Ken Ham vs Bill Nye Debate

[flip]

Well, if your gonna start applying that to how long man has been here, then we can talk further. All your posts so far have been using it to suggest a young-Earth.

[vision]

Is the passage of time uniform throughout the universe? What does it look like if light is slowing down? Could it have been instantaneous at some point?

These are awesome questions the bible can't answer. Thank God for science? Also, we are getting to know space-time pretty well. We know time is not uniform thanks to relativity. We know what light looks like when it slows down. The Universe still looks 14 billion years old. There is nothing indicating an instantaneous Universe anywhere. If you know of some evidence for a spontaneous uiverse please present it. Otherwise we could just as easily claim a unicorn pooped out the heavens which was fashioned into stars and planets by leprechauns and it would hold just as much weight as "god did it."

EDIT: And what are the physical implications of God stretching out the heavens at creation?

Please devise an experiment to test this great idea.

[flip]

If it stretched out then it had to start from somewhere. Isn't that exactly what the Big Bang suggests too?

[Sergeant Thorne]

Well, if your gonna start applying that to how long man has been here, then we can talk further. All your posts so far have been using it to suggest a young-Earth.

I don't know where you're getting this young-Earth stuff. I never said the earth was only as old as man! It's actually 5 days older according to Genesis.

[flip]

Sure sign of a weak argument!

[Sergeant Thorne]

So back to this "overwhelming evidence" in the Bible for an old earth. Your assumptions don't seem to be available for scrutiny. Is that the sign of a strong argument?

[flip]

Well, aside from Jesus coming right out and saying it wasn't for us to know times or dates, that the Father has kept those by His own authority. Interesting side note here, that everything has been handed over to the Son, except the Day of His coming, He doesn't even know. Someone else says that with God a thousand years is as a day and a day as a thousand years, which I take to mean that time is meaningless to God. Much more, but you have yet to do anything in this whole thread but challenge everyone else. Let's here your argument.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Well, aside from Jesus coming right out and saying it wasn't for us to know times or dates, that the Father has kept those by His own authority.

That's incorrect. Jesus said...

Acts 1:7 7 And He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority.

This is pretty plain English. It does not say that God has put all times and seasons under his own authority. This says that it is those times and seasons which the father has put in His own authority that are not for us to know. The reason I asked you this question a while back...

What examples do we have in the scriptures of God putting times or seasons in his own authority?

...is that this is the only instance which I am aware of where it is stated that we are not to know something because God has put it in his own authority. What you are claiming in regard to Genesis is basically equivalent to Jesus having instead answered, "on this day of this month in this year, but it is not for you to know times or seasons ...". Now does that make any sense?

Someone else says that with God a thousand years is as a day and a day as a thousand years, which I take to mean that time is meaningless to God.

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

I take it to mean that time does not mean the same thing to God as it does to us. But when God speaks of time in the Bible he is speaking to us. If God tells us such and such happened in a day when it did not happen in a day, how is that not a lie? We are never told to understand a day to mean a thousand years, we are told that with the Lord a thousand years is as a day! That's an important distinction. This isn't a cryptography class.

Much more, but you have yet to do anything in this whole thread but challenge everyone else.

And at my pleasure. I started this topic with the intention of making assertions, defenses, arguments, and rebuttals in relation to the Ken Ham VS Bill Nye debate. I'm not worried about what anyone thinks of how I choose to involve myself in it now that it has deviated so much. If you want to know my opinion on a matter, the best way to get it is to ask a question. You squirm something awful when you're pinned.

[flip]

Well, 1 Peter is not the only place that is said and I can think of at least one other time:

"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.

This is said by Matthew and Mark. So, for me, taking all this together I think our concept of time is much different than God's. For instance, what are the odds that the outer court being trampled by the gentiles and the beast that utters proud blasphemies are one and the same? They both do so for the same time frame, 42 months. I think I can safely think them the same because they both do so in the same time frame, but how am I supposed to know how long 42 months are?

Aside from that, I also believe in Dinosaur fossils, that the great lakes were formed by Glaciers, and that diamonds take much time and pressure to become so, I'm still willing to hear your argument so get to it.

[Sergeant Thorne]

42 months are 3-1/2 years. The only way to know them as anything else is by example of known substitution elsewhere in the text. My dad has always said that the best way to understand the Bible is to read it and let the author give you understanding in His time, rather than trying to make anything of it, so that's the way I approach it (or don't approach it).

...I do have this theory about the Brontosaurus.

