Ross tries to excuse his mocking Ussher cartoons

[Socrates]

Responding to Hugh Ross’s ‘corrections’
‘Operation: Refuting Compromise’ gets under way

27 January 2004
www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0127ross2.asp

Recently Dr Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe, a long-age ministry which insists on billions of years of death and disease before sin, etc. wrote a letter to the editor of Creation magazine offering ‘some corrections’ about a sidebar in the current issue. The December 2003 Creation 26(1) article, Archbishop's Achievement: James Ussher’s great work Annals of the World is now available in English (http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/Magazines/docs/v26n1Ussher.asp), featured a sidebar/addendum (http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/Magazines/docs/v26n1Ussher.asp#add) that highlighted the negative way in which Ross’s ministry had depicted a man who believed the Bible’s chronology literally—the man was depicted as a fool, despite the fact that he was a giant among scholars [see attached cartoons for yourself -- :soc:].

Below [attached] we have reproduced Dr Ross’s letter in full. We chose not to publish it in our ‘letters to the editor’ (feedback) section; the response required for accuracy and fairness’ sake would have left no room for any other letter. Instead, we publish it here, followed by a response from AiG’s Dr Carl Wieland (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/c_wieland.asp). (This response was express-mailed from AiG’s US office and we have confirmed that Ross has received it prior to our posting this web item.)

Apart from the obvious need to set the record straight about the many misrepresentations in the Ross letter, we do this as a teaching tool to continue to equip people to be able to defend the Christian faith against serious compromise. However, we do not do this to attack any individual per se, but the false teachings that are leading many astray. Also, we have found, from past experience, that such incorrect and/or negative things have a tendency to be disseminated and take on a life of their own, which is why we think it is in everyone’s interests to have everything on the public record, in the sequence in which it appeared.

This letter from Dr Ross was received at AiG–Australia offices in late January:

[Click [here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0127ross_letter.asp)] to enlarge and see full letter.]


The following is the reply sent to Dr Ross:

23 January 2004

Dr Hugh Ross
Reasons to Believe
PO Box 5978
Pasadena, CA 91117
United States of America

Dear Dr Ross,

Thank you for your letter of December 30, just received in Australia. I am responding on behalf of the editorial committee of Creation magazine.

I am concerned that someone reading your letter without seeing our original item would be substantially misled.

We did not, as you write, accuse you of scoffing at Ussher merely by the fact of it being a comic format,1 but rather, by the very obvious way in which you depicted him as a ‘fool’ . The illustrations showing the way you depicted him are there in our item, reproduced so that readers can make their own judgments as to whether our assessments are accurate. We stand by them.

We called his headgear ‘dunce-cap-like’, which it is, despite it being obvious to most readers of our piece that it was primarily meant to represent a standard Archbishop’s headgear. I suggest that any person reading your letter side by side with the original depictions will easily see how disingenuous your critique of us appears, i.e. your focusing on the claim that the resemblance to a dunce-cap was quite fortuitous, while totally sidestepping the way in which both depictions of Ussher were clearly of a mentally defective fool in every other pictorial aspect, including this great scholar counting his toes to get a creation date!

It is good to note that you now see that your written comments on Ussher may be unduly disparaging. But it is hard to see the validity of your claim that this does not imply disrespect for the Archbishop’s character, work, etc. in light of not only the original pictorial ‘fool’ depictions but particularly the fact that your letter makes it clear that you continue to defend these depictions.

You also misrepresent us by saying that we wrote that you incorrectly stated Ussher’s creation date as October 3 in your book [I]Creation and Time—we did not. Our mention of this wrong creation date was a clear reference to the comic book being critiqued; it had nothing to do with your book. This is obvious to any fair-minded reader of the article, since the page from the RTB comic book in question, displaying that October 3rd date, was reproduced in our item (http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/Magazines/docs/v26n1Ussher.asp#add).

Further, you claim that our comment that Newton agreed with a recent creation is incorrect. In view of your very disturbing track record in print of consistently misrepresenting nearly all of the Church Fathers’ positions on creation, I was not surprised to find that with regard to Newton’s correspondence with Burnet in late 1680 and early 1681, you have once again seriously misused your sources.

First, you failed to consider carefully that this was private correspondence, and that Newton himself says, in these rather spontaneous thoughts to a friend, that he has not given careful thought to them and would not be prepared to defend them. So by his own testimony, we should not take them as Newton’s mature convictions on these matters, but rather rely on his own published statements (see below).

In any case, however, what Newton wrote to Burnet fails to in any way support the idea that Newton was entertaining some sort of millions-of-years age for the world. He was indeed speculating with Burnet (in a rather confusing and certainly tentative manner, I might add) about the speed of Earth’s rotation and length of the days (perhaps to as much as a year or longer) for the first three days before the Sun was made. But there is nothing in his comments to contradict Newton’s own belief in creation a few thousand years ago, which the evidence I am aware of indicates is the case. For example, Colin Renfrew writes that Newton’s work on dating, The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended, ‘took the ancient Egyptians to task, since they had set the origins of the monarchy before 5,000 BC … This criticism was meant literally; for an educated man in the seventeenth century or even eighteenth century, any suggestion that the human past extended back further than 6,000 years was a vain and foolish speculation.’

You say that Newton referred to the use by ‘many of his respected contemporaries’ of those verses in Proverbs, Job, and Psalms to ‘support the great antiquity of Earth’. First of all, this is a relative term—we believe that the world is of ‘great antiquity’ too—as ancient as 6,000 years old! It is fallacious to take Hebrew terms of antiquity, which refer to ages comparable with man’s existence on earth, and import modern uniformitarian ideas of ‘age’ into them.

However, in that portion of his correspondence referring to those verses (which incidentally refers to the antiquity of the mountains and hills, not the whole earth), Newton says nothing at all about any contemporaries. Even more importantly, you omitted to mention that Newton’s reference to those verses was saying that he, Newton, would not use those verses to support antiquity.

This thus reflects, at the very least, a most careless reading of the Newton correspondence with Burnet. And Newton even indicates near the end of his 1681 letter to Burnet what his own inclination is: to follow Ex. 20:8–11 and the witness of the prophets, Jesus, the apostles and the church down to his day (including the theologians) in believing in literal six days.

I regret to say that you also misrepresent the way in which we invoked Stephen Jay Gould. The obvious (and powerful) point was that even a self-proclaimed enemy of the Gospel at least treats this great scholar with the respect he deserves, so how much sadder does that make the fact that a self-proclaimed Christian evangelical denigrates him by depicting him as an obvious idiot?

Finally, let me point out that your personal faith, as well as your professed evangelistic motives, are not an issue in this, and if anything (I add with heaviness of heart) they make your stance even more tragic and dangerous, we believe. We have never rejected your Christian profession, as you would know from the fact that we have long stocked Bebber and Taylor’s rebuttal to your Creation and Time (http://www.answersingenesis.org/onlinestore/select.asp?PageType=detail&UID=10-2-012), which calls you ‘saved’. For all we know, you may also have somehow managed to convince yourself that you really do hold to an inerrantist view of the Bible, hard as that is for us to imagine. But we are convinced that your work represents a huge danger to the church and to the Gospel, much more than Gould’s best efforts. Gould rejected the Bible, but he knew what it teaches and didn’t try to twist or distort it. Whereas your stance is damaging to the faith because it twists and distorts what the Bible says, way beyond any minor ‘difference of interpretation’. (It is doubly dangerous precisely because people are being essentially told, ‘Trust me, I’m a fellow conservative evangelical who believes in the inerrancy of the Bible’.)

2004 is our year of ‘Refuting Compromise (http://www.answersingenesis.org/us/newsletters/0104lead.asp)’, in which we will make that statement (about the distortions of God’s Word) increasingly clear to the body of believers. I.e. we hope to be able to make the spotlight of exposure shine more relentlessly than ever on the false teachings of those who are leading the church down the deadly path of compromise in such crucial, big-picture, Gospel-foundational areas.

We do not intend to do so with any sort of ad hominem approach, but by positively highlighting the potent issues and arguments, particularly the biblical ones. I would hope and pray that as a result, you would seriously rethink the way in which you and your followers handle the precious Word of the Creator Himself. I also trust you understand that our motives are definitely not personal. Nothing would give us greater pleasure than to one day be able to know that you are shoulder-to-shoulder with us on the ‘big picture’ of Genesis—which is the big picture of the Gospel, the Creation/Fall/Restoration framework of the universe.

Sincerely,

Dr Carl Wieland
Joint CEO, AiG–International

Written in Australia, and transmitted to the US for signing and express-mailing to you.

Note I don’t know why you would think that we would have a problem with cartoon depictions per se, when we use them all the time, including of some of our speakers.

[kuboes1831]

Archbishop James Ussher was a very fine scholar of the 17th century and a fine Christian leader. (His uncle is in fact an ancestor of the Queen through an illegitimate niece of the Duke of Wellington and the Bowes Lyon family).
His work on chronology Annals written in 1650 is a model of meticulous scholarship. I have a latin copy. Most of his chronolgy from Abraham onwards is almost acceptable today to all who have a high view of Old Testament history as I do. OK it's some years out in places.
Were it not for the first page on the October date of Creation no one would comment much about him. But consider how he got his date of 4004BC. He reckoned from his Chilism that the earth would last 6 millenia paralleling the 6 days of creation, before the millenium, 4 before Chrsita nd 2 after. As he reckoned that Jesus was born in 4 BC rather than 0BC , creation took place in 4004BC. No where did he add up years.
Thus humans go back to 4004BC and the earth 144 hours earlier. However most writers did not accept that as they reckoned God first created Chaos tohu va bohu and then after an interval (to Bishop Patrick in 1694 it may be some time) a re-creating in 6 days. Thus a minority held to a strict 144hr creation - one example was Susannah Hopkins whose work on Genesis is often wrongly ascribed to Thomas Traherne.
Newton followed suit with chaos first but reckoned the first few days were not 24 hours as there was no sun and chronolgy began on the fourth day,. This supports Hugh Ross completely. Further like most if not all his contemporaries Newton reckoned Egyptian chronolgy to be wrong because it contradicted 4004 bc as the creation of man, the original creation date was irrelevant to this point. Burnett accepted creation of chaos then 6 days which he later accepted to be not 24 hrs but an indefinte period of time. It is a difficult to say how long these 17 century theologians and scientists reckoned on the age of the earth, but one thing is claer - only a minority followed Ussher with a 144 hour creation week.
Ross is clearly moving to that in his historical studies and he is right to do so.
My main conclusion from reading lots of theologians on creation from 1550 onwards is that the majority have never never believed in a creation last a mere 144 hours as AIG would want.

Any way the most dishonest c artoon I have ever seen is Ackerman's cartoon in It's a young World after all p85 where he draws a polystrate fossil going through strata from today to the Creataceous a mere 100 million years. He must know as well as we all do that these fossils only pass through a few strata.

Further AIG should remove some of their cartoons from lampooning fellow Christains and rid their site of all their disparaging comments of devout Chrsitians who dont agree with them.

This is an unwarranted attack on a fine evangelical Hugh Ross

[jason]

Further AIG should remove some of their cartoons from lampooning fellow Christains and rid their site of all their disparaging comments of devout Chrsitians who dont agree with them.

Actually this a good point. It seems the height of hipocrisy for Socrates to post the cartoons he does and then complain about an old RTB one.

Jason

[rlj51]

Socrates,

I think you need to stop thinking about Ross and RTB and that cartoon. I have seen you making posts about that cartoon for the entire time I have been posting here (almost a year?). Get over it. Ross is a good guy. In fact he's a Christian who does a lot of good in the world of science vs. religion and apologetics. I have been to see him speak several times now, and I respect his organization a lot.

Randy

[Socrates]

Archbishop James Ussher was a very fine scholar of the 17th century and a fine Christian leader. (His uncle is in fact an ancestor of the Queen through an illegitimate niece of the Duke of Wellington and the Bowes Lyon family).

