"Six Thousand Years with Ken Ham"

It's not quite a simple as that.

Speaking broadly...

An Old Earth Creationist (OEC) accepts the written revelation (that which is revealed in Scripture) and what God created (that which is revealed in his creation, Psalm 19) and expect to find convergence (an agreement between the two).
If there is divergence, their interpretion of nature or Scurpture needs to examined and the theories or presuppositions adjusted.

A Young Earth Creationist (YEC) presumes their literal interpretation of Scripture is correct and picks and chooses (molds) what science has to offer them to support their position.

Rob

 

Both of them would be using though the same 'scientific evidence" though to support their cases, and the younger model has far less confict wih Genesis and how Jesus and Paul viewed this issue!

 

I really don’t see Jesus or Paul taking a stand on the age of the earth.
Can you point out where?

Rob

 

Teir stand was more on the historial Adam was a real person, not a whole tribe, and that God used no evolutionary process in creation!

 

The issue of a historical Adam is a separate one from the age of the earth.

Take a gander at the Evolutionary Creatioist site, Biologos [LINK]. You’ll find that the issue of Adam’s historicity is debated there with some insisting upon it and other supporting quite a variety of different opinions.

I'm also quite certain the issue of evolution never came up in Scripture... but I'll search with the concordance again....

Rob

 

IF God did use evolution, why did he state that he created everything after its own Kind, and the historicity of Adam is indeed part of the theistic evolutopn problems with bible!

 

I know that we've covered this ground before.

We're all creationists of different flavors,

God is The Creator.
God want to communicate to us,

he does so in his creation and in Scripture - he's spoken to us clearly in his Son.​

Everything God makes is good, very good.
The creation proclaims his greatness and glory
We are made in the image of God​

The bible's use of "kind" [min] is not defined scientifically.
I don't believe its use parallels the scientific use of "species".
I believe that its use tells us that God created with order, nothing was made out of his express will.

Rob

 

Theistic evolutionists, at least some of them, really though deny historical accuracy of the Genesis account, see it more akin to myth/metaphor, and sttil trying to find ONE sure change of species throughout history!

 

Human family tree has nothing to do with the age of the Universe but rather with the age of human life.

 

What Hamm does is to take 'Day One' out of context. We really ought to first read Scripture in context before speculating. In The Beginning

 

Just to be clear (since normally no one will actually read the linked article): However one interprets the "days" (24 hr or ages), it does not give us an age for "In the beginning..." Gen. 1:1. Day One (v. 3) is not the "beginning."

"Let their be light..." remedies the "darkness" on earth of verse 2.

 

Was Adam present on "Day One"? (That is a novel idea.) Or present in verse 1 or 2 ?

 

No I do not believe Darwin. My starting point is Scripture. But If you cannot read a simple article on Gen. 1, there is little point in discussion

 

I don't BELIEVE this, nor do I dis-believe; same for billions of years.
Was there an extensive period between vs1-2 and vs3 ??? I don't know nor does it matter to me.
I do believe that there is the very definite possibility of a massive time gap, but vs 1-2 tell us nothing more about that time frame, so I'm OK with whatever.
An awful lot depends on the ACCURACY (????) of the translation of these two verses, so it's a wash as far as I'm concerned.
It's certainly not a hill to die on!