SIX DAYS & THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE | Ken Ham [Answers In Genesis]
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 07. 2024
- Check Ken Ham & Answers In Genesis
answersingenesis.org/
-- More info here: www.dunamislife.com.au/
-- Spotify Podcast: open.spotify.com/show/5UjOsRj...
-- Facebook: / dunamislife
-- Instagram: @dunamis_church
![GENESIS FOUNDATIONS & HOW TO IMPACT THE CULTURE | Ken Ham [Answers In Genesis]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2LIjuWeCKsg/mqdefault.jpg)
God bless Ken Ham!
thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
God bless!
Here's a thought ---- For those who think of themselves as Christians - Jesus said "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. " Anybody want to venture what similar works that they have done? (And just preaching, human good deeds and schooled abilities like doctoring don't count as "works")
I think those who say ken is denying science should say that he renounces "false science" instead. For everything about darwinism is false science. The revealed truth of origins in Scripture should be enough for a sensible person for a correct worldview and humbly live in submission to the Almighty Creator GOD 😊
Einstein’s Relativity is a proven theory, it’s true. Not sure exactly what Me Ham thinks of Einstein, but I know a lot of fundamental Christians talk as if it’s blasphemous.
He does deny most modern science. He goes further than saying scientists have different views than him, he dictates that they are wrong
God bless!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do you support the 7th day Sabbath commandment as God's day of rest? Or do you keep Sunday?
That's like when people ask how do you know I tell them that I have filled it once you feel that power you know there's something else out but it's up to them to find that power we can only tell them
Everyone has to believe in something. 🤭😆😅😂
😊
What about carbon dating?
Its unreliable. You really should get up to speed
@@marksorenson5871 its really not you illiterate moron
I would like to congratulate Ken on de converting more Christians than any atheist I know!
Well someone named Pup 100 certainly is an authority that proved it, right?
@@ghostl1124
What?
@@ghostl1124
That's stumped you!
@@pup1008If a Christian wants to leave the faith because he doesn't want to take God at his Word then his faith was pretty much dead to begin with. The six days of creation and global flood narratives are not simply parables but historical facts.
As the old potters from biblical days said “” O what a crock”” you have to dig thru a lot of nonsense that is wrapped around the absurdity which in turn wraps around the lunacy that is at the center of religion .. the Bible isn’t god inspired and it sure isn’t true… if god has something to say just make an appearance and say what you need to say ..Wow that’s 2 things god can’t do - he can’t communicate his word -and he can’t make an appearance.. I can speak all of creation into existence --but I can’t write a simple book … that pencil on paper concept seems a bit out of gods capability..he can turn clay into a fully formed human but struggles with writing… something is telling me it’s all a crock …
Saying the literal understanding of the word day (yom) in Genesis must be 24 hours is wrong. Yom is commonly rendered as day in English translations, the word yom literally is used in different ways to refer to different time spans:
Period of light (as contrasted with the period of darkness),
Sunrise to sunset
Sunset to next sunset
Time period of unspecified length (Biblical Hebrew has no word for things like epoch)
I looked at the Word of God and it says the Earth is OLD. See: Deut 33:15, Habakkuk 3:6, Hebrews 4:10 and Gen 2:4. The Earth is 4.543 billion years old and this is no problem with the Bible. It is only a problem for Young Earthers. They are the Flat Earther of today. YEC read only one book Genesis. The Bible and science are not enemies. Romans 1:20" For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God." YEC do not believe in Rom 1:20. The world and science deceive us, by YEC logic.
In my opinion , denying science is like denying God, God basically made science, science is a study of how the creation of God works , except human's knowledge of it is still far from perfect. And I think when we learn science, we know science, we can actually see God's work from it and we can actually get closer to Him, not question His existence. Imo tho no hate, peace :D , reply anything if you disagree , I would like to discuss
The bible & none of the multitude of competing and conflicting geographically and culturally ordained gods has ever given us *ANYTHING* worthwhile with regards to the advancement of science?
In fact, every new scientific discovery like Evolution, plate tectonics & and general geology is another nail in the coffin of arcane, primitive mythological beliefs.
@@pup1008 yes, every new scientific discovery will reduce the chance of the existence of God, but as long as how the universe began (big bang)and how life emerge (origin of life) is unknown to human, the chance God exist will not be 0 .
@@justarandomguywhodroppedhi2038
That's very true but we've had a few of these quandaries over the years now from volcanoes to Evolution & we have always found naturalistic causes.
@@pup1008 about the natural event happened on earth, it is natural and make sense logically and proven physically, but if you think about the origin of the universe, it's logical to say that "someone" make something from nothing, we haven't seen anything appear out of nowhere, except the universe and life, so for now , I believe that God let the big bang happened and the rest follows naturally , for now at least, maybe human will know the truth about big bang, black holes, wormhole, time technology, etc in the future which I believe we can't cause God made it.
@@justarandomguywhodroppedhi2038
If I said to you *200* years ago that you could power or destroy cities the size of *London* or *New York* with a particle of matter it was impossible to see with the human eye, you probably would have thought I was nuts, right?
Nuclear physics is now a well understood and utilized science and there is nothing supernatural about it.