His work on chronology Annals written in 1650 is a model of meticulous scholarship.

Exactly. So how on earth do you excuse Ross portraying him as a dunce?

I have a latin copy.

Much better to get the new modern English translation www.answersingenesis.org/onlinestore/select.asp?PageType=detail&UID=10-3-107

Most of his chronolgy from Abraham onwards is almost acceptable today to all who have a high view of Old Testament history as I do. OK it's some years out in places.

Were it not for the first page on the October date of Creation no one would comment much about him. But consider how he got his date of 4004BC. He reckoned from his Chilism that the earth would last 6 millenia paralleling the 6 days of creation, before the millenium, 4 before Chrsita nd 2 after. As he reckoned that Jesus was born in 4 BC rather than 0BC , creation took place in 4004BC. No where did he add up years.

There is much more to it than that. He most definitely DID use the chronogenealogies in Genesis 5 and 11, the times of the Sojourn in Egypt, Temple, and destruction of Jerusalem as supporting points. See The forgotten archbishop (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/archbishop.asp). I think you are right about the precise date, about which I would not be dogmatic and neither would any other YEC I know of.

Thus humans go back to 4004BC and the earth 144 hours earlier. However most writers did not accept that as they reckoned God first created Chaos tohu va bohu and then after an interval (to Bishop Patrick in 1694 it may be some time) a re-creating in 6 days. Thus a minority held to a strict 144hr creation - one example was Susannah Hopkins whose work on Genesis is often wrongly ascribed to Thomas Traherne.

Not so at all. I have conclusively documented that the 144 hr view was the overwhelming majority view in the Fathers and Reformers. Ross falsely claims that the day age view was taught by these people. When the search database is fixed I'll prove it. Meanwhile I think DDW could confirm from memory about this post and that several long-agers agreed that Ross had way overstated his case for historical support for his view. Now you're claiming that the nonsensical gap theory was taught.

Newton followed suit with chaos first but reckoned the first few days were not 24 hours as there was no sun and chronolgy began on the fourth day,.

Where is the documentation?

This supports Hugh Ross completely.

How could it? Ross believes the sun came before the Earth and nonsensically claims that it only "appeared" on the fourth millions-of-years-long "day". Ross also rejects the gap (ruin-reconstruction) theory you advocate.

Further like most if not all his contemporaries Newton reckoned Egyptian chronolgy to be wrong because it contradicted 4004 bc as the creation of man, the original creation date was irrelevant to this point. Burnett accepted creation of chaos then 6 days which he later accepted to be not 24 hrs but an indefinte period of time. It is a difficult to say how long these 17 century theologians and scientists reckoned on the age of the earth, but one thing is claer - only a minority followed Ussher with a 144 hour creation week.

More nonsense -- Young's concordance documented that just about ALL chronologers believed that the world was created in Ussher's general ball park. To do that, they must have believed that creation was not much older than mankind. Here is what Davis Young said -- and he is a long ager (Christianity and the Age of the Earth, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, pp. 19,22, 1982)!

‘The virtually unanimous opinion among the early Christians until the time of Augustine was that human history had lasted approximately fifty-five hundred years. It is also very probable that the age of the world was regarded as the same number of years, for the writings of the church fathers generally do not reveal any sharp distinctions between the initial creation and the creation of man. …

‘It is also generally necessary that the days of creation (Gen. 1) be regarded as ordinary days if one were to hold that the Earth was only fifty-five hundred years old. We find absolutely no one arguing that the world is tens of thousands of years old on the grounds that the days are used figuratively for long periods of time. …

‘Many of the Church Fathers plainly regarded the six days as ordinary days.’

Ross is clearly moving to that in his historical studies and he is right to do so.
My main conclusion from reading lots of theologians on creation from 1550 onwards is that the majority have never never believed in a creation last a mere 144 hours as AIG would want.

You're just wrong. See the table at www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/date_of_creation.asp

Any way the most dishonest c artoon I have ever seen is Ackerman's cartoon in It's a young World after all p85 where he draws a polystrate fossil going through strata from today to the Creataceous a mere 100 million years. He must know as well as we all do that these fossils only pass through a few strata.

?? I have no idea what you mean. And I can't find this book in AiG bookstore. And at least it doesn't denigrate a great Christian scholar.

Further AIG should remove some of their cartoons from lampooning fellow Christains and rid their site of all their disparaging comments of devout Chrsitians who dont agree with them.

Like what? I don't see any people attacked BY NAME!!!

This is an unwarranted attack on a fine evangelical Hugh Ross

whether he is a "fine evangelical" is not the point, as the article said!! The point was his unacceptable denigration of a saintly Christian scholar.

[Socrates]

Socrates,

I think you need to stop thinking about Ross and RTB and that cartoon. I have seen you making posts about that cartoon for the entire time I have been posting here (almost a year?). Get over it.

Why? Nothing has changed. Get over it.

[rlj51]

Why? Nothing has changed. Get over it.

Get over what? :huh: You not getting over Ross? Okay...

[apostate]

[QUOTE=Socrates]Why? Nothing has changed. Get over it.[/QUOTE
what else is new, Soc?

This section (Cosmogony) is for creationists only. If you aren't a creationist you can't post here.
Thanks

[kuboes1831]

Now don't get worried Socrates. I have at least as high as respect of Ussher as you, especially as one of the great bishops of my church! I don't think Ross has done any harm with his cartoons which may be slighly mischievous. I collect cartoons on evolution etc to use for humour.

On past interpetations of Genesis I am afraid you are not correct (my language is of proper english and not AIG-speak, so I don't rubbish everyone I write about) as the early Fathers were divided on Genesis, Most Reformers seem to go for 144hours e.g.Luther and Calvin but I need to look at more. However after the Reformers most went for a Chaos restitution interpretation. Now you say "Now you're claiming that the nonsensical gap theory was taught." That is an unreasonable statement as it was held by so many and well-argued. To describe their ideas as nonsensical is just plain ignorant. It was not in the form of the Gap Theory held since the days of Schofield which is a poor argument and a degeneration of the ideas both of Chalmers and Sumner and those going back to the 16th century.

I really do think you need to be more careful in your historical statements. They are about as bad as Sarfati's on p 25-26 of Refuting Evolution where he lists all sorts of alleged creationist scientists. e.g Maxwell, Kelvin, Rmasay, Pasteur, Virchow Agassiz, Herschel, Brewster Buckland and Cuvier all believed in an old earth of millions of years old, that's 10 out of 26, a position not dissimilar to Ross

What's the point of citing Young as if he is infallible, that was an early book and may be wrong in places (understandings change with more research). Young is a fine Christian and his books are good but what about AIG worker Mortenson on Young. Consider this statement by Mortenson, in his 2001 ETS paper Defining boundaries, ‘Even Davis Young, the professing evangelical old-Earth geologist at Calvin College who has influenced so many other evangelical scholars in the last few decades, has misled his readers on this subject.’ Now that is an offensive statement as it is clear that Mortenson wants to cast doubt on Young's faith as you seem to want to of Ross's. G.R Morton's site has a critique of that paper and a recent review article in the Brit Jour for Hist Sci picks up some of Morenson's dodgy scholarship.


The apostle Paul had similar problems as Young and Ross with his opponents who likewise wanted to rubbish his faith and he replied with 2 Cor 10-13. Also 1 Cor 13 and Galatians 5 does gives some pointers on how we should treat others.

Finally before you try to claim the high moral ground over Hugh Ross look to yourself and other AIG workers.

ID speculations are specifically forbidden here at TWeb. Member's privacy are to be respected. Please familiarize yourself with our Decorum rules at...
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/view.php?pg=decorum
Thanks

[Socrates]

On past interpetations of Genesis I am afraid you are not correct (my language is of proper english and not AIG-speak, so I don't rubbish everyone I write about)

You're happy to rubbish YECs though as shown below, and certainly talk a lot of rubbish in doing so!!

as the early Fathers were divided on Genesis,

Prove it!! I have documented that people Ross claimed as allies were actually opponents, so put up or shut up!

Most Reformers seem to go for 144hours e.g.Luther and Calvin but I need to look at more. However after the Reformers most went for a Chaos restitution interpretation.

Prove it!

Now you say "Now you're claiming that the nonsensical gap theory was taught." That is an unreasonable statement as it was held by so many and well-argued. To describe their ideas as nonsensical is just plain ignorant.

It is nonsensical. Even Ross realises that!

It was not in the form of the Gap Theory held since the days of Schofield which is a poor argument and a degeneration of the ideas both of Chalmers and Sumner and those going back to the 16th century.

More bluff and bluster. When are we going to see actual evidence?

I really do think you need to be more careful in your historical statements. They are about as bad as Sarfati's on p 25-26 of Refuting Evolution where he lists all sorts of alleged creationist scientists. e.g Maxwell, Kelvin, Rmasay, Pasteur, Virchow Agassiz, Herschel, Brewster Buckland and Cuvier all believed in an old earth of millions of years old, that's 10 out of 26, a position not dissimilar to Ross

So? What did the book actually say? It was in the context of scientists who opposed evolution from goo to you via the zoo. It would have been misleading if they were stated to be YECs, but the author actually said:

Note that I'm not claiming that they all agreed with me on every aspect of creation; rarther, they refute the common evolutionary arguments that "no creationists can be real scientists" and that "denying evolution will return us to the Dark Ages."

What's the point of citing Young as if he is infallible, that was an early book and may be wrong in places (understandings change with more research).

So prove he is wrong HERE!

[QUOTE=kuboes1831]Young is a fine Christian and his books are good but what about AIG worker Mortenson on Young. Consider this statement by Mortenson, in his 2001 ETS paper Defining boundaries, ‘Even Davis Young, the professing evangelical old-Earth geologist at Calvin College who has influenced so many other evangelical scholars in the last few decades, has misled his readers on this subject.’ Now that is an offensive statement

It is true!

as it is clear that Mortenson wants to cast doubt on Young's faith as you seem to want to of Ross's.

:huh: where?

G.R Morton's site has a critique of that paper


:haha: a B.S. physicist critiquing work that earned a Ph.D. in the History of Science at Coventry Uni in the UK :rofl:

and a recent review article in the Brit Jour for Hist Sci picks up some of Morenson's dodgy scholarship.

Proof, bitte! Actually, even Morton seriously disagrees with this writer if it's the one I think it is.

[kuboes1831]

Socrates compares Morton with Mortenson;

"a B.S. physicist critiquing work that earned a Ph.D. in the History of Science at Coventry Uni in the UK "

Now tell me, is there any history of science taught at Lanchester Tech Coll in Coventry, AKA Coventry Uni? I know of none. Perhaps Glenn learnt more history of science than Mortenson, and that is my observation.

Anyway Morton did not critique Mortenson's Ph D on his site A.N.O. critiqued his ETS paper of 2001 and as you rightly say it is the same as the reviewer in BJHS in Dec 2003. On his Ph.D. it is known to be very flawed in the opinion of most Hsistorians of science working in that area.

I have noticed some points of lively disagreement between Morton and this writer whom you will not name. Knowing both of them the differences are minor, as both are agreed on all things essential to the Christian Faith . BTW why did Glenn Morton give up being a YEC?

It is difficult to carry ou ta reasonable discussion with you .

[dizzle]

Soc, that was a disruptive use of the qualifications argument. We do not countenance here dismissals of anyone simply on the basis of what degree they hold. Proof the points wrong, don't simply imply that a B.S. disagreeing with a PhD must ipso facto be wrong. That sort of thing has been very disruptive in the past, and is censored in toto.

[JonF]

BTW why did Glenn Morton give up being a YEC?


