The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Evolution, The Flood, and God’s True Nature

I sent that to my friend JIm for assessment, and to give another point of view. He pulls these things off the top of his head, amazing.
In any case, for your consideration:

Jim says:
Dr. Jason Lyle’s arguments in that video are a collection of “possibilities” that seem to serve to allow him to support his preferred interpretations/translations.

I would ask him about psalm 19 for one thing. “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech: night after night they display knowledge.” What is it about stellar “time zones” or Einsteinian relativity that is “displayed knowledge?” How would a few thousand years of believers read psalm 19? "Maybe there are time zones in space?” Are 21st century (and therefore “exotic”) ideas necessary to understand the Bible? “Perhaps.” “Maybe.” “What if.” Dr. Lyle posits that God may have used “supernatural means.” to allow light to travel in practically no “time” at all. How does that translate to our being able to trust what we see, “displayed knowledge,” in the heavens in that verse?

Dr. Lyle seems to believe the heavens were created on the fourth “day” (yom). Why are creation verbs not used there? What rule of Hebrew semantics require a “Yom” be 24 hrs? Why, then, is an “evening and a morning” not a mere 12 hrs?

He suggests that the Big Bang is an “alternative” to Biblical creation. I suggest it is identical to it. As, apparently, do these secular scientists;

Sir Frederick Hoyle- “The big bang theory theory requires a recent origin of the Universe that openly invites the concept of creation.”

George Smoot, director of the COBE background radiation project- “The question of ‘the beginning’ is as inescapable for cosmologists as it is for theologians.”

Robert Jastrow- “The essential element in the astronomical and Biblical accounts of Genesis is the same; the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply, at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.”

I suggest that any English speakers interested in these things get an interlinear Bible, A Hebrew lexicon with Strong’s numbers, and make a list of the many english translation possibilities from the Hebrew words, and then decide which of these possibilities are the best explanations. And unless you cannot definitely refute a possibility, why wouldn’t you have to leave it in as a possibility? And try not to inject preconceived or favorite notions, so that we can be fair to the remaining possibilities. Is everyone who disagrees with you incompetent? After all, I can suggest Christian PH.d astronomers who disagree with Dr. Lyle. Maybe Jeff Zweerinck?

Also ask some questions…, such as- Was there really a practice to skip over many personages in Hebrew genealogies? Would that explain why Biblical genealogies are not identical? How many generations are missing?

Why does God, speaking thousands of years ago, call the hills “ancient” in more than one place?

Why does not the Hebrew ”shemayim eretz” in Gen 1:1.not mean “the entire physical universe.” Gleason Archer, the renowned Hebrew scholar, says it can. Could that explain why “Bara” the creation verb used in verse 1 is not used in “Yom” 4? Why is the “dark” localized in verse 2?

Why is the radical creation verb “bara” used in psalm 104: 29-30. Where God causes the death of creatures- “when you take away their breath, they die and return to the dust." And then- “When you send your Spirit, they are created (“Bara”) and you renew the face of the earth. “The face of the earth?..,” what scope! Which 24 hour period contained these actions? Here perhaps I should take my own advice & point out that the Hebrew translated here “earth” can also be translated “ground” which could be said to be smaller in “scope,” but it doesn’t have to be, and all I have to do is suspend my penchant for dogma. Yet I still have to ask,…, why is God killing creatures not included in the Genesis one account, at say, 2:30 in the afternoon on the 5th “day"? Why is this not a perfectly good question? Why and how is Psalm 104 not an explicit teaching of “day=age progressive creation?” And why exactly would one reject it without explanation? Or at least providing a better one.

Speaking of possibilities…, the Hebrew lexicon for “Shemayim” (“heaven’s, plural) used in the flood account contains the Hebrew convention of a perspective view of “from horizon to horizon.” Another opportunity for honest assessment of possibilities, is it not?

I see no compelling reason to abandon the belief that everything that has been created, was created supernaturally, some thousands (versus billions) of years ago, during six 24 hour days of a Creation Week—gaps in biblical genealogies notwithstanding.