What was the question? I also believe in dinosaur fossils (I believe they take liberties with some of them), I don't think I have a problem with the idea of a glacier carving out the Great Lakes, and I don't know why diamonds would need any great deal of time so long as the necessary heat and pressure are present.

[flip]

This is probably the last I'm gonna respond to this thread. I have been reading 'solely' the Bible for over 35 years now, letting it interpret itself. No Ken Hamm, No Kenneth Hagin..........If I didn't understand something I waited, sometimes for years. If I'm right, the outer court has been being trampled for around 2000 years now, but Thank God, I have made it into the inner court despite them. At any rate, I've said this over and over, we will not agree so why pursue it. I've said before, considering the atomic and electromagnetic nature of everything, particles becoming waves and waves becoming particles, it's entirely possible to have come together in 5 literal days. However, It is completely against God's patient nature to do so and beside that, you call 5 days work? Na, I think science is on the right track, even if they don't know it. He started with a seed.

[Top Gun]

My dad has always said that the best way to understand the Bible is to read it and let the author give you understanding in His time, rather than trying to make anything of it, so that's the way I approach it (or don't approach it).

So basically you accept the text verbatim without ever stopping to consider why you should accept the text verbatim...that explains much. Let me ask you this, Thorne: just what is it that makes you believe that all of the Bible is literal truth? The fact that the Bible says so itself? You can't use a source to prove that same source...that would be the same as me writing a pamphlet on how the Moon is made of cheese and then citing it in conversations. There needs to be some degree of external interpretation, or evidence, or something to corroborate it.

[Sergeant Thorne]

So basically ...

Is it your scientific training which allows you to pull so much from so little, or your Catholic training? And I don't believe I ever stated that "all" of the Bible is "literal truth".

[flip]

I would say it is anything but literal. All the good stuff is well hidden and the only way to find it is if you seek for yourself and never go beyond what is written. That way you avoid pre-conceived notions that soil your perception

[Sergeant Thorne]

At any rate, I've said this over and over, we will not agree so why pursue it.

I just figured you were a sucker for punishment. But seriously, I could tell from very early on that you didn't want to debate it, and I gave you two outs at least but you kept coming back. Don't act like it's my fault we keep pursuing this. I think you maybe should consider carefully what is assumption, and what is observation or fact. The idea that "science" is in perfect harmony with scripture is laudible--I'm certain that reality is in perfect harmony with the Bible, and so it follows that valid scientific observation will be as well--but I think you're making some mistaken assumptions and hitting it from the wrong angle. After all what is science but the reasonings of fallible men? I've given you some pretty straightforward arguments. What you do with them is your affair. If I'm right then I hope you'll come around eventually. Take as much time as you like. Put the whole thing on the back-burner if you think you should. Just don't ignore it and I'm happy.

[flip]

So far Thorne, all of your argument consists of chest beating and hot air. Do you actually have an argument? The reason I choose not to pursue this is because my time of study is more than all your years living. It's not out of fear or a love of punishment, it's because you are still completely superficial.

[Sergeant Thorne]

At this point you really need to accompany your accusations with some quotes so that you're actually talking about something specific. I can't respect a response like that.

[Top Gun]

So basically ...

Is it your scientific training which allows you to pull so much from so little, or your Catholic training? And I don't believe I ever stated that "all" of the Bible is "literal truth".

It's the fact that you stated in plain English that one shouldn't "try to make anything" of the Bible, and that one should just sit back and wait for God to help one understand it. So if you didn't mean what you stated in plain English, then tell me, just what did you mean?

And to follow it up, you say again, "I'm certain that reality is in perfect harmony with the Bible," but what's giving you that certainty? Especially when there's direct physical evidence that contradicts portions of the Bible if one were to take them literally?

[sigma]

In my opinion, the Bible is eternal, because it allows us to give anyone an easy explanation of unexplained phenomena . Saw lightning? This God is angry ! Sick? It is God punished you for sins ! Fish pours from the sky as a result of a tornado ? That God gives you food ! Dying crops from drought ? So little pray to God ! Saw planes in the sky ? This chariot of the gods ! Even though in a very ancient times smart people used their knowledge of the periodicity of solar and lunar eclipses in their interests to influence believers.
Religion is an antonym for the word science . Least because religion has always imposed by force. Scientific knowledge is not necessary to impose . So thinking of believers , or people who are influenced by religion at the state level , subject to more aggressive action to "protect " their faith.
My grandmother was a fanatical believer. She sincerely believed this puppet animation witchcraft. When I started to explain to her the principle of creating puppet animation , she looked at me like I was the devil, who is trying to offend God.
In my understanding , the Bible only gives a person the illusion of understanding of history and science, but , coupled with the provision undoubtedly correct behaviors in social society .
In fact, a person's thinking is highly dependent on the environment. Fully healthy person can be Mowgli or Mikhail Lomonosov . It all depends on each person's ability to access the knowledge of all mankind and the desire of knowledge. Thus, the only sign of evolution ( as well as its only value ) can be considered only informational evolution of mankind .