About the Author (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/auth.htm). Many of his articles are also available at DMD Publishing Co. Home Page (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm)

Please reproduce some of the article here. Just posting links is strictly against decorum. Thank you,

[jhappel]

They are about as bad as Sarfati's on p 25-26 of Refuting Evolution where he lists all sorts of alleged creationist scientists. e.g Maxwell, Kelvin, Rmasay, Pasteur, Virchow Agassiz, Herschel, Brewster Buckland and Cuvier all believed in an old earth of millions of years old, that's 10 out of 26, a position not dissimilar to Ross

Did they claim a 'literal' interpretation of Genesis reveals overlapping days of billions years? Did they claim a 'literal' interpretation of Genesis reveals the sun existed billions of years before the earth and that the sun only appeared on the fourth day? Did they claim a 'literal' interpretation of Genesis reveals the flood was local? Did they claim a 'literal' interpretation of Genesis reveals that beasts of the field were carnivorous and that non-human human like creatures existed before Adam?

Its one thing to be a Christian and believe in an old earth. Its another thing to lie to people by telling them the Hebrew translators were wrong and what the Bible 'really meant to say' is the big bang, billions of years, local flood, pre-adamites, etc. I don't think Ross really believes half the things he says about the Genesis text. But he knows in order for his theology to appeal to conservative Christians he has to make the text fit with uniformitarian philosophy regardless of what the rules of exegesis are.

[Socrates]

Anyway Morton did not critique Mortenson's Ph D on his site A.N.O. critiqued his ETS paper of 2001 and as you rightly say it is the same as the reviewer in BJHS in Dec 2003.

And which Mortenson splattered at www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0206mortenson_long_response.asp

On his Ph.D. it is known to be very flawed in the opinion of most Hsistorians of science working in that area.

Lovely ipse dixit. Why not prove your points for once in your life? And abuse the experts who passed Dr Mortenson's thesis! :bonk:

I have noticed some points of lively disagreement between Morton and this writer whom you will not name. Knowing both of them the differences are minor, as both are agreed on all things essential to the Christian Faith . BTW why did Glenn Morton give up being a YEC?

Who cares? Both before and after, he never accepted biblical authority and always put the Bible under so-called "science.

It is difficult to carry ou ta reasonable discussion with you.

Look who's talking. All you do is assert things.

[dizzle]

Jhappel, we are pretty strict on the use of the word "lie" or similar without really compelling support. Soc, tone down the aggression, as well as anyone and everyone else. This is a conversation between believers, please remember that.

[Socratism]

Ross is not the only OEC who openly mocks the young earth view. Morton compared our belief in a young earth to the ancient belief in a flat earth supported on the backs of giant turtles.

What gets me is that when they are called on this they feign an innocent motive.

[jhappel]

Ross is not the only OEC who openly mocks the young earth view. Morton compared our belief in a young earth to the ancient belief in a flat earth supported on the backs of giant turtles.

*edited by a moderator*

Ross does essentially the same thing in this article.


In his testimony before the supreme court, Nobel Laureate physicist Murray Gell-Mann said, and I must agree with him on this point, it would be easier to prove that the earth is flat than to prove that the universe is only a few thousand years old.


http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/younguniverse.shtml?main

Also if YEC is so obviously false as Morton claims why did he once support in the first place?

[jhappel]

Jhappel, we are pretty strict on the use of the word "lie" or similar without really compelling support.

DD I can assure you there is more than just compelling support to demonstrate Ross outright lies to justify and defend his compromise position. Its one thing to make an innocent mistake on an issue that you thought was sound but was later demonstrated false and you then drop the argument. For instance many atheists call Duane Gish a liar because he once used an incorrect argument on the chemistry of the B. Beetle. When Gish was confronted with his error he came out in print demonstrating the source of how the error was made and permanently dropped the argument. Ross however continues using false arguments even after being shown his error. For instance in his book Creation and Time he tries to blame the reason the YEC position has been the historically dominant position on Ussher and his supposed use of the KJV which he claims incorrectly translated the Hebrew in Genesis. Van Bebber and Taylor responded to this claim in 1996 showing not only was the YEC position the dominant view long before Ussher and the KJV but that Ussher was a Hebrew expert and wrote mostly in Latin not English. Also essentially all the major English translations of the Bible are consistent with the KJV translations. Even after this thorough refutation Ross makes this claim from time to time mostly in front of his audience on radio shows.


Ross also outright lies about what the YEC position is. In his book the Genesis Questions he claims YEC’s believe in biological evolution but much more aggressively than atheistic evolutionists. In fact he made the claim the reason YEC’s so strongly defend a young earth is because they believe an old earth would make evolution possible because of our supposed believe in the sufficiency of biological evolution. Not only does Ross provide no references for this claim but he has been confronted time and time again on this but still uses this argument. I get the impression his top priority is using whatever tactics necessary to justify his compromise of Genesis and he has little regard for truth and honesty in dealing with fellow believers in Christ who happen to trust in the Bible rather than interpretations of godless men in the secular scientific community.

[dizzle]

Hey Jhappel, please note that we discourage commenting on moderator action in the thread. If you wish to start a thread documenting these things, please do so in the Locker Room. That sort of charge is just very disruptive to the general forum. We require the same thing for persons wanting to accuse AiG of lying so we must apply this standard equally.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Ross however continues using false arguments even after being shown his error.

(Dee Dee, I'd like to respond to this. May I, even though I am responding to remarks that were "back talk" to a moderator? If you need to put it in the locker room, I understand. Just forgive me if it was wrong to respond to this that he had written to a moderator...)

My response:

He may just not agree with them, not being in agreement with another's argument in no way makes one a liar.


Ross also outright lies about what the YEC position is. In his book the Genesis Questions he claims YEC’s believe in biological evolution but much more aggressively than atheistic evolutionists. In fact he made the claim the reason YEC’s so strongly defend a young earth is because they believe an old earth would make evolution possible because of our supposed believe in the sufficiency of biological evolution. Not only does Ross provide no references for this claim...

Jhappel,

Perhaps you have not seen Soc's and my discussion about Neandertal in this same forum? You can see how Soc, a "good" represenative of the major YE beliefs argues the YE case to go beyond what atheistic evolutionists believe.

Dr. Ross is very clear why he says YEC's believe in biological evolution more aggressively than atheistic evolutionists. In addition to the Young earth creationists idea that man and hominid are all actually modern man (which you must realize is indeed more agressive than atheisitic evolutionists), there are plenty of other instances.

Take the argument that the YEC believe that carnivores arose from herbivores so, so quickly after the Fall or after the flood.

Another argument that stands on agrressive evolution supported by YEC is how you get *millions* of land species from the *thousands* on board the ark. I hope you can appreciate the numbers here.

As an OEC, I do not believe that donkeys and zebras arose from a horse pair off the ark as the YEC believe. I believe that God created zebras to be zebras and donkeys to be donkeys--that they did not evolve from horses thousands of years ago off the ark.

Now, I imagine Soc will give you the usual argument about "kinds" and what not. But you must remember that not even evolutionists believe in the agressive evolution that would have to be in order to get the kind of evolution the YEC's want.

[jhappel]

My response:

He may just not agree with them, not being in agreement with another's argument in no way makes one a liar.



Ok. This either indicates Ross' incompetence in responding to criticisms or he willfully uses arguments that he can't defend. In order to use this argument in good faith he has to document and respond to Van Bebber and Taylor by 1)Indicating how the KJV(and every other English translations of the Bible for that matter) mistranslated the book of Genesis and 2) How this mistranslation caused Ussher and Lightfood to incorrectly conclude the Earth is young. If he can't defend this argument he should permantely drop it as its only leading his supporters into false conclusions about history. I can really beleive the South won the American Civil War but if I am unable to respond to my critics I do not deserve to be respected on issues of history.



Jhappel,

Perhaps you have not seen Soc's an my discussion about Neandertal in this same forum? You can see how Soc, a "good" represenative of the major YE beliefs argues the YE case to go beyond what atheistic evolutionists believe.

We go beyond atheistic evolutionists on one point time for so called speciation. We believe diversification can happen quickly because God created kinds with this in built quality. But we clearly have always said since the Genesis Flood in 1961, and probably even before, that this diversification is limited to the gene pool that God created. Evolutionists believe new genes that code for new functions can evolve without a designer. We deny this. Yet to my knowledge Ross has never properly presented our position in this way. He always present it that our 'evolution' and atheistic evolution are identical. And that given millions of years evolution would work in our model. This is a deliberate, blatant straw man that Ross refuses to drop.


Dr. Ross is very clear why he says YEC's believe in biological evolution more aggressively than atheistic evolutionists. In addition to the Young earth creationists idea that man and hominid are all actually modern man (which you must realize is indeed more agressive than atheisitic evolutionists), there is plenty of other instances.

Atheistic evolutionists believe man and bacteria all arose from a common ancestor which arose from the initial elements produced in the BB. Creationists beleive God created man separately from other kinds of plants and animals and his genes had a signiificant potential to vary and adapt to his environment but this adaptation is limited to what God created. Obviously its the atheistic evolutionists who take a far more aggressive stance. To say otherwise is a blatant strawman.

Take the argument that the YEC believe that carnivores arose from herbivores so so quickly after the Fall or after the flood.

This is another Rossian strawman. He makes it sound like we believe lambs evolved into tigers. Many of the so called attack mechanisms probably had different functions before the fall. Koala bears have large teeth and claws but are not carnivorous. Also some attack mechansims were liklely created after the fall like snake venom. In Genesis God created thorns and thistles as a curse on the creation. Of course Ross has to deny this verse. Likely other changes happened as well directly by God.

Another argument that stands on agrressive evolution supported by YEC are how you get *millions * of land species from the *thousands* on board the ark. I hope you can appreciate the numbers here.



Again this is just varieties of cats, dogs, horses, cattle, etc. There is no increase in complexity that big picture evolution demands. Even many non-YEC's agree many different varieties of animals came from a common ancestor. Read Phillip Johnson's the Wedge of Truth and the book Of Panda and People and you will see a model for diversification that far more closely resembles YEC than Ross's bizzare model.

But the fact that Ross doesn't agree with our model isn't the problem. It's his refusal to properly present our model as its defined and his absured claim that we are so strong on a young earth because we are afraid an old earth would make evolution possible. This is deliberate, dishonest misrepresentation that has no part in Christian apologetics.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Ok. This either indicates Ross' incompetence in responding to criticisms or he willfully uses arguments that he can't defend.

Jhappel--don't you see that the OE's could say the same of YE's about arguments they think are really good but are likewise dismissed by their YE counterparts?

Creationists beleive God created man separately from other kinds of plants and animals and his genes had a signiificant potential to vary and adapt to his environment but this adaptation is limited to what God created. Obviously its the atheistic evolutionists who take a far more aggressive stance. To say otherwise is a blatant strawman.

I think you misunderstand the argument.

Dr. Ross never asserts YEC believe in the goo to you, that is not the kind of evolution spoken of. The kind of evolution YEC's believe, but deny that it is evolution but rather a diversity being fleshed out by "kinds" (nice to have a word that can make a hypothesis work for your interpretation) allows for primates and man to both be considered modern man. I can be understanding of the misunderstanding about Neandertal (without being aware of modern secular research that does show significant anatomical and biochemical differences between Neandertal and man), but YEC's include even those primates that are even more distinct anatomically than Neandertal--that is A LOT of diversity that even atheisitic evolutionists don't buy--they NEVER call these bi pedal primates modern man. It is clear that it is in this regard that Dr. Ross says YEC believe in some extreme kind of evolution--can you not see the difference?


He makes it sound like we believe lambs evolved into tigers. Many of the so called attack mechanisms probably had different functions before the fall. Koala bears have large teeth and claws but are not carnivorous. Also some attack mechansims were liklely created after the fall like snake venom.

Do you mean that God created after the seventh day? But the scriptures say He is on His sabbath rest from creating. He will create again in the future, but His work of this creation is completed.

And Koala's would need teeth for the diet they have, would they not?

But can you understand the OE objection that creatures like T rex, sharks, venus flytraps, etc. were originally herbivores? To make these creatures evolve into carnivores is a lot of change in their physical make up and Dr. Ross is right to charge the YEC's with believing evolution works VERY quickly for believing in this kind of RADICAL change.