That the Hebrew word for “day" is referring to a solar (24 hour) day—at least in Genesis 1—is supported by the story of the giving of the Ten Commandments, because when God commands that work be done for six days and then rest for one day, the Scriptures make explicit reference to God’s own work in like manner during the six days of creation, and His own rest on an earlier day seven:

As to “ancient” hills (as mentioned, for example, in Dt. 33:15), that adjective “ancient” is synonymous with “aforetime,” “from of old,” or “earliest time.” Again, I see nothing compelling to move us from a scale of thousands of years old, to a scale of billions of years old.

As to the assertion that the Big Bang is equivalent to biblical Creation: why must we try to shoehorn a supernatural event into the confines of an imperfect naturalistic model? As Jason Lisle pointed out at the end of his 4 minute video, and elaborated on in this short chapter: *“the big bang has a light travel-time problem of its own. If both models [bing bang and biblical creation] have the same problem in essence, then that problem cannot be used to support one model over the other. Therefore, distant starlight cannot be used to dismiss the Bible in favor of the big bang.” *

Again, I refer to my earlier point of Adam being created in adult form, from dirt, supernaturally. Granted, we indeed see naturalistic mechanisms—that were earlier put into place supernaturally—currently chugging right along, and exemplified in biology by human conception, with a nine month gestation period.

YET, back to the supernatural superseding the natural: we have Jesus becoming a human, without any DNA contributed by a human father; water to wine; food multiplied; blind eyes open; the lame walking; men walking on water; the dead raised, and more. As with biblical creation, there is simply no satisfactory naturalistic analysis that can be provided for any of these events, either.

I would like to understand better what Jim means by, “Yet I still have to ask,…, why is God killing creatures not included in the Genesis one account, at say, 2:30 in the afternoon on the 5th “day"? Why is this not a perfectly good question?” But let me reiterate from my original essay, at the beginning of this thread:

Blessings

From Jim:

Hermano is an honorable debater. This “in house” old earth, young earth, Christian debate is not a salvation issue, even in a non Christian-universalist scenario. The question is how to understand what the authors, whom I believe to be “inspired,” meant their readers to understand. In this case the Authors wrote in Hebrew. When questions arise it is necessary to try our best to understand Hebrew practice, convention, syntax, tradition, and even vernacular. Both “theology” and “science” are imperfectly practiced by mankind. Psalm 19, and Romans 1:20 , for example, refer us to creation for information about God. How are these verses not “authorizations to commit ‘science,” which is nothing more than looking ever more closely at creation. Christianity, which assumes a predictable creation because God made it, is demonstrably causative in the development of the best of these practices.

(For example, it was noted that Gen.1:1-2 provides the earliest known example of the error minimization practice known as the “scientific method.” This is seen in verse 1 where, first, the “boundary conditions are given. In this case we see God creating through fiat the “shemayim eretz” which means the entire physical universe in one perfectly legitimate translation. The second verse begins with the second step of establishing the local “frame of reference” or “point of view,” a perspective from which we are to view the following narrative, until a new frame of reference is established. In this case the perspective is from a position “hovering” or “brooding” above the surface. This is the position we are to view the following narrative. We are placed in and not taken out of this position throughout the Gen.1 narrative. Step 3 is to cite the local conditions. In this case they are above a useless (“formless & void”) water planet (“Now the earth was”) in the dark. Notice that it is dark at the surface. If we assume that the Universe was created in verse one, a legitimate translation, then the sun was shining above the opaque reducing atmosphere causing the surface to be dark where it says it was dark. (Proverbs 8:28, Job 38:8,9- clearly a creation account) Science tells us the earliest atmosphere was reducing and opaque. The vast “swarms” of oceanic microorganisms (from the spirit’s “brooding?”) were producing oxygen and the sky became translucent, plants contributed til in the fourth period (“yawm”) that atmosphere became partially transparent as it is today so that the sun, moon, and stars became visible and God “set” them to serve as signs etc. The active verbs used in the 4th period are not radical creation verbs. Why not? Because these objects were created in verse one. These are as things appeared and progressed as seen from our given frame of reference. The rest of the narrative is not controversial among most Christians. Well, except for the “Christian evolutionists” like Dr. Francis Collins. I do not believe evolution comes near to explaining phyla, species, or really anything above the microorganisms, where mutation and selection do indeed operate)