Your flavor of god needs to be a lot more exacting and descriptive & *EVIDENT* with regards to the proof he provides that he actually did anything at all! In fact, the Bible totally contradicts any intelligence in being laughably wrong in all scientific claims it makes!
You've also got the paradox that a "god" who seems to revel in flora and fauna goes to the trouble of creating countless zillions of useless sterile pieces of rock to float around the universe. If that was me I'd make every one of them habitable or at least a couple!
Ham's blind faith is very blind indeed.
His faith is not blind. Ken Ham is a good teacher, and understands the Bible just fine.
@@ghostl1124
Yeah... His grasp on actual science is not so hot though....
@@ghostl1124 U R right. He knows the bible but nothing about Science. No one believes the earth is only 6000 years old...No one!
@@pup1008 Hamm sounds like an Honor Student from Ken Hovids famous school of science!
@@davewilliams5102
😄 Sad thing is they all make money out of it.
Ham is on a 6 figure salary, Hovind got donated a big old parcel of land in Alabama + minion slaves to work on it for him & *Ray Comfort* has *$13* million in the bank & a beachfront property in California!
Ken ham is directly responsible for the brain drain occurring in the Christian community... science denial is the number 1 reason people leave the faith...
Keep on going ken you're doing a great job!!! 🤣
What science is he denying?
@@sirsaint88
Biology.
Astrophysics
Physics
Paleontology
Genetics
Geology
@@ozowen5961 Thus far I've only see him disagree with naturalistic (philosophical) interpretations of those disciplines. Where science is actually science...observable, testable, repeatable.....I have yet to see him disregard things like that. The man loves science, he once taught science in school.
@@sirsaint88 The man cherry picks his science and he rejects, openly, any conclusions reached by science that run counter to those conclusions.
ANd his team are required to sign off on this approach.
So the fact that the global Noachian flood is disproven is rejected by him.
The fact that the age of the earth is shown to be old, disproven as young is rejected by him.
The fact that common descent has also disproven special creation of "kinds" is rejected by him.
He doesn't "love" science. He wants it to be his slave.
@@ozowen5961 Perspective is an interesting thing. One scientist see's the inner workings of a cell, or the structure and information of DNA, and says......"wow, that's remarkably evolved" the other says...."wow that's remarkably designed." Both are observing the same evidence and agree upon what they observe but they do not agree on it's origins. (design vs. evolution)
Like many I took what my science teachers/books at face value in public school. I remember learning about the "peppered moths" and "darwin's finches" in school. Then what I didn't see is the great leap forward they'd make explaining that was the reason why one kind of animal morphed into completely other kinds of animals.
In our modern day, what we don't remember is that people like Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin had preconceived ideas about the world. When they went out into the world they found exactly what they were looking for. It wasn't really discovery. Today uniformitarianism doesn't really add up, the fossil record doesn't really support Darwin's theory.
Genetic similarity could very well mean COMMON DESIGNER not common descent. If you look at how they compared chimp and human DNA and came to the conclusion that we are 99% similar you'll see it was a very flawed process. In actuality, honestly totaling everything out, we're only about 82-85% similar. The famous fossil Lucy, really just turns out to be an extinct variation of an ape, not an ancestor. Neanderthals were indeed human. All the "transitional" evidence could fit into the back of a pick up, that's how flimsy the case for Darwinian theory is. DNA has limits, and it greatly compliments that things reproduce after their own kind. Speciation and adaptation for sure, but dogs makes dogs, cats make cats, frogs make frogs, etc.
There's a reason why many naturalist didn't accepted findings of soft tissue in dinosaurs. It didn't fit their model. There's no way it could've survived after millions of years. Not to mention we find many modern species in the same rock layers as dinosaurs. Including modern and extinct kinds of birds. Dating rocks is horribly flawed, in fact no known volcanic eruption has ever been verified by science in terms of the actual age. Mt. Saint Helens lava rock comes back hundreds of thousands to millions of years old for example. So if we cannot come up with accurate ages for known geologic events, why should we trust the dating method for unknown events? But again it doesn't mesh with evolutionary timeline/theory. The mitochondrial mutation rate in humans actually is in line with a Biblical timeline, yet is rejected by evolutionist, which has to add so many fillers to defend the evolutionary story. On and on I could go.
I think history makes a great case for Noah's flood. Hundreds of people groups, large scale and small, inland, coastland, etc. Have flood accounts in their history, myths, and legends. Many eerily similar to the Genesis account. Same goes for the tower of babel. Noah's lineage is found in the historic record as well. creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j04_1/j04_1_67-92.pdf
But I do think the flood best explains why we see billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water all over the earth.
The Young Earth model isn't without it's challenges, distant starlight for example, but there are good explanations for this. The Big Bang model also has a light time problem.
The point of this post is that naturalist are just as committed to evolution as Ken Ham is to creation. I believe in a dead guy that said he was God, and proved it by coming back to life. (I think the evidence supports the resurrection) If he really did rise then I can accept the history in Genesis just as Jesus did. I'm not intimidated evolutionary theory because I've reviewed the narrative in light of the physical evidence, the two aren't even close to aligning. I'm committed to the Biblical creation model, but even if I wasn't I'd be committed to the broader intelligent design movement.