In Genesis God created thorns and thistles as a curse on the creation.

I do not accept your interpretation that thorns and thistles were created at the Fall. I believe mankind would not be priviledged to work the miraculous garden but was now kicked out of the geographical boundaries of Eden were there were already thorns and thistles. I'll give you a miraculous garden with no thorns but I'll not give you that the entire world had not thorns and thistles--that is not what the passage is saying.

Adam's fall did not cause the world to experience thorns and thistles, Adam's fall made man subject to the thorns and thistles--His work in gardening was cursed, therefore the ground was cursed.





Again this is just varieties of cats, dogs, horses, cattle, etc. There is no increase in complexity that big picture evolution demands.

YEC's do believe in increasing complexity and information even though they deny this.

The YEC's for example, believe all bears evolved from a bear pair off the ark. They must then believe that the webbing on a Polar Bear was not a design feature of God for the Polar Bear, but naturally evolved.


It's his refusal to properly present our model as its defined and his absured claim that we are so strong on a young earth because we are afraid an old earth would make evolution possible. This is deliberate, dishonest misrepresentation that has no part in Christian apologetics.

I hope I helped you see that you are mistaken here, Dr. Ross has not dishonestly misrepresented YEC, as I hope you see that I have not, either.

~Charleen

[jhappel]

Jhappel--don't you see that the OE's could say the same of YE's about arguments they think are really good but are likewise dismissed by their YE counterparts?


This is hardly a refutation of my point. Its like saying cheating is ok because everyone does it. When RTB responds to YEC it almost always is a response to our scientific model. There are volumes of papers defending a young earth from the Biblical data that RTB either ignores are grossly misrepresents. RTB claims to have a model that is 100% consistent with Biblical exegesis. If this is the case, RTB should be able to defend and refute our biblical arguments for a young earth. Refuting our scientific model doesn't demonstrate their bibical interpretation is correct. They must prove from scripture they are correct. That is the fundamental difference from YEC and RTB. Its the authority of scripture versus man's fallible interpretation of nature.



I think you misunderstand the argument.

Dr. Ross never asserts YEC believe in the goo to you, that is not the kind of evolution spoken of. The kind of evolution YEC's believe, but deny that it is evolution but rather a diversity being fleshed out by "kinds" (nice to have a word that can make a hypothesis work for your interpretation) allows for primates and man to both be considered modern man. I can be understanding of the misunderstanding about Neandertal (without being aware of modern secular research that does show significant anatomical and biochemical differences between Neandertal and man), but YEC's include even those primates that are even more distinct anatomically than Neandertal--that is A LOT of diversity that even atheisitic evolutionists don't buy--they NEVER call these bi pedal primates modern man. It is clear that it is in this regard that Dr. Ross says YEC believe in some extreme kind of evolution--can you not see the difference?

Quoting from the Genesis Question in a section titled 'Fear of the Millions' suposedly referring to our fear of millions of years of earth history that would make evolution possible Ross states on pp 92.

While creation scientists call themselves anti-evolutioinists, they do not reject natural biological evolution as impossible in principle...With such rapid evolution of animal forms, the question begs to be asked whether this view really needs supernatural creation at all

Ross gives no indication that we deny that information and complexity can increase over time that large scale evolution requires. Therefore the reader is left with the false impression that YEC and atheistic evolutionism are indentical only that YEC's reject long ages. This is the kind of strawman arguments that Ross thrives on in defending his position.


Do you mean that God created after the seventh day? But the scriptures say He is on His sabbath rest from creating. He will create again in the future, but His work of this creation is completed.


But that doesn't mean God miraculous activity is not active after the seventh day. Jesus created fish and bread to feed the 5,000. Even Ross needs to invoke God's creative processes to explain races after the Babel disperssion.


But can you understand the OE objection that creatures like T rex, sharks,


We have never seen a T Rex. Even some evolutionists speculate it was a herbivore. The fact that a animal has large teeth doesn't require it was carnivorous.



venus flytraps, etc. were originally herbivores? To make these creatures evolve into carnivores is a lot of change in their physical make up and Dr. Ross is right to charge the YEC's with believing evolution works VERY quickly for believing in this kind of RADICAL change.

Venus flytraps may not be considered the beasts of the fields that were commanded to eat plants in Genesis 1:30 therefore may be unchanged since creation.


do not accept your interpretation that thorns and thistles were created at the Fall. I believe mankind would not be priviledged to work the miraculous garden but was now kicked out of the geographical boundaries of Eden were there were already thorns and thistles. I'll give you a miraculous garden with no thorns but I'll not give you that the entire world had not thorns and thistles--that is not what the passage is saying.


In Genesis 3:18 God says the ground will now bring forth thornes and thistles. If they already existed outside the garden why would He say this? Also why bother causing these weeds to grow in the garden than throwing Adam and Eve out of the garden? If God's curse on the creation was only limited to the garden and Adam and Eve were no longer allowed in the garden than his curse was really not necessary at all. This is the kind of distortion of scripture that is typical of RTB.


Adam's fall did not cause the world to experience thorns and thistles, Adam's fall made man subject to the thorns and thistles--His work in gardening was cursed, therefore the ground was cursed.

Then why does the passage say the ground will now bring forth thorns and thistles? How did they use to exist but somehow Adam was not effected by them?





YEC's do believe in increasing complexity and information even though they deny this.

Wrong. Even if you disagree, Ross should at least present our position that this is what we deny rather than implying we don't deny it.

The YEC's for example, believe all bears evolved from a bear pair off the ark. They must then believe that the webbing on a Polar Bear was not a design feature of God for the Polar Bear, but naturally evolved.

We also believe information losing mutations can cause diversity as well. Though we make it clear most diversification is from the original genetic potential of kinds. But this again has nothing to do with evolution.

[A Beautiful Truth]

...There are volumes of papers defending a young earth from the Biblical data that RTB either ignores are grossly misrepresents. RTB claims to have a model that is 100% consistent with Biblical exegesis.

It does help that RTB has allies that even you may consider conservative evangelical scholars. Norm Geisler and J.P. Moreland, William Lane Craig, Greg Koukl, and Gleason Archer. Even Ravi Zacharias offers Dr. Ross' materials on his Bibliography page. If RTB was that bad with exegesis, these scholars would not give them support.

If this is the case, RTB should be able to defend and refute our biblical arguments for a young earth.

It has. It is a matter of selective hearing on behalf of the YE's, IMO.


Refuting our scientific model doesn't demonstrate their bibical interpretation is correct. They must prove from scripture they are correct.

Again, they have.

That is the fundamental difference from YEC and RTB. Its the authority of scripture versus man's fallible interpretation of nature.

This is certainly your interpretation of the way things are and I think I know who has been preaching this to you.

As an OEC, I can tell you that the dichotomy that AiG likes to make in this regard is not true at all. I hold the authority of scripture above all else--I don't agree with your YE interpretation--and that is what it is--an INTERPRETATION. Unless you will say with Soc that you believe that the YE interpretation actually is the Biblical text? To believe a particular interpretation of the text actually is the text is scary. AiG is making itself out to be a fringe group with its attacks. They can't stick to the "agree with the essentials" and to be gracious to those who disagree with us on the non-essentials.


Quoting from the Genesis Question in a section titled 'Fear of the Millions' suposedly referring to our fear of millions of years of earth history that would make evolution possible Ross states on pp 92.

Let me help you out with this: YEC's believe that in the 1,500 years between the start of day seven and the flood that there was no change within the thousands of "kinds." Then, after the flood, the "kinds" suddenly go from thousands to millions of species. I don't think you appreciate the magnitude of this. That is a lot of change and no secular evolutionist would go for that
--it is indeed a much more extreme belief.


But that doesn't mean God miraculous activity is not active after the seventh day. Jesus created fish and bread to feed the 5,000.

Again, I think you misunderstand. Jesus did not create fish that day, fish already existed. When God rested on the Sabbath, He stopped his act of creating. Before then He was creating and the fossil record backs this up.

Even Ross needs to invoke God's creative processes to explain races after the Babel disperssion.

Does he? I did not realize the races were different "kinds."

We have never seen a T Rex. Even some evolutionists speculate it was a herbivore.

This is news to me. I wonder in what peer reviewed publication that was put forth?

venus flytraps may not be considered the beasts of the fields that were commanded to eat plants in Genesis 1:30 therefore may be unchanged since creation.

This is interesting. And sharks and Killer Whales, too? You are right that they are not the beasts of the field--what of them? Perhaps you may concede that there may have been carniverous activity outside Eden, BEFORE the Fall?

In Genesis 3:18 God says the ground will now bring forth thornes and thistles. If they already existed outside the garden why would He say this?

Adam had gardened in Eden were there were no thorns and thistles. When Adam was kicked out, God said, "thorns and thistles it shall grow for you." Until that point, Adam's hand had been blessed with the miraculous properties of the Garden and the Garden did not have thorns and thistles. I personally believe it was Adam's job to "subdue" the earth--that is was God's original intent for Adam to extend the miraculous properties of the Garden outward through gardening. When man fell, the creation was subject to futility in that it was not fulfilling God's original intent to be subued and ruled in righteousness but became subject to the bondage of being under Adam's sinful, corrupt rule. No longer would the ground yield blessings, but was cursed because of Adam to not yield what God had originally intended.


Also why bother causing these weeds to grow in the garden than throwing Adam and Eve out of the garden?

I think the scripture is clear why man could not remain in Eden--God wanted to protect man from the Tree of Life so that he would not live forever.

Then why does the passage say the ground will now bring forth thorns and thistles?

It doesn't, you have read it with an interpretation in mind. It says, "Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you". Before the Fall, thorns and thistles did not grow for Adam, after the Fall God was telling Adam that they were going to grow for him. (God was talking to a gardener)

How did they use to exist but somehow Adam was not effected by them?

Adam lived in the Garden, his job was to subdue the earth.


We also believe information losing mutations can cause diversity as well. Though we make it clear most diversification is from the original genetic potential of kinds. But this again has nothing to do with evolution.

The "original genetic potential of kinds" is great potential indeed if it can do what the YEC claim. I would need to see what non-YE scientists say about getting millions of species from thousands in the time frame since the ark. I am the kind that needs to test all things, I hope you understand. I can't take the YEC's word for it because I believe their "science" has been biased, can you understand? If the only scientists who believe it are YE scientists, I tend to be suspicious. This is unlike evolution, of course, where there are plenty of scientists who are not YE scientists who doubt the theory very much. I hope you see my point. If only YE scientists see it, then where is the witness to the world? It is like you would have to first be a YE scientist before you can have the creation be a witness to you--I don't think that is right.

[jhappel]

It does help that RTB has allies that even you may consider conservative evangelical scholars. Norm Geisler and J.P. Moreland, William Lane Craig, Greg Koukl, and Gleason Archer. Even Ravi Zacharias offers Dr. Ross' materials on his Bibliography page. If RTB was that bad with exegesis, these scholars would not give them support.



The reason RTB has so many leading Christian scholars is because they are intimitaded by the so called billions of years. Having uncritically accepted this they feel they have to fit it in to 'save' Genesis. Even many progressive creationists admit that the plain reading of Genesis reveals a 6 six day young earth creation. Read Gleason Archer's A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, Moody, Chicago, p. 187, 1985.


From a superficial reading, the impression received is that the entire creative process took place in six twenty-four hour days. If this was the true intent of the Hebrew author (a questionable deduction, as will be presently shown), this seems to run counter to modern scientific research, which indicated that the planet Earth was created several billion years ago.’



In fact even Archer and Geisler reject Ross's absurd local flood theory. So I would hardly call these scholars completely behind Ross.


It has. It is a matter of selective hearing on behalf of the YE's, IMO.