Hermano refers us to the 4th commandment to support the idea of a 24 hour “Yowm” (it is spelled that way in Strong’s). That is circular reasoning. “Yowm” is translated a “watch in the night,” a 12 hr. period, a 24 hour period, and an indefinite period, elsewhere in the Bible. The question becomes “Why must it be 24hrs in Gen.1?” If, as Hermano suggests, it must be since the 4th commandment says so…, well, the 4th commandment says “yowm” as well, in the Hebrew. Is there another possibility? Clearly there is. Hebrews 4:4, “And on the seventh day God rested from his work,” confirming that the seventh day of creation is the subject. Verse 6; “It still remains that some will enter that rest.” THAT rest! Verse 9. “There remains, then a Sabbath rest for the people of God.” God’s seventh “yowm” of rest continues to this day! The seventh day of Genesis 1 is clearly not 24 hrs! Others argue that wherever an ordinal is used (1,2,3, etc) it must be 24hrs. While that is true in other Biblical verses where yowm is used, there is no Hebrew rule requiring such. The burden of proof falls to the advocate of such a “rule.” The “seventh day” has an ordinal! It is clearly ongoing even now! This argument actually supports an indefinite period view.

I’m not sure “from of old” or “earliest time” abrogates “ancient” very much, if at all. “aforetime” may be a mitigating choice of English words . But Hermano is right to seek alternate possibilities. That is perfectly legitimate.
It should ALWAYS be done, especially regarding controversial subjects. The autographs are, after all, Hebrew, not English. If we practice this we can find that the word translated “father” in Genesis 5, (a primary source of the YEC model), it is also legitimate to translate it as “ancestor.” “When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the “ancestor” of Enosh.” This can be seen in Daniel 5 where Nubuchadnezzar is called Belshazzar’s “father” but was really his grandfather. A common practice. So missing generations are not the only problem with Archbishop Ussher’s 6000 year old earth.
The words in Gen. 1 translated “evening” and “morning” can be translated “ending” and “beginning.” This renders their use to transitional from one set of actions to another rather than any kind of a time citation. English translations add words in Genesis one, and change the syntax. "The first yowm” is actually written “yowm one.” A subtle distinction, but containing an inference as well. This also can contribute to a question about whether a translator can avoid being an interpreter as well. Clearly it is important.

If Adam was created in adult form, as I believe he was, was he given 30 years, say, of cholesterol accumulation so as to exhibit “an appearance of age?” as is suggested by so many about the universe in the YEC community?

“Why must we shoehorn a supernatural event into the confines of an imperfect naturalistic model.” See above as to whether your model of interpretation is “perfect” or whether it might be reconsidered to an equally legitimate, by all the rules, competing model? In any caseI don’t do that. I merely note that imperfectly (but impressive, nonetheless) practiced science confirms the Biblical account, as was noted by the secular doctorates my previous post.
I do, very much, question the arbitrary way in which many YEC’s say progressive creationists “don’t believe the Bible” when they (I) are merely pointing out that alternative, and equally “literal” choices can be made with quite different results. “Old Earth" goes back to at least Augustine, as well.

“If He is nonviolent” In this YEC model, all death is attributed to the fall of man. Why did Paul then say, through the fall “Death came to all men? Rather than death came to all creatures? Did no T. Rex step on any ants?
Job 12:7 “Ask the animals and they will teach you.” Job 39:14 "She (ostrich) lays her eggs on the ground”…,”Unmindful that a foot may crush them, that some wild animal may trample them.” Why? Verse 17 “for God did not endow her with wisdom or give her a share of good sense.” Job 38:39 “Do you hunt the prey for the lioness and satisfy the hunger of the lions?” Psalm 104:21 “The lions roar for their prey and seek their food from God.”
It does seem that a T-Rex may have stepped on an ostrich egg because God made things that way, if an explicit teaching can be believed.

What I meant by quoting Psalm 104:29 & 30 is that it says clearly, in all the translations, that God kills large numbers of animals and replaces them, by the “face of the earth/ground in scope. This actually reminds me of the 5 major extinction events quite clearly portrayed in the fossils record. Though my point was how do you fit these things into a 24 hour narrative? Read Psalm 104:29-30 in several translations, or the Hebrew. Reconcile it with the YEC model.

Interesting question; Why was there a tree of life in the garden? It was not forbidden. What was it for if nothing could die? Why was it forbidden only after the fall? Why did God “increase” Eve’s pain in childbirth. Clearly pain, then, preceded the fall. We must try to understand everything in a model that explains everything. “Study to show thyself approved.”

