Hugh Ross and Creation

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Be aware that Hugh Ross is the ONLY scientist I have ever seen that can provide tons of evidence refuting evolution.

That's not entirely accurate, unless you really and truly have not heard Henry Morris or read icr.org. More accurately, you reject Morris and irc.org. There's nothing wrong with simply saying that. It is, after all, opinion, not fact -- on the part of either of us.

Old Earth and evolution and NOT mutually exclusive.

Strictly opinion, again, which is fine.

I know how rough it gets in the debate columns because I was a moderator there. If we discuss this nicely I don't see why we shouldn't continue.

Amen.

I do have a question for you. How do you literally interpret "In the "Day" of the Lord."? As used in the Bible?

I agree with Yeshua on this one. Despite the disparaging remarks that are made in other venues regarding the "cardinal number" rule in connection with yowm, that is a hard and fast rule of translation of the ancient Hebrew.

 

[Van]

There are several flavors of "theistic evolution." First we might call it Deistic Evolution where God was involved in the creation and behavior characteristics (natural law) but has allowed everything now to evolve from the beginning without intervention. But yet another view is God does work through gradualism, i.e. according to natural law, but also intervenes on occasion, such as at the beginning, at the creation of life, at the creation Adam and Eve, and Christ's incarnation.

Genesis on the other hand says God pretty much prompted everything, from light, to star formation, to earth formation, to oceans and dry land, to plants, sea life and animals to man.

If you imbue whatever theory of science you hold with God's invisible hand, you have a form of theistic evolution no matter how bogus the science.

 

[beameup]

Just watch the one hour lecture. Then comment. The top link . . . :smilewinkgrin:

I've got the DVD. It is designed so that it could easily be shown to non-believers.
It would not be possible to argue with the astronomical conclusions presented IMO.

 

[Yeshua1]

You won't. Not unless you don't tell them he is trying to deny biblical teaching, because that is what he is doing.

That is assuming we have come to your young-Earth conclusions without studying or considering alternatives. In fact, I am a "four-percenter" -- an adult who came to Christ after the age of 40. Only 4% of Christians do. I was a buyer and absorber of everything evolutionist -- until confronted with God's truth, and came to realize anything that attempts to interpret Genesis other than as a factual account of The Creation is a false doctrine, or bad science.

The big problem with much of today's "scientific christianity", is that it assumes as proven fact evolution, extreme aging, fossil record, denying world wide flood etc, and try to make the bible fit thru that grid in order to be acceptable with 'contemporary views!"

many times, when the bible itself is given priority, to see science thru it instead, we doing that get accused of being igonorant, pseudo science etc!

How do we reconcile things such as theistic evolution with scriptures?

 

[Yeshua1]

There are several flavors of "theistic evolution." First we might call it Deistic Evolution where God was involved in the creation and behavior characteristics (natural law) but has allowed everything now to evolve from the beginning without intervention. But yet another view is God does work through gradualism, i.e. according to natural law, but also intervenes on occasion, such as at the beginning, at the creation of life, at the creation Adam and Eve, and Christ's incarnation.

Genesis on the other hand says God pretty much prompted everything, from light, to star formation, to earth formation, to oceans and dry land, to plants, sea life and animals to man.

If you imbue whatever theory of science you hold with God's invisible hand, you have a form of theistic evolution no matter how bogus the science.

if you use the bible alone as primary source, cannot gey to theistic evolution, but can IF scientific assumptions seens as being proven facts, which I hold that they cannot be supported as factual by evidence!

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

How do we reconcile things such as theistic evolution with scriptures?

I can't. I don't have the education for it. I believe irc.org does an excellent job of explaining the world through a scriptural lens.

 

[quantumfaith]

The big problem with much of today's "scientific christianity", is that it assumes as proven fact evolution, extreme aging, fossil record, denying world wide flood etc, and try to make the bible fit thru that grid in order to be acceptable with 'contemporary views!"

many times, when the bible itself is given priority, to see science thru it instead, we doing that get accused of being igonorant, pseudo science etc!