And Mormons feel Evangelical Christian are quilty of selective hearing. How about some specifics? Where in the Bible does it teach vast geological ages?
Where is Ross's evidence that the Bible teaches overlapping days of millions/billions of years?

As an OEC, I can tell you that the dichotomy that AiG likes to make in this regard is not true at all. I hold the authority of scripture above all else--I don't agree with your YE interpretation--and that is what it is--an INTERPRETATION. Unless you will say with Soc that you believe that the YE interpretation actually is the Biblical text? To believe a particular interpretation of the text actually is the text is scary. AiG is making itself out to be a fringe group with its attacks. They can't stick to the "agree with the essentials" and to be gracious to those who disagree with us on the non-essentials.


How do we know the so called essentials are the correct interpretation? There many cults that feel their interpretation denying the so called essentials is the correct interpretation. Unless we consistently apply the rules of exegesis to the entire Bible we will miss what God is trying to reveal to us. Creation is not a trivial doctrine as Ross claims. You don't need to believe in a young earth for salvation but it is essential to beleive in one to be a consistent God trusting Christian. Point me to where Ross has responded to Douglass Kelly's Book Creation and Change? Kelly, unlike Ross, knows Hebrew and he argues that the YEC position is clearly taught in scripture. Ross is quick to jump on Starlight and Time and the RATE project but he ignores our biblical arguments. As an outsider it gives me the impression that he really doesn't beleive in biblical inerrancy. He only claims he does so he can have more support for his ministry. He has scared his supporters into beleiving the evidence for an old earth is so overpowering we have no choice but to reintertpret what God clearly has revealed to us. And this is obvious to Christians skeptics which is why few pay any attention to such compromises. All RTB does is divide the church and it has a negative overall effect on the body of Christ.




[Let me help you out with this: YEC's believe that in the 1,500 years between the start of day seven and the flood that there was no change within the thousands of "kinds." Then, after the flood, the "kinds" suddenly go from thousands to millions of species. I don't think you appreciate the magnitude of this. That is a lot of change and no secular evolutionist would go for that
--it is indeed a much more extreme belief.

Thats not true at all. We believe God selectively chose pairs that had the largest potential for variation. This is cearly laid out in Woodmorappe's book Noah's Ark a Feasibility Study which to date Ross has ignored. I am really looking forward to his upcoming new book 'A Matter of Days' defending his compromise to see if he even address's him this time. The reason atheists would reject this is because they view the fossil record in terms of millions of years. Therefore from the fossil record they think such changes must take long ages. In fact fast changes have been observed

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i2/speciation.asp


Again, I think you misunderstand. Jesus did not create fish that day, fish already existed. When God rested on the Sabbath, He stopped his act of creating. Before then He was creating and the fossil record backs this up.

The fish already existed but some kind of miracle had to happen to allow the few fish to feed so many. Also we do not claim snakes were created after the fall. Only that there defense mechanisms were likely turned on making them carnvorous.


Does he? I did not realize the races were different "kinds."

In the Genesis Question he claims God supernaturally induced racial differences. The reason he does this is because he denies such changes are possible naturally because of his bizzare speciation model. In reality he is just ignorant of basic genetics. But this miracle seems to contradict Ross's claim that God is still resting from creation.

This is news to me. I wonder in what peer reviewed publication that was put forth?

I assure you such theorys exist in the secular community. Evidence suggest T rex was too slow to be able to hunt game. So some feel it was either a scavenger or a herbivore.

This is interesting. And sharks and Killer Whales, too? You are right that they are not the beasts of the field--what of them? Perhaps you may concede that there may have been carniverous activity outside Eden, BEFORE the Fall?

Scripture does not shut the door that non-nephesh animals were carnivorous. Also we do not deny that non-nephesh organisms died before the fall either. Scripture clearly draws distinction between nephesh who have the breath of life and other kinds of organisms.

Adam had gardened in Eden were there were no thorns and thistles. When Adam was kicked out, God said, "thorns and thistles it shall grow for you." Until that point, Adam's hand had been blessed with the miraculous properties of the Garden and the Garden did not have thorns and thistles. I personally believe it was Adam's job to "subdue" the earth--that is was God's original intent for Adam to extend the miraculous properties of the Garden outward through gardening. When man fell, the creation was subject to futility in that it was not fulfilling God's original intent to be subued and ruled in righteousness but became subject to the bondage of being under Adam's sinful, corrupt rule. No longer would the ground yield blessings, but was cursed because of Adam to not yield what God had originally intended.

First why would only the garden of Eden contain this good part of creation? On the sixth day God called the whole creation very Good not just the garden of Eden. Did God expect the whole human race to only inhabit the garden of Eden?

Also this is what the word of the Lord actually says:


14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this,

"Cursed are you above all the livestock
and all the wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.
15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring [1] and hers;
he will crush [2] your head,
and you will strike his heel."

16 To the woman he said,

"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."

17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'

"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return."

20 Adam [3] named his wife Eve, [4] because she would become the mother of all the living.
21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side [5] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.


Footnotes


[1] 3:15 Or seed
[2] 3:15 Or strike
[3] 3:20 Or The man
[4] 3:20 Eve probably means living .
[5] 3:24 Or placed in front



SO God cursed the ground before he banned them from Eden. So if outside the Garden already had these changes that God caused in the garden then his curse was not even needed. This is not what the scripture says. The whole creation would now feel the effects of the Earth including but not limited to

1)Increased pain in child bearing
2)Thorns and thistles would now grow
3)Snakes would now crawl on their belly
4)Adam and Eve would be ashamed of their nakedness
5)Humans would know good and evil
6)Adam and Eve would die

Its clear in the context all of these are now new to the whole creation that did not exist before and were not just local corruptions of the garden of Eden.


I think the scripture is clear why man could not remain in Eden--God wanted to protect man from the Tree of Life so that he would not live forever.

Correct. However that does not mean the rest of the creation was less than very good including not containg the parts of the curse in Genesis 3.

It doesn't, you have read it with an interpretation in mind. It says, "Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you". Before the Fall, thorns and thistles did not grow for Adam, after the Fall God was telling Adam that they were going to grow for him. (God was talking to a gardener)

And he says this while Adam and Eve were still in the garden. GOd's curse on the ground caused these to now grow. They didn't already exist outside the garden. No church fathers ever held this interpretation. Its only a recent invention resulting in forced eisegesis to accmodate the so called geological ages.




The "original genetic potential of kinds" is great potential indeed if it can do what the YEC claim.

If you choose pairs with the highest heterozygous the genetic potential is enormous

Read this article responding to an anti-creationist who makes similar claims as you.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative_25june2001.asp

I would need to see what non-YE scientists say about getting millions of species from thousands in the time frame since the ark.

Why do you need confirmation from biblioskeptics who a priori rule out the supernatural? We don't know everything about genes and what they are capable of but the YEC model hardly stretches what we already know. The fact that horses, zebras and donkeys can interbreed gives us an idea of how much variationis in the genes and what was the result of the pair descended from the ark.



I am the kind that needs to test all things, I hope you understand. I can't take the YEC's word for it because I believe their "science" has been biased, can you understand?

Not everything is 'testable' especially in historical science where we don't know everything. Thats why its important to built our models on the sure word of God not our fallible understaning of nature. We can't test how a young earth would look like after a 144 hour creation week. Thats why we trust in our omniscient God who knows everything and put his approval on the Genesis record as written and then we do the best we can, though we are fallible, to try to reconstruct how it appeared. Ross does the opposite. He puts his trust in himself and how he thinks the universe was created than he goes to the Genesis record and trys to make it fit to that.


If the only scientists who believe it are YE scientists, I tend to be suspicious.

God asks us to trust in Him not in men who are in rebellion against their creator.

Psalm 118:8: It is better to trust in the LORD Than to put confidence in man.

This is unlike evolution, of course, where there are plenty of scientists who are not YE scientists who doubt the theory very much.

They only debate how it happened. They claim anyone who doubts evolution happened at all is equivalent to a holocaust denyer or a flat earth supporter. And these are the kind of people that Ross looks to justify his beleive in 'millions of years'.

[JonF]

If you choose pairs with the highest heterozygous the genetic potential is enormous

Gee, is four possible alleles enormous? And how did Noah choose for maximum heterozygosity?

[Abigail]

The animals came to Noah. Genesis 6:20

Are you a creationist JonF ?

[Socrates]

Perhaps you have not seen Soc's and my discussion about Neandertal in this same forum? You can see how Soc, a "good" represenative of the major YE beliefs argues the YE case to go beyond what atheistic evolutionists believe.

How so? Creationists believe that neandertals were a variety of modern man, as supported by hybrids and their culture. Some atheistic evolutionists think the same. Variation is not evolution.

Take the argument that the YEC believe that carnivores arose from herbivores so, so quickly after the Fall or after the flood.

Yes, but hardly lions from sheep. Rather, a pacu that uses its sharp teeth and powerful jaws to eat hard lichen could easily become a piranha using the same structures to nip pieces of flesh off fish.

Another argument that stands on agrressive evolution supported by YEC is how you get *millions* of land species from the *thousands* on board the ark. I hope you can appreciate the numbers here.

I might if you could document them. But you, following Ross, are being misleading -- the thousands of land animals on the Ark are only vertebrates while the millions include all types! It borders on dishonesty for Ross (like Fedmahn Kassad) to accuse creationists of believing that thousands evolved into millions when it's a case of apples and fruit.

As an OEC, I do not believe that donkeys and zebras arose from a horse pair off the ark as the YEC believe. I believe that God created zebras to be zebras and donkeys to be donkeys--that they did not evolve from horses thousands of years ago off the ark.

Then you have a problem, because they hybridize. In fact, fertile mules have resulted occasionally. The created kinds reproduce "after their kinds".

Now, I imagine Soc will give you the usual argument about "kinds" and what not.

And I imagine Charleen won't be able to refute the scientific and biblical arguments I've already presented. :bounce:

But you must remember that not even evolutionists believe in the agressive evolution that would have to be in order to get the kind of evolution the YEC's want.

this is so boring. Rapid speciation has been OBSERVED -- see Speedy species surprise (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i2/speciation.asp). It's Ross and his followers who have problems with their insistence on fixity of species.

[Socrates]

Abigail, you surely don't expect an anti-YEC to bother to read what the Bible says, do you? :bonk:

And of course, 4 alleles to choose from is enormous potential for variation when you consider that humans have 30,000 genes and 6.7% heterozygosity even today.

[A Beautiful Truth]

The reason RTB has so many leading Christian scholars is because they are intimitaded by the so called billions of years. Having uncritically accepted this they feel they have to fit it in to 'save' Genesis.

Have you talked to William Lane Craig to know that the real reason he accepts the days in Genesis to be ages is because he actually is "intimidated"? And have you personally spoken with Norm Geisler and J.P. Moreland and Ravi Zacharias and John Ankerburg to find out their actual fear as well? And Gleason Archer, a world renown Hebrew Scholar, CO-WROTE with Dr. Ross a contribution to a book in which Dr. Gleason Archer argues for a day age view/long creation days. You accuse this man of not scholarly integrity but actually being intimidated?

And the Council on Biblical Inerrancy and Francis Schaffer and Walter Kaiser--is the reason they allow for long days because they are likewise "intimidated."

You have basically alienated some of the best Bible and Hebrew scholars and said the reason they accept long days in Genesis is because they are afraid, not because they actually have scholarly integrity.

Calling these men "intimidated" and the only reason they accept the day age view is because of their intimidation is gossip and rumor starting. Shame on you.


Even many progressive creationists admit that the plain reading of Genesis reveals a 6 six day young earth creation. Read Gleason Archer's A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, Moody, Chicago, p. 187, 1985.

Just as a plain reading of the Bible that refers to the earth as "ancient" actually means the earth is "ancient"? (It does, y'know) But again, Gleason Archer IS an old earth creationist and contributes his scholarly wisdom to Dr. Ross and Reason to Believe.