[Sergeant Thorne]

So basically ...

Is it your scientific training which allows you to pull so much from so little, or your Catholic training? And I don't believe I ever stated that "all" of the Bible is "literal truth".

It's the fact that you stated in plain English that one shouldn't "try to make anything" of the Bible, and that one should just sit back and wait for God to help one understand it. So if you didn't mean what you stated in plain English, then tell me, just what did you mean?

And to follow it up, you say again, "I'm certain that reality is in perfect harmony with the Bible," but what's giving you that certainty? Especially when there's direct physical evidence that contradicts portions of the Bible if one were to take them literally?

First I did mean what I stated, I just didn't mean what you stated. I think the best way to explain what I meant is to say that the Bible is God's revealed plan/will/opinion for humanity... We can understand a lot of things about the Bible as a work through a study of extra-Biblical history, language, culture, etc (we can verify historical claims and prophecy, find who penned various portions, verify textual integrity, ...), but the message and meaning of the Bible is inspired by one author, and a study of surrounding culture, language, and history gives us a knowledge of the medium, not the message (the chaff to the wheat). So when it comes to making sense of what the author is saying in portions of scripture which may not be so clear, such as the one that flip brought up, rather than trying to fit the shoe to its owner according to my limited understanding, it is better to be directed by the author, who promises to give us wisdom if we ask.

James 1:5 5 If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him.

11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.

[flip]

That's why I don't understand how people can believe in the trinity. Paul says in the same way. Do you feel like 2 separate individuals Thorne? That's what has me irked by religious folks, they just accept any doctrine. How can Paul call God the God and Father of our Lord Jesus. Or in 1 Corinthians 15, say that He will reign 'until' meaning there is an end to His reign at the right hand of the Father. That He is then subjected and per Revelations He receives a new name, which is no longer the Name above all names but belongs to the Father alone then. How can people miss in Revelations where it's says to hear what the Spirit says and then it plainly be Jesus saying that anybody who overcomes, He writes on their foreheads the Name of His God, the Name of the city of His God and His new name? Then He says that anybody who overcomes will sit with Him on His subjected throne in exactly the same way as He now sits with the Father on His throne.

That's why I choose not to argue over the 2 chapters or so in the Bible that covers creation, especially when it seems most so-called Christians have not even figured this much more important issue out. It makes me doubt the sincerity of their search and their understanding. They are still wandering around the Outer Court.

[sigma]

I can well believe that the source of inspiration for the first Bible was a certain subject, such as gold plate Voyager ... Or something more serious. The Bible has too many choices of interpretation. It contains information, the understanding of which, on the one hand, on the surface, but the entry for other hand, may have a much deeper meaning. It is possible that a complete decoding of messages contained in the Bible, modern science can not explain.

[flip]

Well, that's one thing I've learned about the Bible. It is not subject to private interpretation. You must read it all, gather 10,15,20 verses on what ever subject and it interprets itself then. Makes finding the contradictions to Paul's Gospel possible too, because there is definitely a conflict between the trinitarians doctrine and the Gospel Paul received directly from the Lord. You won't find that problem in the Old Testament because scribes would actually count each and every jot and tittle, mark the number of characters beside the line and then recount again. They didn't have to understand it they just made sure they copied it exactly how it was worded (which means a lot) and how it was passed down. Not so with the New Testament. They trampled it and added some stuff that does not agree. There are 2 Gospels going around this world. One is on the rock and one is under. One has been hidden and the other is no gospel at all. By making Jesus God, they perverted the image of both the Father and the Son and hid the believers inheritance from them. They do it so they can lord themselves over people and keep authority over them, because as soon as you know the Son, you don't need them anymore.

There's a reason they never preach about the new name. There's a reason they never preach about Jesus being subjected. There's a reason they do not preach about us sitting with Him on His throne. There is a reason they do not preach about us obtaining to the glory of Jesus. There is a reason they only preach about forgiveness of sin.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Jesus claimed to be God. The Jews understood it, and tried to kill him for it on at least one occasion. Few things in the Bible are more clear.