How do we reconcile things such as theistic evolution with scriptures?

yeshua

All domains of knowledge foundation themselves and build upon "assumptions" There must always be starting points. I am very sad that you have such little regard for science. The one thing that can be said for science, is that it builds upon its assumptions and foundations with evidence. Evidence that is constantly scrutinized, analyzed and in most cases adjusted as new data and information that is learned. I don't accuse you of being ignorant of science, but that may well be true ( I suspect it is) not in a pejorative manner.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

yeshua

All domains of knowledge foundation themselves and build upon "assumptions" There must always be starting points. I am very sad that you have such little regard for science. The one thing that can be said for science, is that it builds upon its assumptions and foundations with evidence. Evidence that is constantly scrutinized, analyzed and in most cases adjusted as new data and information that is learned. I don't accuse you of being ignorant of science, but that may well be true ( I suspect it is) not in a pejorative manner.

QF, with all due respect to both you and legitimate scientists, this is not the case when we look at "research" in the evolutionary arena. Let me provide some examples of what I consider to be the "pseudoscience" of evolution, and you can respond if you wish.

• Some pseudoscientific theories are based upon an authoritative text rather than observation or empirical investigation. For example, The National Academy of Sciences flatly asserts, ‘While the mechanisms of evolution are still under investigation, scientists universally accept that the cosmos, our planet, and life evolved and continue to evolve.’ That simply isn't true. There is raging debate, even among supporters of evolutionary theory, and even more between scientists embracing evolutionary vs. creationary theory.
• Some pseudoscientific theories explain what non-believers cannot even observe. Richard Dawkins, for example, makes the statement, "Evolution has been observed. It just hasn't been observed while it's happening." That's invalid science. If there is no emperical evidence -- and there isn't -- it can't be considered "science." It's nothing more than opinion.
• Some can’t be tested because they are consistent with every imaginable state of affairs in the empirical world, or are so vague and malleable that anything relevant can be shoehorned to fit the theory. One article, for example, discusses how the male peacocks with the larger more burdonsome tails shows the females they are stronger and more resilient, and therefore better mates, but then later disparages the colorful plumages as having no useful purpose in either mating or survival. A theory that claims to prove everything actually proves nothing.
• Some theories have been empirically tested and rather than being confirmed they seem either to have been falsified or to require numerous ad hoc hypotheses to sustain them. Evolutionists must admit that the fossil evidence is actually slim to no evidence at all. They use something called "punctuated equilibrium" to explain what they claim are sudden bursts of evolution that leaves little to no chance of intervening generations to leave a fossil record -- which of course puts them in conflict with the Dawkins quote above!
• Some pseudoscientific theories are supported mainly by selective use of anecdotes, intuition, and examples of confirming instances. We've talked on this thread about how evolutionists purport that the different breeds of cats, dogs, etc. are "proof." But they are nothing more than artificial selective breeding, and if left to their own breeding habits for a few generations, all these "varieties" would disappear.
• Some pseudoscientific theories confuse metaphysical claims with empirical claims. While making the claim that the theory of evolution has no consequences for morality, nor exclude a "cosmic purpose" from being a reality, the truth is, by telling us our origins it shapes our views of what we are. The writer of Evolution As A Religion Mary Midgley even calls evolution the "creation myth" of our time, but quickly adds: "In calling it a myth I am not saying that it is a false story. I mean that it has great symbolic power, which is independent of its truth. Is the word religion appropriate to it? This depends on the sense in which we understand that very elastic word. I have chosen it deliberately." In other words, she has more faith in her favored theory than she does in the truth of God's word -- a reality shared by all who wrap their heads around evolution, be it traditional, theistic, or some other brand.