In fact even Archer and Geisler reject Ross's absurd local flood theory. So I would hardly call these scholars completely behind Ross.

You are right, they do not. But as far as long ages go--they do.

And Mormons feel Evangelical Christian are quilty of selective hearing.

So like the usual tactics. Don't associate me with Mormon's now, please. Such bad tactics...

How about some specifics? Where in the Bible does it teach vast geological ages? Where is Ross's evidence that the Bible teaches overlapping days of millions/billions of years?

Thank you for being interested, I'll have to start some new threads, I see. Hopefully we can pick it up then--thanks. (Give me a little time, won't you? I am very taxed right now with some other obligations.)




How do we know the so called essentials are the correct interpretation? There many cults that feel their interpretation denying the so called essentials is the correct interpretation.

The essentials are what defines Christianity things of which if you denied you would not be a Christian, by definition. Things like the Virgin Birth, God becoming flesh in Christ, the resurrection, etc. things like these. If you denied such essentials you would, by definition, not be a Chrisitan. Don't confuse putting OE vs. YE among those black and white issues in Christianity.

Creation is not a trivial doctrine as Ross claims.

If he thought creation was indeed trivial, why would he have started RTB? He does not call it trivial, or if he did, it is COMPARED to salvational doctrines.

You don't need to believe in a young earth for salvation but it is essential to beleive in one to be a consistent God trusting Christian.

Did not quite catch the meaning, please repeat it. What do you mean by "it is essential to believe in one"? One what?

Point me to where Ross has responded to Douglass Kelly's Book and Change? Kelly, unlike Ross, knows Hebrew and he argues that the YEC position is clearly taught in scripture.

RTB consistantly says it's most important mission is evangelism not in petty arguments. You must understand, if they took the time to respond to every attack, they would have no time left for ministry. Again, with the support from excellent Bible scholars and Hebrew Scholars, RTB's position is not without examination when it comes to Bible exegesis.


...but he ignores our biblical arguments. As an outsider it gives me the impression that he really doesn't beleive in biblical inerrancy.

Again, we need to further this discussion in a seperate thread. I hope you will be patient, I will start some new threads regarding this and some other points you bring up as well.

He only claims he does so he can have more support for his ministry.

Got a chip on your shoulder or somethin', Jhappel?

He has scared his supporters into beleiving the evidence for an old earth is so overpowering we have no choice but to reintertpret what God clearly has revealed to us.

Yep, you got a chip. Where is your grace? You would have us believe that many respected sholars, theologians, Bible Seminaries run about in total fear. You have no respect for their scholarship.

And this is obvious to Christians skeptics which is why few pay any attention to such compromises.

This is how RTB reaches so many? No, indeed, you are wrong--skeptics do pay attention. Are Young earthers reaching out to Cal Tech and JPL and the scientific community or does the scientific communtiy continue to scoff and "not pay attention" to YE "science"? To me, it says that the only peole who accept young earth science are those who already believe in a young earth. What kind of witness to the unsaved world is that?

All RTB does is divide the church and it has a negative overall effect on the body of Christ.

And I say the same for ministries like AiG. Who is the one concentrating its efforts in their "Operation Compomise" campaign?--is it really RTB who seeks to divide? I can tell you from much PERSONAL experience that it is the fire fueled by AiG that causes division--it is not RTB.

We believe God selectively chose pairs that had the largest potential for variation...

Again, this requires another thread to discuss...

I assure you such theorys exist in the secular community. Evidence suggest T rex was too slow to be able to hunt game. So some feel it was either a scavenger or a herbivore.

I hope you understand, but I am suspicious of your assurances. Is the study in a peer reviewed journal?

Scripture does not shut the door that non-nephesh animals were carnivorous.

Soc may disagree with you, I see he believes Pihranas may have evolved from non carniverous fish.

Also we do not deny that non-nephesh organisms died before the fall either. Scripture clearly draws distinction between nephesh who have the breath of life and other kinds of organisms.

What of a shark's and a Killer Whales diet? Did they somehow know that they couldn't eat nephesh animals? The scripture speaks nothing of sea animals when it comes to dietary restrictions. Don't add to the scriptures, now, and say that their diets were restricted.

First why would only the garden of Eden contain this good part of creation? On the sixth day God called the whole creation very Good not just the garden of Eden. Did God expect the whole human race to only inhabit the garden of Eden?

I see I have to say again that I will have to start another thread. I am glad you are interested, I look forward to our future discussions. I will have to start several threads with different topics so that we can stay focused on each particular topic.


Why do you need confirmation from biblioskeptics who a priori rule out the supernatural?

Because when God works, he leaves evidence. What do you say of the resurrection, Jhappel? This is one difference between the cults and Christianity--Christianity can be tested on the testable. Agreed, not EVERYTHING is testable--but if we can test what CAN BE tested, then we can assure the skeptic they can trust what cannot be tested (virgin birth, for example)


God asks us to trust in Him not in men who are in rebellion against their creator.

Are YEC's somehow more than infallible men who just may have the wrong interpretation of the creation account?

I need the facts and words, and God has given us facts and words to investigate. How can the world receive a witness from creation if the only ones who understand it are those who already are young earth creationists? That is circular and without support from those scriptures that say that the world can see a witness from creation. According to a Young earth creationist, you must start by being a young earth creationist before you can see God's witness in creation. If that were true than what of those scientists who never heard the witness of YEC's but who do see evidence that there must be a God? You would perhaps call them "intimidated" as well?

Psalm 118:8: It is better to trust in the LORD Than to put confidence in man.

Agreed.


They only debate how it happened. They claim anyone who doubts evolution happened at all is equivalent to a holocaust denyer or a flat earth supporter.

Or a young earth creationist! Unfortunately for Christianity, they usually assume that the only creationists are young earth creationists (as evidenced in the courts) and we thus have a bad reputation for denying the facts of nature. But ministries like Reasons to Believe are helping skeptics to see that there are Christians who accept the facts of nature, who "speak their language" and can lead them to Christ.

(But they don't know about YEC's little secret of actually believing in rapid speciation now do they?)

[jhappel]

Have you talked to William Lane Craig to know that the real reason he accepts the days in Genesis to be ages is because he actually is "intimidated"? And have you personally spoken with Norm Geisler and J.P. Moreland and Ravi Zacharias and John Ankerburg to find out their actual fear as well? And Gleason Archer a world renown Hebrew Scholar CO-WROTE with Dr. Ross a contribution to a book in which Dr. Gleason Archer argues for a day age view/long creation days. You accuse this man of not scholarly integrity but actually being intimidated?

These are fine scholars I agree. But they are all free to refute our biblical arguments for a recent creation. Everyone one of them in defending their position has to point to so called 'science' to justify interpreting the Bible with long ages. There is no Biblical evidence for long ages. Jesus in Mark 10:6 said 'but from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female'.


And the Council on Biblical Inerrancy and Francis Schaffer and Walter Kaiser--is the reason they allow for long days because they are likewise "intimidated."

You have basically alienated some of the best Bible and Hebrew scholar and said the reason they accept long days in Genesis is because they are afraid, not because they actually have scholarly integrity.



I am not saying they are not great scholars. However they are not consistent with their interpretation of Genesis compared with the rest of scripture. Before Hutton and Lyell these compromises didn't exist. Why do you think that was so if the scripture so clearly teaches long ages as you claim? Why didn't early Jewish writers think the universe existed for vast ages before man? Why didn't the early church fathers see scripture as revealing overlapping days of vast ages if that is what God meant to say? These compromises make God and his prophets look like incompetant communicators who deceived people for ages before modern science was able to tell us what scripture really says. The honest person says that Genesis teaches a young earth but this can't be historical because he 'know better'.



Just as a plain reading of the Bible that refers to the earth as "ancient" actually means the earth is "ancient"? (It does, y'know) But again, Gleason Archer IS an old earth creationist and contributes his scholarly wisdom to Dr. Ross and Reason to Believe.

An earth that is a few thousand years old is ancient. Ancient people who were unaware of Ross's supposed evidences for billions of years would certainly think a thousand years is ancient, not very recent according to uniformitarian timescales.

You are right, they do not. But as far as long ages go--they do.

Point being they disagree with Ross on certain points that his position is a straightforward literal interpretation of Genesis though they are listed on his site as supporters of his position. In honesty RTB should include a footnote that these scholars reject some our 'literal' interpretations of Genesis.



Thank you for being interested, I'll have to start some new threads, I see. Hopefully we can pick it up then--thanks. (Give me a little time, won't you? I am very taxed right now with some other obligations.)

I probably have less time than you but I will try to stay active on these boards.


The essentials are what defines Christianity things of which if you denied you would not be a Christian, by definition. Things like the Virgin Birth, God becoming flesh in Christ, the resurrection, etc. things like these. If you denied such essentials you would, by definition, not be a Chrisitan. Don't confuse putting OE vs. YE among those black and white issues in Christianity.

My point was how do we know the Bible actually teaches these essentials? By applying the rules of exegesis to these doctrines. And if we applied these sames rules to Genesis we would get a young earth, global flood, cursed creation about 6000 years ago, etc. If these rules fail in Genesis how can we be comforted that we have properly interpreted the rest of scripture? PC opens the door to reinterpreting the scripture everywhere else to make it mean what you want.

If he thought creation was indeed trivial, why would he have started RTB? He does not call it trivial, or if he did, it is COMPARED to salvational doctrines.

You are exactly right which is why it was foolish for Ross to say creation is a trivial doctrine in Creation and Time. By convincing many good scholars creation is trivial they have reinterpreted Genesis to accomodate evolutionary time.


Did not quite catch the meaning, please repeat it. What do you mean by "it is essential to believe in one"? One what?

To be consistent with the rest of scripture. We beleive the virgin birth not because we can 'test it' or that science confirms it but because it is written. The same should be for our believe in a young earth.


RTB consistantly says it's most important mission is evangelism not in petty arguments. You must understand, if they took the time to respond to every attack, they would have no time left for ministry. Again, with the support from excellent Bible scholars and Hebrew Scholars, RTB's position is not without examination when it comes to Bible exegesis.

More argument from authority. Since RTB has Hebrew scholars on their side their is no need to refute the arguments for a young earth. RTB apparently has plenty of time to attack Starlight and Time, RATE, our speciation model, articles about light travel time in TJ, etc. but when it comes to our Hebrew scholarship they apparently are just too busy.



And I say the same for ministries like AiG. Who is the one concentrating its efforts in their "Operation Compomise" campaign?--is it really RTB who seeks to divide? I can tell you from much PERSONAL experience that it is the fire fueled by AiG that causes division--it is not RTB.

All AiG is interested in is the truth. God calls on all Christians to test our doctrine and those prophets who preach in the name of the Lord. AiG is simply following what God has laid out in scripture as the duty of every God fearing Christian. If RTB has the biblical case they claim they should not worry about AiG. The truth will win out. Dr John Morris said it best in this article

http://www.icr.org/pubs/president/prz-0306.htm

The history of the Church has featured many individual battles, all of which were eventually won by those who stood firm on the Word of God. For instance, the early church fathers were victorious over legalism and Gnosticism. During the Reformation, the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith was the battleground. In each case, insistence on Scripture in its purity and simplicity carried the day. Creation doctrine has also seen controversy. Beginning with the Gap Theory in the early 1800s and Theistic Evolution in the late 1800s, Bible believers have been able to defeat these compromises with truth.

The compromise of choice today is known as Progressive Creation, a modern revision of the Day-Age Theory. Advocating that the six days of creation can be equated with the billions of years of geology and astronomy, it proposes that God's creative acts occurred on widely separate occasions over the ages. To adherents, the world before Adam was identical to that of the secular view, with extinction of the majority of life forms, with disease, bloodshed, and carnivorous activity pre-dating Adam's rebellion and the resultant curse of death as the penalty of sin. By necessity, Progressive Creation minimizes the extent of Christ's work on the Cross, limiting it to the redemption of man's Spirit only, not his body or the rest of Creation.

