Hey, I bet not all Ham fans are truly saved. Some of them may even be (gasp) Trinnies!
LOL! I personally don't believe everyone using the Trinitarian terminology think that Jesus and God are two separate persons. My mother claims to be Trinitarian and I know she believes that Jesus is God.
OK, well, I take back my comment that I did not have time to listen... I did manage to listen to the entire debate. I thought I would just listen to a few minutes, but I ended up getting drawn in, and listening to the whole thing. Fascinating debate, I thought.
I personally thought each of the debaters presented their points very well, with each one admitting they have questions which have no answers. Ham seeks answers from the word of God, and the other Nye seeks answers from man's perspective.
There are many, many things that man cannot yet explain. However, I liked how Ham described historical science, being that it is a belief, and something that can never be proven, unless we had been there. He says the word of God is the only proof we have that documents 6000 years of history. There is no other written record that does that.
Ham documented that currently there are over 100 methods of scientific documentation for dating methods of rocks, fossils, etc., and none of them agree. So, man's scientific observations of our past, are at best observations, and inconclusive.
So, at best, the debate was left rather open ended. Who do you want to trust in... man's solutions and theories, or God's? At least, this is my take on it.
It was a wonderfully civil debate, without unkind words or remarks towards the character of either debater, and the moderator was careful not to take sides, and I felt overall this was an excellent debate, with lots of things to ponder on.
__________________ As for me, may I never boast about anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. Because of that cross, my interest in this world has been crucified, and the world’s interest in me has also died.- Gal. 6:14
I don't like all the religion vs. science stuff. I think "creationists" often discredit the DOCTRINE of creation by trying to use science to validate it. If God created all things, it is indeed a miracle. What is believed to be a miracle cannot be examined scientifically. Why? Because by nature a miracle violates known scientific laws. Might God have created the world in 6 days? Sure. However, since one cannot repeat the process and analyze it, it has to be relegated to an issue of faith.
Not real sure its that simple, maybe it is, but I'm thinking at some point we have to deal with science as is taught by way of the thoery of evolution, which is contradicting to what is believed by Christians.
What do Christians do with evolution as being the only source of answer taught, (relative to "how everything got here and where do we end up, if anywhere, after death,) to their children in public schools thruout their life, as the "answer" for "science"? Should they just ignore contention and just answer all the questions the way written in textbooks?
Is evolution not a "faith" or religion that contradicts God's writ?
It seems like this is an unavoidable collision or crossing of paths, if a kid is going to public schools.
Not so much aimed at your post b.c, just sorta throwing some stuff out there worth consideration in relation to the subject.
__________________ As for me, may I never boast about anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. Because of that cross, my interest in this world has been crucified, and the world’s interest in me has also died.- Gal. 6:14
__________________ As for me, may I never boast about anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. Because of that cross, my interest in this world has been crucified, and the world’s interest in me has also died.- Gal. 6:14
Linear Mode