Job 38:31, “Can you bind the beautiful Pleiades?” “Can you loose the cords of Orion?” How is it that these constellation contain the only known gravitationally bound star groups visible to the naked eye. Why is the Bible the only “holy book” that contains descriptions of the complete water cycle including the invisible evaporative step?

Blessings yourself Hermano

Just a little technical matter. To write the “squared” symbol in E=MC², while holding down the Alt button, type “253” on the numeric keyboard.

I tried that and it doesn’t work²

Oops…

Two things Dave:

  1. Did you hold down the “Alt” key while you were typing the number 253?
  2. Did you type the number on the NUMERIC keyboard at the right of your computer?
    It won’t work by using the number keys along the top of your computer.

Ohhhh! I just noticed now that you succeeded in typing the squared symbol after the word “work” in your post!

Yeppir, worked right out of the box!!

Is there a list of some sort of those kinds of work-arounds - like the tilde, the degree sign and others?

There are many more “alt” characters that you might find useful. Here are a few of them:

[size=130]128 Ç 129 ü 130 é 131 â 132 ä 133 à 134 å 135 ç 136 ê 137 ë 138 è 139 ï 140 î 142 Ä 143 Å 144 É 145 æ 146 Æ 147 ô 148 ö 149 ò 150 û 151 ù 152 ÿ

153 Ö 154 Ü 155 ø 156 £ 157 Ø 158 × 159 ƒ 160 á 161 í 162 ó 163 ï 164 ñ 165 Ñ 166 ª 167 º 168 ¿ 169 ® 170 ¬ 171 ½ 172 ¼ 173 ¡ 174 « 175 » 181 Á

182 Â 183 À 184 © 185 ╣ 186 ║ 187 ╗ 188 ╝ 189 ¢ 190 ¥ 191 ┐ 192 └ 193 ┴ 194 ┬ 195 ├ 196 ─ 197 ┼ 198 ã 199 Ã 200 ╚ 201 ╔ 202 ╩ 203 ╦ 204 ╠

205 ═ 206 ╬ 207 ¤ 208 ð 209 Ð 210 Ê 211 Ë 212 È 213 ı 214 Í 215 Î 216 Ï 217 ┘ 218 ┌ 219 █ 220 ▄ 221 ¦ 222 Ì 223 ▀ 224 Ó 225 ß 226 Ô 227 Ò 228 õ

229 Õ 230 µ 231 þ 232 Þ 233 Ú 234 Û 235 Ù 236 ý 237 Ý 238 ¯ 239 ´ 241 ± 242 ‗ 243 ¾ 244 ¶ 245 § 246 ÷ 249 ¨ 250 · 253 ² 254 ■ [/size]

Notes:
158 is the multiplication symbol
159 is the letter “esh”, used as “s” at the beginning or middle of a word in early English writing. The ordinary “s” was used only as the final letter of a word. This corresponds to Greek. This sigma (σ) is used at the beginning or middle of a word, where as this one (ς) is used at the end of a word.

Here is a page from a first edition of the King James Bible. You will see an esh or two or more used where we would use an “s”:

Thanks Don - I did not know there were so many - some of those will come in useful. Though admittedly I don’t have a LOT of use for the å that often. :laughing:

[size=130]It is now -5º C. at my place. The degree symbol can be made with Alt 167.[/size]

Yes, there are many more. There’s even a smiley [size=180]:slight_smile:[/size] (Alt 1)—but increase the size to 180.
Alt 2 is also a smiley [size=180]:slight_smile:[/size]

There are a whole bunch of symbols with alts beginning with zero. I use alt 0151 regularly. It’s a long dash —

There’s a pretty good list here:
tools.oratory.com/altcodes.html

Paidion ♫

P.S. The musical notes are alt 14.

As in “Julius Cæsar”

You called it a “letter.” I thought that was just a minor slip on your part. Clearly it’s not a “letter”; it’s a marrying of “a” and “e” and is used in the word “Cæsar” although many people simple write “Caesar.” It is also used in “Encyclopædia Britannica.” But many people write “Encyclopaedia Britannica,” and in United States it is spelled “encyclopedia.” You also asked about how it is pronounced. It is pronounced as a long “e”.