Some have labeled this issue as "the seminal issue facing the church today." Most Christians are unaware of the problem. Many Christian leaders are fighting on the wrong side of the battle. Both are often intimidated into compromising Scripture by authoritative-sounding scientists. We feel God has raised up ICR, as a group of uncompromising Bible-believing scientists, to lead the church back from the precipice of compromise.

To do so, ICR recently called together a group of recognized creation spokes-men, equipped to address the errors of Progressive Creation and the scientific truth of Biblical Creation. ICR scientists Drs. Henry Morris, John Morris, and Russell Humphreys, were joined by Drs. John Whitcomb and Doug Phillips in ICR's radio room. This has resulted in a series of four, one-hour recordings which powerfully present the Christian/creationist worldview, exposing the false teaching of Progressive Creation, and specifically answering the claims of Dr. Hugh Ross in a similar tape set. Excerpts from them will be used on "Science, Scripture & Salvation" radio broadcasts in the months ahead.

Transcripts of these recordings form the basis for a soon-to-be available book entitled, After Eden—Understanding Creation, the Curse, and the Cross, authored by Dr. Henry Morris III. Covering Scriptural, theological, and scientific grounds, it will be a faith-strengthener to the Bible-believing Christian and a confrontation to the compromiser.

The Church at large needs to return to a fully Biblical worldview, and cease bringing secularism into their thinking in the guise of "science." Progressive Creation thinking is the lynchpin of modern wrong thinking among evangelicals. You can be assured that ICR will not shrink from its task.





I hope you understand, but I am suspicious of your assurances. Is the study in a peer reviewed journal?

AiG has a article included peer-reviewed references


http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i3/trex.asp

Maybe I was mistaken about the herbivore part in the secular comunity. But its not implausible given their slow lumbering body they had.


Soc may disagree with you, I see he believes Pihranas may have evolved from non carniverous fish.

I wasn't necessarily referring to fish when I said that. I would agree with Soc on this but you have to be careful with the word 'evolve'. Its more like devolve. The creation is wearing down not getting better.




Because when God works, he leaves evidence. What do you say of the resurrection, Jhappel? This is one difference between the cults and Christianity--CHristianity can be tested on the testable. Agreed, not EVERYTHING is testable--but if we can test what CAN BE tested, then we can assure the skeptic they can trust what cannot be tested (virgin birth, for example)

But their is a difference between interpreting history of humanity and historical science. In human history we have witnesses. In the creation of the world the only witness was God thats why we must use scripture as the final authority on all possible models. Those models that are not consistent with scripture must be discarded.




Are YEC's somehow more than infallible men who just may have the wrong interpretation of the Bible?


YEC's use the same exegitical rules in Genesis that they use in the rest of scripture. They are consistent with the whole Bible. They are fallible for sure, but their thinking is the only sure way to find truth.

I need the facts and words, and God has given us facts and words to investigate. How can the world receive a witness from creation if the only ones who understand it are those who already are young earth creationists? That is circular and without support from those scriptures that say that the world can see a witness from creation. According to a Young earth creationist, you must start by being a young earth creationist before you can see God's witness in creation. If that were true than what of those scientists who never heard the witness of YEC's but who do see evidence that there must be a God? You would perhaps call them "intimidated" as well?


Nature clearly reveals that their is a creator. But since humans are fallible and in rebellion against their creator they are hopeless to discover who this creator is, what we expects of them, and how the world came to be without the guiding light of scripture. The creation wakes people up to search for God. His words than guides them to the truth of who He is. How did the world become so pagan after the flood if all the descendants off the ark knew the truth? Its because people are in continual rebellion against God's Word. Thats why authority doesn't determine truth. 'Let God be true, but every man a liar' (Romans 3:4)



Or a young earth creationist! Unfortunately for Christianity, they usually assume that the only creationists are young earth creationists (as evidenced in the courts) and we thus have a bad reputation for denying the facts of nature. But ministries like Reasons to Believe are helping skeptics to see that there are Christians who accept the facts of nature, who "speak their language" and can lead them to Christ.

They only say this because thats the quickest way too dismiss them because of the so called separation of chuch and state. They want to claim YEC's are driven by the Bible(which is true) therefore it is religion not sceince. RTB's compromise will not help since they will just do the same for them too. Also one of the things I despise most about RTB is this claim that they accept the 'facts of nature'. Why are these facts because the majority says they are? Given the tentative nature of historical science which is mostly guess work its inexcusable to claim its a 'fact' the Big Bang occured, the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, speciation is impossible above bacteria, etc. Its as if Ross and his 'scientific' interpretation is infallible. He has staked everything on the Big Bang that its his utimate authority on everything not scripture. Everything in history and scripture must be interpreted to be consistent with the Big Bang because he has gone on record as calling it a fact. For so tightly embracing a human theory like the Big Bang which was invented by biblioskeptics trying to explain the universe without a creator and using it with the authority he does is boarding on heresy. What happens if the Big Bang is proven false? Is the Bible now falsified because according to Ross this is what the Bible teaches?

[Socratism]

jhappel,

I want to thank you for a very fine posting.

I happened to check the Ross book "Creation and Time" out of the library yesterday and read it last night.

I was stunned by his shabby treatment of the YEC position and his distortions of it.

His theories would be very attractive to many Christians because they appear on the surface to solve the controversy between science and Christianity, and most people are not fans of controversy for they believe "we should all get along". That is fine, but not at the expense of the truth of the matter, which is the authority of scripture.

Ross embraces current origins theories with a slight twist. Evolution is true but God did it, not mutations and natural selection. Thus, essentially all the evidence for evolution can be embraced to solve the controversy.

Similarly, the Big Bang is embraced along with long ages, but God did it.

The Flood of course must have been local and left no evidence. All humans lived in this local area so all but those on the Ark died (animals too?). The cause of the Flood was a miracle from God and its duration of months was due to the land being so flat? (or another miracle?)

Very clever all this, but fatally flawed and negated by a straightforward reading of scripture, as was common before evolution and the Big Bang came along.

[dizzle]

All thread participants - please note that this is not the area to name or rebut members who do not qualify for posting in this section as they cannot defend themselves here, and this being such a volatile subject, we have in our guidelines this long-standing statement:

"This area is not to be used to unfairly substantively rebut/discuss/criticize specific other members who cannot respond or defend."

The unfairness is contained in the fact that they cannot respond here so accusations of dishonesty about them should not be made here.

Thanks for following this.

[Socratism]

Charleen,

I happened to be reviewing this entire thread and noticed your statement:

Another argument that stands on agrressive evolution supported by YEC is how you get *millions* of land species from the *thousands* on board the ark. I hope you can appreciate the numbers here.

Might I point out that the animals aboard the Ark were specified as having the breath of air, and this would reduce the "millions" species number into the tens of thousands.

Variation can be very rapid at times, and this would particularly be true after a global flood which wiped out the ecosystem and the "web of life" that normally resists and slows the establishment of new varieties.

[kuboes1831]

I think jhappel and socratism either need a history lesson or some hemlock.

jjappel wrote
"I am not saying they are not great scholars. However they are not consistent with their interpretation of Genesis compared with the rest of scripture. Before Hutton and Lyell these compromises didn't exist."

Hutton and Lyell were not the first to suggest that the earth was ancient. When Lyell wrote in 1830 most thought the earth to be ancient and much of the geological column had been worked out, developing the work of the Rev John Michell in the 1770s i.e. before Hutton wrote anything. By 1830 geologists most of the British were catastrophists and many French , but there was a variety of opinions. None followed the strong uniformitarianism of Lyell and many Brit geologists were devout Chrsitains and some like Fleming, Conybeare, Sedgwick (founder of the Cambrian) and Lewis ( real founder of Silurian)were evangelicals evangelicals and Henslow and Buckland were very close (Henslow had millenial views but is often presented as a Broadchurchman). Hence Lyell deserves no credit for introducing OE , he simply learnt it from Christians like Buckland, his geology teacher.
As for Hutton many were OE before him - Rev John Michell, Rev J Douglas in 1780s (Anglican), Will Hamilton on Vesuvius in 1780s before wife Emma met up with Admiral Nelson, the 2 swiss geologists de Saussure in 1770s and de Luc at the same time and his view was accepted in the Church of England by very conservative Highchurchmen in the 1790s and Queen Charlotte, not to mention Fr Needham in the 1760s, John Whitehurst in 1768 (misrepresented in The Lunar Men by J Uglow). Buffon in 1750s who was not an infidel, Fr Soulavie etc. As Hutton published there were many other OE throughout Europe Cuvier, Brogniart in France, Werner in Germany and Smith supported by J Townsend an evangelcial vicar and former associate of the countess of Huntingdon in the 1790s.
And then the Theorists of the Earth, Burnett, Whiston, Hobbs also thoght that creation took more than 144hrs. Whiston argued each day was a year. As a result and if you look for them what you call compromises of geology and genesis existed for a hundred years before Hutton in the 1780s and were commonplace in his day.

jjappel
"Why do you think that was so if the scripture so clearly teaches long ages as you claim? Why didn't early Jewish writers think the universe existed for vast ages before man? Why didn't the early church fathers see scripture as revealing overlapping days of vast ages if that is what God meant to say? These compromises make God and his prophets look like incompetant communicators who deceived people for ages before modern science was able to tell us what scripture really says. The honest person says that Genesis teaches a young earth but this can't be historical because he 'know better'."
The scriptures also teach a flat earth unless you mistranslate KHUG.



"uniformitarian timescales."
How many times does one need to say that old earth geology is independent of uniformitarianism and evolution. Those who make comments like this simply do not know their history of geology.

Jhappel
"But their is a difference between interpreting history of humanity and historical science. In human history we have witnesses. In the creation of the world the only witness was God thats why we must use scripture as the final authority on all possible models. Those models that are not consistent with scripture must be discarded."

This is both slick and stupid, though of course Wise and Austin use historical scienc eto defend their version of the origin of the Grand Canyon. Who was at the Grand Canyon to see it eroded. It is not recorded in Genesis and Wise and Austin are arguing e.g the burioal of nautiloids in the same geological way as historical science as to true geologists who hold the strata to be millions of years old. YYECs must learn to be consistent.


A useful book is Gabriel Gohau Les Sciences de la terre 1990 and lots of scattered writings on the history of geology.

[Socratism]

I think jhappel and socratism either need a history lesson or some hemlock.

As long as we are calling names perhaps you should take a course in logic.

The subject was interpretation of scripture. It is true that many believed in an ancient earth prior to the last 300 years. They did not do so because of scripture. But several hundred years ago the situation changed. The difference from that point on was that "it was possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" as one person put it.

People can easily see that scripture and long ages are not compatible, but if one wants to be a Christian and believe that scripture is inerrant then something has to give.

Some solve this dilemma by inventing novel ways to interpret scripture, others by pointing out what they believe to be flaws in Origins theories.

Since society has bought into the current Origins theories hook, line and sinker, those who believe there are flaws in current Origins theories are of course marginalized.

This is what societies do to people who will not toe the line on mainstream beliefs.

The point is that people like Whiston had what they considered to be scientific reasons for believing in long ages as most people who believe in long ages do today.

Many young age people believe that the reasons for believing in long ages are not as solid as usually thought, for the simple reason that verifying events in the ancient past is essentially not 100% reliable.

One interesting example is the fossil record, which when most people first hear that it falsifies Darwinian evolution are shocked and in a state of disbelief.

[Tickle Me Goody]

[QUOTE=Socratism]As long as we are calling names perhaps you should take a course in logic.


People can easily see that scripture and long ages are not compatible, but if one wants to be a Christian and believe that scripture is inerrant then something has to give.

Can you elaboarte on that?

Goody

[rogero]

[QUOTE=Socratism]As long as we are calling names perhaps you should take a course in logic.


People can easily see that scripture and long ages are not compatible, but if one wants to be a Christian and believe that scripture is inerrant then something has to give.