13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? 14 And God said unto Moses, I Am that I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you.

I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

(there is no "he" in the Greek)

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

47 The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven.

28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Just to put forth a few key ones. It's as plain as day. 10-1 the translation you're using was based on Gnostic texts which were changed from the original to allow for the belief that Jesus was not God, and later compiled by heretics involved in spiritualism (I'm not exaggerating at all). For instance, in 1 Corinthians 15:47 they leave out "the Lord". You're absolutely correct about the tedious precision of the Jews with regard to the Hebrew--the Old Testament, but the New Testament is verifiable just from the sheer quantity of texts from various areas and various times going back a long way. It is also verified by being quoted in other old works as containing some of the things which were left out it newer texts. These verifiable texts come together as the "receive text" or "majority text". These are the texts behind the KJV and the NKJV. Your Bible is based on the newer texts which contain many targeted omissions and changes. This is a heresy you've gotten into, flip. You really need to learn/ascertain the truth of these things for yourself.

[flip]

No, every verse you just quoted applies to what I've said. In John He says before Abraham was, I am. That was true but doesn't make Him God. Makes them think He was saying that though. He also says the Father is greater and Paul says that God is the head of Christ. So, you have to weigh the figurative speech and parables with the plain speech of Paul. Even so, Him saying before Abraham was I am is still the truth. He was the firstborn of all creation, pulled from the very side of God just as woman was pulled from the side of man. This is why man has headship over woman and God has headship over Christ, but He still existed before Abraham.

The same argument applies to your next quote, He was from heaven and before Abraham, but we have to weigh it also with Paul saying that even though everything was put under His feet it is clear that didn't include God, who put everything under His feet. He also says that He will reign 'until' signifying an end to His reign there and will then be subjected and receive a new name. The Father then solely having the Name above all names. In Revelations, He says He will write the Name of His God on our foreheads, the name of the city of His God on our foreheads and write His new name on our foreheads. You do realize that Holy simply means separated right? So, instead of saying the Holy Spirit, we can also say the separated Spirit.

Well, had not that addition made it into 1 John 5:7, we would read that verse a lot differently and in fact I do. It is actually talking about God's Testimony He gives the world about His Son, and that it has 3 witnesses. It's not talking about 3 persons. The 3 witnesses are the water(which is the word) the shed blood of Christ and the very Spirit of God Himself poured out on all flesh. So even Charles Manson has the Spirit of God, who is a Spirit, poured out on Him. Otherwise, how could God give people His Testimony? No one comes to the Son except the Father draws them. How can He draw them if He is not poured out on all flesh?

Paul goes further and says that when we accept the Testimony of those 3 witnesses, He sends the Spirit of His Son into our hearts. So what really happened is this. Because of the Son's blood, God does not see our sin and poured His Spirit out on everyone. He gives the testimony about His Son and whoever accepts it, He sends the Holy (separated) Spirit of His Son into their hearts and the 2 become married as one flesh, within us.

The heresy is not mine, the heresy is caused by the leaven and people trying to make sense of what does not belong.

[Sergeant Thorne]

I read your post, flip, but I have to go back to your first few statements. What does it matter that you say that Jesus saying "I am" does not identify himself with God who identified himself the same way, the jews even understanding it to mean this (and Jesus was a Jew of the same time period, who arguably knew what he was saying), when Acts 20 says that God purchased the church with his own blood?!

13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

[Sergeant Thorne]

6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given:
and the government shall be upon his shoulder:
and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God,
The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

[flip]

Ok, that's what I'm talking about. The leaven made you read that wrong. It says this:

Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.

Here it is talking about the separated Spirit that has made us overseers of the church of God bought with His own blood. Clearly, if not for the leaven, you would see this verse is saying the Holy Spirit made us overseers AND bought the church of God with His own blood. To this effect:

13 Therefore, with minds that are alert and fully sober, set your hope on the grace to be brought to you when Jesus Christ is revealed at his coming. 14 As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance. 15 But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; 16 for it is written: “Be holy, because I am holy.”[a]

17 Since you call on a Father who judges each person’s work impartially, live out your time as foreigners here in reverent fear. 18 For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. 20 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. 21 Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.

Which is saying that through our belief in the Son, our hope and faith are actually in God.

[flip]

Well, I can see your not reading what I have written because then you would understand what is in a name.