Additionally, along its process, evolutionary theory has embraced ridiculous unscientific concepts and called them "fact," such as the idea that life arises periodically from non-life spontaneously. Also, claiming to embrace the concept of empirical evidence, the theorists rarely engage in it. In fact, the National Center for Science Education, which is an anti-creationist lobbying group, admits that there’s a problem:

‘The failure of many students to understand and accept the fact of evolution is often a consequence of the naïve views they hold of the nature of science … . According to this naïve view, the key to the unique success of science at producing true knowledge is “The Scientific Method”, which, on the standard account, involves formulating hypotheses, making predictions, and then going into the laboratory to perform the crucial experiment. … In contrast, the work of many evolutionary biologists involves the reconstruction of the past. The methods they use do not conform to the standard view of “The Scientific Method”

If you can't use the Scientific Method to prove your theory, you aren't engaging in science. Period.

Your turn, QF. Thanks for reading this far (assuming you have). :thumbsup:

 

[Van]

if you use the bible alone as primary source, cannot gey to theistic evolution, but can IF scientific assumptions seens as being proven facts, which I hold that they cannot be supported as factual by evidence!

If we use the Bible alone, we cannot get to any theory of origins, except God did it. As for the specifics, OEC, or YEC or Progressive Creation, Day Age, Gap Theory, they are all unbiblical because the Bible teaches we do not know.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

As for the specifics, OEC, or YEC or Progressive Creation, Day Age, Gap Theory, they are all unbiblical because the Bible teaches we do not know.

On the contrary, the Bible teaches a literal six-day, 24-hour day creation.

 

[Yeshua1]

If we use the Bible alone, we cannot get to any theory of origins, except God did it. As for the specifics, OEC, or YEC or Progressive Creation, Day Age, Gap Theory, they are all unbiblical because the Bible teaches we do not know.

It does, but it requires one to have belief and trust in the literal reading of the text!

 

[Van]

Job 38 was written after we had the words written in Genesis. Thus the words of Genesis, according to the inspired words of Job, did not teach us how God created everything, only that He did.

I am all for a literal reading of the text, rather than a rewrite to fit a paradigm such as YEC or Calvinism.

Lets say it takes 14 billion years for light to travel from inception to destination as observed from the destination. But if one made the trip, riding along with those photons, you would arrive in no time, i.e. less than a New York minute. Can you understand that, or do you side with the writer of Job that we do not know.

Theories, like Calvinism, that selectively pick this or that verse, and then nullify those that do not fit, such as YEC nullifying "we do not know" are a bane to objective Bible study.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Job 38 was written after we had the words written in Genesis.

On the contrary, Job is generally accepted as the oldest book of the Bible, meaning it was written before Moses jotted down the Pentateuch. So your premise is in error.

The the words of Genesis, according to the inspired words of Job, did not teach us how God created everything, only that He did.

God didn't tell Job how He created the world. He later told Moses.

 

[quantumfaith]

QF, with all due respect to both you and legitimate scientists, this is not the case when we look at "research" in the evolutionary arena. Let me provide some examples of what I consider to be the "pseudoscience" of evolution, and you can respond if you wish.

