I give Ken Hamm’s commentary the same weight as I do Bishop Ussher’s, which is to say, none at all.
Originally posted by Simster: You realize this has no additional substance to it than Ham’s argument, right? You haven’t provided anything to rebut other than a ‘guess’ that some ‘time element’ exists between 1 and 3 - you haven’t defined what that “time element” was - a “microsecond” is a “time element” as much as a “billion quadrillion years” is.
Is that a fact? Well, considering the million-year- and billion-year- time periods commonly attached to prehistoric tiome periods, and the questionable means of arriving at them, I’d say you’re somewhat intolerant. I’m not the one trying to prove or disprove a negative here.
What does my “tolerance” have to do with your argument?
Do you have a “better means” of arriving at the time periods?
Who said anything about proving/disproving a negative? ***You ***said you were up to the challenge of taking on Ham’s “6000 year” argument - got more than a “i guess” to back that up?
I think I should point out to Simster, while he wants something “scintillating and complete,” that I had said that the Bible is a condensed account; obviously it omits things which might satisfy his quest but are not germane to the point of the Genesis account.
Besides, simple though my answer was, according to the book* Earth’s Shifting Crust,* in Einstein’s philosophy “simplicity was a prime consideration.” If this was good enough for Einstein it should be good enough for any of the Teeming Millions.
I neither wanted, nor expected, something “scintillating and complete” - All I was doing was pointing out your “response” had no more substance to it than Ham’s position.
You could have pointed out that in the original language used in Genesis - the word translated commonly as day could also be translated as “eons” or “age” and that would have been a substantive response that shows that literal ‘day’ is not necessarily the authors intent - instead, you went for a ‘nebulous’ “time element of one does not equal the same time element of another” - you didn’t simplify it - you complicated it.
“Literal ‘day’ is not necessarily the author’s intent”–Good point. You got me there. :o (Cf. Genesis 2:4.) Perhaps that would simplifyt it.
Nonetheless, this “time element,” located as it is, sets my argument off from Hamm’s and avoids the assertion that the Earth is only 6000 years old. Now THAT is simple enough.