6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given:
and the government shall be upon his shoulder:
and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God,
The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

What does the Son do before He hands that Name back over? He defeats every enemy of God. A name in the Bible is not who someone is, it is what they do.

[callmeslick]

So basically ...

Is it your scientific training which allows you to pull so much from so little, or your Catholic training? And I don't believe I ever stated that "all" of the Bible is "literal truth".

well, it either has to be all or nothing, if you wish to be consistent. Also, why the problem with Science or Catholicism?

[sigma]

There is at least one confirmed the truth claims of the Bible ? No, I certainly can believe in the existence of a Flood . As it is proved by science . When that Earth really had a very dense atmosphere to create a greenhouse effect is so strong that even the palm trees grow in Antarctica. Then came what that cataclysm that all the moisture in the sky fell on the ground. Then there was a series of ice ages , which, incidentally, can occur at any time , apparently. Given the number and frequency span of asteroids and comets around our Earth , almost certainly suggests that the source of such disasters were just asteroids . But where could the Bible writers know about the causes of such a Flood ? Where do they even know about the Flood ? From this information ? Given that the deluge occurred long before the people? Or authors of the Bible had in mind only the local value of the flood , just a very large tsunami resulting from the earthquake in the Mediterranean?

[snoopy]

well, it either has to be all or nothing, if you wish to be consistent. Also, why the problem with Science or Catholicism?

It doesn't all have to be literally historical in nature, though. For example: parables that Jesus told were obviously not literal accounts of things that happened to real people...

Also you have to consider consider semantic range when translating things - for example: the word used for "day" in the creation account is also used to convey the idea of an "age" or an "era" in other places. (The strongest evidence for the young earth interpretation of the creation narrative lies in the communication of the idea of sunset and sunrise separating the days, not the word used for "day.") You also have to consider the way that the Bible presents God as separate from time & space... so there isn't necessarily a direct connection between God's concept of a "day" and man's concept of a "day."

It all sums up to this: The Bible is quite clear when it comes to directions on how we're supposed to treat God, others, and the world from a philosophical/relational standpoint, but specific mechanics are often not quite so clear. You see directly in the Bible examples of how God fulfilled His promises, but in a different way than people expected - God seems to make a bit of a habit of acting in ways that we don't expect. This is the primary quality that make the Bible timeless - new technology and tools that come along don't change who we are in a relational sense... and the Bible addresses relationships more so than it does situation details.

That's why I think it's generally dubious to draw much in the way of scientific predictions out of the Bible. The Bible isn't primarily about science or process - it's about relationship. When we try to extract process out of the Bible, I think we often put too much of our human expectations into the mix - expectations which have a pretty bad batting average.

[Sergeant Thorne]

so there isn't necessarily a direct connection between God's concept of a "day" and man's concept of a "day."

11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

God dwells in eternity, but man does not. What would God want with a "day" if it didn't relate to us?

[flip]

Keep reminding God's people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen.

This is just one of those issues that reminds me of this scripture. There is so little said about it in the first place and enough ambiguity that it was something I don't think God wanted to make clear. I am reminded of this scripture while I am writing this:

24 “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’

Which is exactly what science is doing. I agree with Snoopy in regards to using the Bible as a book of science, although being a book of truth, there are always hints as to what direction to go. What I mean is, Paul said some 2000 years ago that everything that is visible was made out of what is invisible. We see how long after that it took for people to actually start looking at the invisible. Then the Nuclear Age started. Wasn't that long ago the Church was killing people for saying the Earth was round. Based on that, Paul had that idea Loooooooooog before anyone else, just not the tools available to prove it. I think the same argument can be made for Evolution. Long before anyone else had thought about it, the Bible had already said that the animals sprang forth from the ground and that man was formed from it. Completely vague, but at it's core the absolute truth.

[vision]

There are so many bible quotes on this forum Descent is probably going to show up as a Christian video game in search results. Actually, that last sentence ensures it, haha.

[flip]

Here, let's help it along then! I have known many an Atheist that has found great value in a collection of books that contains many a truth.

[sigma]

As an atheist, I still believe that religion is a psychotropic drug that suppression a person's will and his own opinion. You forget that if the Bible is only recommended to spread the word of God, the Qur'an recommends to kill all the people who did not want to believe in God. More precisely, to obey their specific God. I can even assume what namely religiosity is the cause of the aggressiveness of Americans with a view to "spread the word of God" for all other "unbelievers."