Btw Mr Ham, I would like to commend you for using your platform to present what the evidence that God left regarding Himself is for, that He has chosen to glorify Himself through the gospel! I commend you for presenting that several times. That is how you are faithful and I was proud of Mr Ham for remembering to present that
If you assume you know the starting point based on consistentcy.....
Bill is using the growing universe model and just said there isn't enough time in a creation model for the universe to have grown to the point it is at now. The problem is he is assuming it starts from a cental point. Why? What evidence does he have that he can pressume this? He doesn't and it is irresponsible to do so and that is why his argument falls apart.
But they are making compelling arguments for their sides
Not really. The integrity in this site is to learn and be teachable. He made a comment later regarding being infallible because we have the Holy Spirit. That is obviously not true. Had he come with a varying opinion based on ignorrance, that is one thing. But to be oppositional just to be is another, it is antagonistic.
The purpose I would suppose of this site to be is to be EDIFYING to christians, our own bibles tells us that Paul and Barnabus dusted off their feet when they were opposed and those that were oppositional would not consider the truth. Why are we not practicing that? If he was here to really consider and to learn, that would be a whole different animal
I would like to bring up the question at what point are comments deemed innappropriate for this site?
John Yurick has continued to make statements that are antithetical and contrary to the position this site holds. I might be ok with it if he showed any desire to learn, as this is a teaching site. But he doesn't and continues to offer up opinions and take stands that are completely the opposite of the great MEN and SCHOLARS that are presented on this site. I feel it is mocking and inflamitory and with christian value should not be tollerated
It is interesting, I have watched Dawkin's debate that one guy from the university that Dawkin's teaches at..... Can't remember his name but they have debated several times and Dawkin's doesn't refence it.
I do think it is revealing though that Dawkin's believes there is no reason to debate. I expect that from soneone who cannot back up their argument.
My hope is that Mr Ham will make this a critical thought debate. The other side wants you to believe it is science verses creation, that is not the argument and those 2 should be pitted against each other for they are not exclusive, quite the contrary
This article dealt with the teaching ministry of the pastor way too whimsically which tells me this is very emergent. if my pastor struggled with his teaching because administrative stuff kept distracting him heck yeah I would have a problem and that is biblical!
I came out of the Chuck Smith Calvary Chapel association and this article hits the nail on the head. None of the 3 I attended had any elders, only one had A DEACON. The direction of the church was solely up to the head pastor and was not to be trifled with. They lived in million dollars homes, ranches, drove nice cars. One got divorced and never stepped down. I watched staff get fired over not sharing the "vision", there was a sense of fear in those places.
It wasn't until I left did I fall under authority to where there was a lot of accountability. I understand when these are called "rock stars" what that means. I wanted to be like them, they just gave a speech twice a week, played golf, met with a couple of people and had nice things. I was duped! This is why I am a solid seperatest now. I am still dealing with the pain of living under that popish regime and never want to see someone subjected to that
I appreciate your stab at it but I was not talking about evolution. I think most of us presuppose evolution and billions of years go hand and hand. I do not, but must confess evolution AS THE EVOLUTIONIST DEFINE IT requires billions of years.
My question was directly related to time: young universe, old universe. Does the hebrew word day in Gen 1 mean something different for some mysterious reason, than it does everywhere else in scripture? As I understand it they questioned that and did so on the basis of modern science. Time not evolution vs creation
Let me reaffirm my position with ALL FEAR AND TREMBLING. I stand as an ant among giants I am sure, I cannot hold a candle to the theological hieghts these men have apparently reached, I was very fearfull when I wrote what I wrote but I do think the question has to be asked and to what degree are we ignoring how serious this really is to God by not seriously addressing it? I am more fearful of offending God then men, day in Genesis is the same word front to back; day.