... except as far as I can tell all he has is a bachelor's and I actually have a master's. He has some engineering accomplishments to his credit, but other than that his credentials are that he's a celebrity - he found a niche entertaining children to build their interest in science. Not really the type of thing I'm looking for to understand biology.

Ken Ham might be a bit better since he has a bachelor's degree in environmental biology. Still, because of his reputation amongst evolutionists, I doubt anyone would actually listen to his view. They just like shouting at him and mocking him.

The whole thing is more spectacle than of any academic value.

well thats a ..not so nice ,evaluation of the two men ..lol
but how did you think the debate itself went ?

 

[theophilus40]

Each day was one rotation of the earth. Any time difference between now and then would be miniscule.

There is evidence from the Bible that shows the days might have been 21 minutes longer than our present days.

How long were the days? | clydeherrin

 

[Resha Caner]

... but how did you think the debate itself went?

I didn't watch it. I've seen several comments that both parties were civil, and that's a good thing - a worthwhile result. I'm only speaking for my personal position, but my point was that I find debates like this pretty useless.

It makes me ask questions like:
What did they hope to accomplish?
Did Nye or Ham think they were going to "win" somehow?

 

[classicalhero]

There is evidence from the Bible that shows the days might have been 21 minutes longer than our present days.

How long were the days? | clydeherrin

1 day is still one rotation of the earth on it's axis and not millions of years.

 

[Alithis]

I didn't watch it. I've seen several comments that both parties were civil, and that's a good thing - a worthwhile result. I'm only speaking for my personal position, but my point was that I find debates like this pretty useless.

It makes me ask questions like:
What did they hope to accomplish?
Did Nye or Ham think they were going to "win" somehow?

I dont disagree .. i did state earlier that the problem with such debates is ..each party listening tunes out the opposing party for the most part