By the way “æ” and “œ” are called “ligatures.” It struck me just now that you may have been asking for the name of the ligature “æ”.

It’s ancient name was “æsc” (probably pronounced “ēsc”).

If Hermano would subscribe to the physics questions at quora.com/ (geared towards the layman),…Where laymen can get answers - usually from Ph.D. physicists (also chemists, if needed)… Then he might be “a tab more careful”, in what he considers to be - scientific fact. Or physics discoveries, that should be reproducible experimentally.

Otherwise, it’s like my scrambled egg example - made with butter. Where MOST of the professional cooking schools, restaurants, and cooks - use milk.

I see no reason not to believe that everything that has been made (that is, everything that is not the Trinity) was made during those first six 24-hour days of Creation Week, thousands vs. billions of years ago. I grant you that God’s Sabbath rest extends beyond the last 24 hour day of that first Week. However, the Israelites were later commanded to rest from labor on each seventh 24 hour day, with specific reference back to the Creation Week of Genesis 1 & 2.

Hebrews 4 refers to a Sabbath rest. On the seventh day of the Creation Week, God rested, because His work was completely finished. Then as now. He is still at rest, and we are invited to enter His rest. And supporting this idea of a comprehensive, perpetually finished work of God (finished from the beginning of Creation), Revelation 13 enigmatically refers to Jesus as “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” YLT.

(People ask, “How can a loving God allow evil?” But I argue that God has already disallowed all evil through the finished work of Christ. “It is finished.” Satan was defeated and disarmed at the cross. What the devil gets away with now is because the Church is ‘neglecting its so great a salvation’ Hebrews 2:3. We have power to bind and to loose. We are not to be victimized or defrauded, nor are we to passively watch that happen to others, either.

Thankfully, our enemy will be evicted from this world soon, by Jesus. So, as to the Second Coming, the final process of evicting Satan begins when the Lamb starts breaking those seals on the title deed (Rev. 6). But we have been warned in advance that Satan will not go quietly.

Recall the discussion of a property deed scroll in Jeremiah 32. That passage helps our understanding of how a kinsman could buy back land lost by the owner, by paying the purchase price. The sealed book could then be delivered to the original owner, or the heir. The heir could, at his convenience, break the seals, and, with the open scroll as his authority, take possession of the land—by force, if necessary.)

I would argue that creation was corrupted, and became violent, only after the fall of man, after the door was opened to the death-dealer, Satan. So, I don’t know why Paul refers only to death coming to “men,” and not to “all creatures.”

Satan’s fall into sin is described in Isaiah 14:12-14 and Ezekiel 28:12-18. While these two passages are referring to the kings of Babylon and Tyre, they also reference the spiritual power behind those kings, namely, Satan.

These passages describe why Satan fell, but they do not say when the fall occurred. We do know this: the angels were created before the earth (Job 38:4-7). Satan fell before he tempted Adam and Eve in the Garden (Genesis 3:1-14). So Satan’s fall must have occurred somewhere after the time the angels were created, and before he tempted Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

Everything that God made during the Creation Week, whether the earth, sky, seas, heaven, animals, or man, was “very good.” This would have included the heaven of heavens and all the angels, including Lucifer (Satan). As Ezekiel 28:15 says, “from the day” Satan was created, he was perfect in his ways until iniquity was found in him.

The Bible doesn’t give the exact time of the creation of Lucifer and the other angels. However, in Job 38:7, when God is confronting Job, He asks Job where he was when He was laying the foundation of the earth. God asks, “Who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” Are “morning stars” symbolic of the heavenly host of angelic beings? It is possible; recall that stars are often equated with angelic or heavenly beings, and some commentators suggest this refers to angels. **If so, the creation of the angels would have been during the first part of the Creation Week. **

At the time of the book of Job, Satan still had access to heaven and to the throne of God. “One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them. The LORD said to Satan, ’Where have you come from?’ Satan answered the LORD, ‘From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it’” (Job 1:6-7). I believe Satan’s access to heaven will be ended with the coming war in heaven (Rev. 12).