• Some pseudoscientific theories are based upon an authoritative text rather than observation or empirical investigation. For example, The National Academy of Sciences flatly asserts, ‘While the mechanisms of evolution are still under investigation, scientists universally accept that the cosmos, our planet, and life evolved and continue to evolve.’ That simply isn't true. There is raging debate, even among supporters of evolutionary theory, and even more between scientists embracing evolutionary vs. creationary theory.
• Some pseudoscientific theories explain what non-believers cannot even observe. Richard Dawkins, for example, makes the statement, "Evolution has been observed. It just hasn't been observed while it's happening." That's invalid science. If there is no emperical evidence -- and there isn't -- it can't be considered "science." It's nothing more than opinion.
• Some can’t be tested because they are consistent with every imaginable state of affairs in the empirical world, or are so vague and malleable that anything relevant can be shoehorned to fit the theory. One article, for example, discusses how the male peacocks with the larger more burdonsome tails shows the females they are stronger and more resilient, and therefore better mates, but then later disparages the colorful plumages as having no useful purpose in either mating or survival. A theory that claims to prove everything actually proves nothing.
• Some theories have been empirically tested and rather than being confirmed they seem either to have been falsified or to require numerous ad hoc hypotheses to sustain them. Evolutionists must admit that the fossil evidence is actually slim to no evidence at all. They use something called "punctuated equilibrium" to explain what they claim are sudden bursts of evolution that leaves little to no chance of intervening generations to leave a fossil record -- which of course puts them in conflict with the Dawkins quote above!
• Some pseudoscientific theories are supported mainly by selective use of anecdotes, intuition, and examples of confirming instances. We've talked on this thread about how evolutionists purport that the different breeds of cats, dogs, etc. are "proof." But they are nothing more than artificial selective breeding, and if left to their own breeding habits for a few generations, all these "varieties" would disappear.
• Some pseudoscientific theories confuse metaphysical claims with empirical claims. While making the claim that the theory of evolution has no consequences for morality, nor exclude a "cosmic purpose" from being a reality, the truth is, by telling us our origins it shapes our views of what we are. The writer of Evolution As A Religion Mary Midgley even calls evolution the "creation myth" of our time, but quickly adds: "In calling it a myth I am not saying that it is a false story. I mean that it has great symbolic power, which is independent of its truth. Is the word religion appropriate to it? This depends on the sense in which we understand that very elastic word. I have chosen it deliberately." In other words, she has more faith in her favored theory than she does in the truth of God's word -- a reality shared by all who wrap their heads around evolution, be it traditional, theistic, or some other brand.

Additionally, along its process, evolutionary theory has embraced ridiculous unscientific concepts and called them "fact," such as the idea that life arises periodically from non-life spontaneously. Also, claiming to embrace the concept of empirical evidence, the theorists rarely engage in it. In fact, the National Center for Science Education, which is an anti-creationist lobbying group, admits that there’s a problem: If you can't use the Scientific Method to prove your theory, you aren't engaging in science. Period.

Your turn, QF. Thanks for reading this far (assuming you have). :thumbsup:

I am "choosing" not to counterpoint....you know that since I am arminian in nature, I have that option of choice.

 

[Van]

On the contrary, Job is generally accepted as the oldest book of the Bible, meaning it was written before Moses jotted down the Pentateuch. So your premise is in error.

God didn't tell Job how He created the world. He later told Moses.

You confuse the date of the setting of Job, i.e. pre-Moses, with the date it was inspired and written, i.e. post-Moses.

This is the actual generally accepted view. Its author is unknown but guesses include Moses, and Solomon.

In any event, Job says we do not know because we were not there, and that is still true.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Monumental technical difficulties. Read next post. :laugh:

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

You confuse the date of the setting of Job, i.e. pre-Moses, with the date it was inspired and written, i.e. post-Moses.

The most likely author is Elihu, who certainly wasn't still alive in the wilderness with Israel. It isn't even likely Job and his friends could be considered pre-Israel. They were men who feared the living God, and that's all they are. None of them show up in any genealogies of the Jewish/Israeli nation, and it is unlikely Moses would have been inspired to write non-Jewish/Israeli history.

This is the actual generally accepted view.

Not by most scholars. It is obvious Job lived prior to Moses, and probably near the time of Abraham. So the author has to be Job himself, or Elihu, and Job being the humble man he was likely wouldn't have written about himself, though if he did, it was certainly from a self-deprecating viewpoint. No, most scholars credit either him, or Elihu, with the writing. There are those who say it was Moses, or even Solomon, but that is, as I've outlined, highly unlikely.

 

[prophet]

Job was an Edomite. And it doesnt matter when his words were written down, what matters is that they were spoken before Moses lived. So Job had no access to the Law.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Job was an Edomite. And it doesnt matter when his words were written down, what matters is that they were spoken before Moses lived. So Job had no access to the Law.

Exactly. :thumbsup:

 

[Yeshua1]

Job was an Edomite. And it doesnt matter when his words were written down, what matters is that they were spoken before Moses lived. So Job had no access to the Law.

Job was a contemprary of Abraham, many believe, so would have had the same kind of revelation on God as Abraham would have had, and it doesn't matterif we lived back then, as the Creatoralready told us what happened in the Bible Himself!