If you want to know if Genesis is history, then ask an ACTUAL SCIENTIST OR HISTORIAN if it's claims are supported by evidence, not a Creationist, that's like asking a 12-year-old Justin Bieber groupie for an unbiased critique of the latest Justin Bieber album.
Mark O'Sullivan You mean like the bible is God's word, and therefore true? You mean how everyone is going to die someday and will be judged by their Maker? It is remarkable that people turn their faces from those realities.
My biggest problem with the things Ken Ham believes are summed up in something he said during this interview. "if they can't have their millions of years, they can't propose biological evolution" and "if they don't have millions of years, what are they gonna do, believe the bible?" The problem here is it seems like Ken is assuming we are starting from a position and finding evidence to validate that, much like he does with scripture. The difference is there is no agenda to push evolution, and our goal is not to prove evolution true. Science looks at the world and what we have, and finds out what is true in an unbiased way. If something came along that showed that the earth was not millions of years old, through peer reviewed and well researched methods, science would change its mind and we would admit, based on new information, that it was not what was previously understood. Ken phrases this like we are out to prove the world is millions of years old, which is not true. We are out to find out objectively what the facts are. Ken Ham and Answer's in Genesis looks at the bible and says "how can we validate everything in this book" and that is the difference. Ken is starting with "the truth" and we are starting from not knowing and learning as much as we can objectively. To his second phrase about us believing the bible if evolution was proven untrue, we would. We would IF the evidence showed that what the bible says was truthful and accurate. However, we would not say "well evolution is no longer accurate, so by default it must be the bible". We would still have a long way to go before we got to scientifically validating all of the claims in the bible. To pose a question to Ken, if scientific research somehow proved another holy book true besides the bible, would Ken believe that one to be true? The problem is creationists start with the premise the bible is true, and work to prove it true, and anything that contradicts the bible just can't be true. Ken is a smart man, I can tell. I just think he is applying his intelligence in the wrong areas.
![[Live] ศึกมหึมันส์มวยไทยสังเวียนเดือด เวทีมวยชั่วคราวสวนสยาม | จันทร์ 30 กันยายน 2567](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pM1k6f7JXUc/mqdefault.jpg)
"University"
christian mythology
I'm very thankful for Ken Ham, BJU, and BJU Press!
If you want to know if Genesis is history, then ask an ACTUAL SCIENTIST OR HISTORIAN if it's claims are supported by evidence, not a Creationist, that's like asking a 12-year-old Justin Bieber groupie for an unbiased critique of the latest Justin Bieber album.
Jesus loves you❤️
It is remarkable, how people can turn their face away from reality.
Mark O'Sullivan You mean like the bible is God's word, and therefore true? You mean how everyone is going to die someday and will be judged by their Maker? It is remarkable that people turn their faces from those realities.
Reality is hard. A story is easy.
Tom W
Words in a book are not a valid reason for a belief.
@@DesGardius-me7gf The way you put it, sure. Thats not why believers believe. Its God's Word, not mans
What chance do we have. .University?? .we got trees older than 6000 years...
My biggest problem with the things Ken Ham believes are summed up in something he said during this interview. "if they can't have their millions of years, they can't propose biological evolution" and "if they don't have millions of years, what are they gonna do, believe the bible?" The problem here is it seems like Ken is assuming we are starting from a position and finding evidence to validate that, much like he does with scripture. The difference is there is no agenda to push evolution, and our goal is not to prove evolution true. Science looks at the world and what we have, and finds out what is true in an unbiased way. If something came along that showed that the earth was not millions of years old, through peer reviewed and well researched methods, science would change its mind and we would admit, based on new information, that it was not what was previously understood. Ken phrases this like we are out to prove the world is millions of years old, which is not true. We are out to find out objectively what the facts are. Ken Ham and Answer's in Genesis looks at the bible and says "how can we validate everything in this book" and that is the difference. Ken is starting with "the truth" and we are starting from not knowing and learning as much as we can objectively. To his second phrase about us believing the bible if evolution was proven untrue, we would. We would IF the evidence showed that what the bible says was truthful and accurate. However, we would not say "well evolution is no longer accurate, so by default it must be the bible". We would still have a long way to go before we got to scientifically validating all of the claims in the bible. To pose a question to Ken, if scientific research somehow proved another holy book true besides the bible, would Ken believe that one to be true? The problem is creationists start with the premise the bible is true, and work to prove it true, and anything that contradicts the bible just can't be true. Ken is a smart man, I can tell. I just think he is applying his intelligence in the wrong areas.
what is authority of scripture?