The legalist Satan brought in the curse when man sinned. He is malignant and malicious, always looking to penetrate places where God’s protective hedge has been undermined by sin. He organizes and distributes violence, disaster, and death. Biologically, he has tweaked the genetic code to bring us everything from animals becoming carnivorous to Cystic Fibrosis to Zika. Geologically, he is behind a fossil record of catastrophism, and so-called natural disasters. He is very powerful. He is “the god of this age” (2 Cor 4:4). For now, creation groans.

As I mentioned to qaz on another thread:

"]
As to things happening “independently of God’s creative design,” I would argue that harmful mutations are corruptions of God’s design: that the genetic code has been “tweaked” by malevolent intelligences. As I say in, God does not create, commit, or allow evil!

God is only about life, abundant life, not pestilence and disease. However, by His choice, he has apportioned authority to angels and men, thus limiting his sovereignty.

We are all now here together in this temporal classroom, but eventually every last one of us will choose the gift of Christ (most, when in the lake of fire), and graduate together to eternity.
Finally,

I don’t believe there was pain or death in the physical creation before the fall of man.

I believe the two trees represent two ways of relating to God: 1) through obedience, and so seeing what He truly is: a unipolar Daddy of love (and that He is only Life), or, 2) through disobedience, and seeing what He is not: a false bipolar potentate who must be cajoled and appeased by our human efforts (that He is both Good and Evil).

JESUS is the Tree of Life. Unfortunately, legalistic, works-based religion; morality; a false dichotomy between either greater or lesser evil; intellectualism; and physical death were received through eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (the “Exit sign” tree).

Let’s choose to live exclusively in the Jesus Tree.

Patheos had an interesting article at How Did Creation Happen? There are viewpoints to reconcile Genesis, with evolution, big bang and old earth - without sacrificing Biblical inerrancy.

Wait, didn’t GotQuestions.org settle this for you—in my favor? :wink: I

[quote]
(https://www.gotquestions.org/young-earth-creationism.html):

(I kind of like that, don’t you guys?)

Creationism and evolution are best characterized as explanatory scientific models which try to correlate and explain data related to origins. Scientifically speaking, in this area of origins, all is conjecture. We are not talking about “facts.”

As to sacrosanct experimental reproducibility, well, whether you like it or not, we are together in the same boat, even qaz: the origin of the universe cannot be reproduced experimentally. Nor the origin of life.

And speaking of “physics questions,” here is a great free online book by a YEC professor (Ph.D. MIT, National Science Fellow), who I’m pretty sure taught my brother physics at the U.S. Air Force Academy: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood.

Plus, for your dining pleasure:

-Young-Earth Creationist View Summarized And Defended

-Evidence for a Young World

-Young Earth Creationism

And finally, while supplies last, here is a List of Catholic creationist organisations.”

(But perhaps there is just not enough science therein, referenced or linked to, for you guys. Not enough meat. Plus, current majority opinion of the experts = absolute scientific truth ?] Or, perhaps you are defending your conclusions from your own scientific research?)

Blessings.

Many fields in science are very complex. That is the reason we specialize. If we didn’t specialize in our knowledge, we would never advance science. I see YEC as operating like conspiracy theorists. Basically they assume that the majority (or all) of the experts in a given field are wrong and that some lone guy (Ken Ham) has all the right information. BTW, what are Ken Ham’s credentials?

One thing I have found dishonest in YEC is that often misrepresent credentials. There was this guy named Jobe Martin that came to out church. On the back of his creation videos the summary or whatever talks about his degrees and this or that. But what was his degree in? Dentistry. I just shake my head. That doesn’t mean he couldn’t be a smart person, but it certainly is misleading. Other YECs have done the same thing. They quote some scientist way outside their field of expertise, but don’t tell you that up front! Once you start digging your like, wait, why is a mechanical engineer making assertions in biology?

Basically, YEC believes that either all scientists in their field of expertise are WRONG, or DISHONEST. I suppose that is anyone’s right to think, but I don’t think that is rational way to interpret the data. Whether or not the theory of evolution is totally correct doesn’t really change that the data does point to something very old.

In 50 years people are going to be laughing at Ken Ham, in my opinion and that their position is going to shrink from it’s already tiny base.

And yet in the meantime Ham has been making an absolute killing laughing all the way to the bank. :open_mouth: Just by weight of population he was smart enough to know there were more gullible people in the US than here in Australia… hence his move over your way.