Can you elaboarte on that?

Goody


It's not at all obvious that scripture and long ages are not compatible. Could you elaborate? I see that this is your first post here. There are numerous discussions of other than a Young Earth creationist model on TW. Check out the Natural Sciences forum, in particular Burgy's and GMorton's posts.

Enjoy!

[A Beautiful Truth]

These are fine scholars I agree. But they are all free to refute our biblical arguments for a recent creation. Everyone one of them in defending their position has to point to so called 'science' to justify interpreting the Bible with long ages.

Did science help Christians get a better interpretation of the scriptures that refer to the sun "rising" and "setting"? (Yes, it did--science did help people see that the sun does not go around the earth.)

There is no Biblical evidence for long ages.

I say there is.

Habakkuk refers to the earth as ancient, and Peter refers to it as old...

The honest person says that Genesis teaches a young earth but this can't be historical because he 'know better'.

The "honest" person? Is AiG and ICR and their followers the only "honest" people? Most conservative seminaries are accepting the day age view. At this rate, AiG should start their own seminary with real "honest" professors because there won't be any left.

Concerning my mention of the Bible references to an old earth, Jhappel responded:

An earth that is a few thousand years old is ancient. Ancient people who were unaware of Ross's supposed evidences for billions of years would certainly think a thousand years is ancient, not very recent according to uniformitarian timescales.

Was the Bible ONLY written for "ancient people", or can a man of today understand it?

My point was how do we know the Bible actually teaches these essentials? By applying the rules of exegesis to these doctrines. And if we applied these sames rules to Genesis we would get a young earth, global flood, cursed creation about 6000 years ago, etc.

Not so. There are many excellent Bible scholars trained in exegesis who would disagree with you--many. AiG tries to make it sound like YEers have the only exegetically accepted view--they are evidently wrong.

PC opens the door to reinterpreting the scripture everywhere else to make it mean what you want.

It does not follow that because one does not accept the Young earth interpretation of Genesis that one will be able to "reinterpret the scripture everywhere else to make it mean what you want." AiG pushes this, especially now with their "Operation Compromise" and I think that that belief will help to further alienate AiG from mainstream conservative Christianity.

By convincing many good scholars creation is trivial they have reinterpreted Genesis to accomodate evolutionary time.

One, many Christians know that "evolutionary time" is not enough for evolution. Perhaps the ID movement has been instrumental in that as well as Reasons to Believe. Second, you must think Dr. Ross has had a great impact, indeed, to have convinced so many "good scholars." (But I kinda think they were able to think for themselves)

To be consistent with the rest of scripture. We beleive the virgin birth not because we can 'test it' or that science confirms it but because it is written.

My point was is that you CANNOT test it (the virgin birth)! There is no way for science to confirm it.

But what do you think of the resurrection? Do you take it because the Bible says so? How do you know the Bible is right? Paul made a point to make a historical case for the resurrection. And, indeed, those who investigate the resurrection can see that it is a historical FACT. Testing is good, why even do apologetics and try to defend the faith if you have made the faith unable to be falsified? The point is, that when one puts the Bible up for falsification, one can see that it is indeed true, do you see what I am saying?

The Bible can be verified on what can be tested and has therefore proven itself reliable in what cannot be tested. I can take it be faith because the Bible is believable and trustworthy.

The same should be for our believe in a young earth.

No, because unlike what CANNOT be tested, creation CAN BE tested.

In a similar strain, what if you were a Mormon, would you not want the archeological case against your religion to be falsifiable? But if you take your book out of faith, then you would never know, nor would you care when the evidence is against your religion from critical investigation. We are not to be like that, how could we have a "ready defense" to the critic if we had to say, "well, because the book says so." Outside corroboration is good, and for every other aspect of apologetics (like history, archeology, prophesy)except for creation, you would probably agree.

All AiG is interested in is the truth. God calls on all Christians to test our doctrine and those prophets who preach in the name of the Lord.

And will you not accept correction, either, or is AiG the only agent of truth?

If RTB has the biblical case they claim they should not worry about AiG. The truth will win out.

Agreed.

The creation is wearing down not getting better.

Agreed.

Also one of the things I despise most about RTB is this claim that they accept the 'facts of nature'. Why are these facts because the majority says they are? Given the tentative nature of historical science which is mostly guess work its inexcusable to claim its a 'fact' the Big Bang occured, the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, speciation is impossible above bacteria, etc.

I think you must not have wanted to pursue scientific studies? AiG can only offer you so much.

For so tightly embracing a human theory like the Big Bang which was invented by biblioskeptics

"Invented"?

...trying to explain the universe without a creator...

Don't you know many tried to get around the idea of a "Big Bang" BECAUSE of its implication to a creator? (The old cause and effect scenario) The term "big bang" was even coined by an opponent of the idea because it required a beginning, he wanted the Steady State model because it would seem to require no beginning.

and using it with the authority he does is boarding on heresy.

But "heresy" is pretty extreme. AiG has taught you well.

What happens if the Big Bang is proven false? Is the Bible now falsified because according to Ross this is what the Bible teaches?

The Bible is the word of God, God's word will never fail. The Bible says the universe had a beginning--o'wow, look, even science says that in the Big Bang. What are you afraid of?

~Charleen

[Socrates]

Did science help Christians get a better interpretation of the scriptures that refer to the sun "rising" and "setting"? (Yes, it did--science did help people see that the sun does not go around the earth.)

Actually, two words: reference frames. If you don't understand this, then don't talk about the issue.

Also, learn the difference between the ministerial use of science (which YECs support) where science serves Scripture, and the magisterial use where "science" overrides Scripture (as per OECs and TEs).

Habakkuk refers to the earth as ancient, and Peter refers to it as old...

And it's true -- the earth is REALLY ancient -- thousands of years old in fact!

The "honest" person? Is AiG and ICR and their followers the only "honest" people?

The only people who try to follow Scripture without imposing uniformitarian timescales upon it.

Most conservative seminaries are accepting the day age view.

Nope, most seem to accept the Framework nonsense, which doesn't even try to reconcile Genesis with history.

Was the Bible ONLY written for "ancient people", or can a man of today understand it?

Both -- but we must go by what the original readers would have understood.

Not so. There are many excellent Bible scholars trained in exegesis who would disagree with you--many. AiG tries to make it sound like YEers have the only exegetically accepted view--they are evidently wrong.

YEC is the only view that has the support from the Church Fathers and Reformers, because theirs is the only view that is based on exegesis rather than eisegesis.

One, many Christians know that "evolutionary time" is not enough for evolution.

Something YECs such as Gish pointed out long ago. Yet Ross misleadingly accuses YECs of being afraid that long ages would make evolution possible.

But what do you think of the resurrection? Do you take it because the Bible says so? How do you know the Bible is right? Paul made a point to make a historical case for the resurrection. And, indeed, those who investigate the resurrection can see that it is a historical FACT.

Because there is eye-witness testimony, not because we can observe it scientifically.

I think you must not have wanted to pursue scientific studies? AiG can only offer you so much.

They offer a great deal.

But "heresy" is pretty extreme. AiG has taught you well.

Nope, he probably learnt this from Ross, who accused YECs of the heresyof Gnosticism and compared YECs with the Judaizers.

[Socrates]

Back to the topic of the thread: on closer examination of the mocking Ussher cartoons, it's even worse. His dunce cap in one frame reads "Big Cheese", and on the other "Ask me about Amway".

But we already know that to Ross's devotees, he can do no wrong.

[A Beautiful Truth]

The only people who try to follow Scripture without imposing uniformitarian timescales upon it.

But I believe in catastophes as well, what does that make me "uniformcatasrophian"

Something YECs such as Gish pointed out long ago. Yet Ross misleadingly accuses YECs of being afraid that long ages would make evolution possible.

He is not misleading, read what AiG has to say about rapid speciation.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Back to the topic of the thread: on closer examination of the mocking Ussher cartoons, it's even worse. His dunce cap in one frame reads "Big Cheese", and on the other "Ask me about Amway".

But it is funny, no?

Soc, it is called a C - O - M - I - C. In America, that is the whole point of comics--they are suppose to be comical. Lighten up. And besides, you have called people much worse and it was not even suppose to be in a funny way so you are the LAST person who we can believe is actually justified in being indignant.

Cheers!

~Charleen

[jhappel]

Hutton and Lyell were not the first to suggest that the earth was ancient. When Lyell wrote in 1830 most thought the earth to be ancient and much of the geological column had been worked out, developing the work of the Rev John Michell in the 1770s i.e. before Hutton wrote anything. By 1830 geologists most of the British were catastrophists and many French , but there was a variety of opinions. None followed the strong uniformitarianism of Lyell and many Brit geologists were devout Chrsitains and some like Fleming, Conybeare, Sedgwick (founder of the Cambrian) and Lewis ( real founder of Silurian)were evangelicals evangelicals and Henslow and Buckland were very close (Henslow had millenial views but is often presented as a Broadchurchman). Hence Lyell deserves no credit for introducing OE , he simply learnt it from Christians like Buckland, his geology teacher.
As for Hutton many were OE before him - Rev John Michell, Rev J Douglas in 1780s (Anglican), Will Hamilton on Vesuvius in 1780s before wife Emma met up with Admiral Nelson, the 2 swiss geologists de Saussure in 1770s and de Luc at the same time and his view was accepted in the Church of England by very conservative Highchurchmen in the 1790s and Queen Charlotte, not to mention Fr Needham in the 1760s, John Whitehurst in 1768 (misrepresented in The Lunar Men by J Uglow). Buffon in 1750s who was not an infidel, Fr Soulavie etc. As Hutton published there were many other OE throughout Europe Cuvier, Brogniart in France, Werner in Germany and Smith supported by J Townsend an evangelcial vicar and former associate of the countess of Huntingdon in the 1790s.
And then the Theorists of the Earth, Burnett, Whiston, Hobbs also thoght that creation took more than 144hrs. Whiston argued each day was a year. As a result and if you look for them what you call compromises of geology and genesis existed for a hundred years before Hutton in the 1780s and were commonplace in his day.

None of this really has anything to do with the point I was trying to make. All of these OEC arose at about the same time. None of them really could point to a scriptural basis for their OE position but rather imposed on scripture what they thought was correct(long ages). Steno in the 17th century established the principle of superposition. In his Forerunner (1669) he expressed belief in a Earth about 6,000 years old and that organic fossils and the rock strata were laid down by the Flood. It wasn't until much time after Steno and the rise of belief in long ages that anybody tried to use the Bible to show the earth was ancient. Burnet and Whiston are young earth creationists and I would hardly call them compromisers either.


jjappel
The scriptures also teach a flat earth unless you mistranslate KHUG.

Actually there is strong scriptural support for a round earth. You don't need science to demonstrate this only scripture. See Job 26:10; Proverbs 8:27; Ecclesiastes 1:6; Psalm 19:6 and Isaiah 40:22.


"uniformitarian timescales."
How many times does one need to say that old earth geology is independent of uniformitarianism and evolution. Those who make comments like this simply do not know their history of geology.

Thats why the supposed age of the earth grew with the belief in biological evolution as more time was needed to accomodate the theory.

Jhappel

This is both slick and stupid, though of course Wise and Austin use historical scienc eto defend their version of the origin of the Grand Canyon. Who was at the Grand Canyon to see it eroded. It is not recorded in Genesis and Wise and Austin are arguing e.g the burioal of nautiloids in the same geological way as historical science as to true geologists who hold the strata to be millions of years old. YYECs must learn to be consistent.

My point was you can't compare historical scholarship dealing with recorded history and historical science where noone witnessed the formation. The interpretations of history based on written witnesses are far easier to interpret than the unobservable claims of uniformitarianism.

[kuboes1831]

jhappel

I cant respond to invincible ignorance

[Socratism]

I suggest you bow out of the discussion if your only replies are insults.

[kuboes1831]

Soc (sic) sorry I can't compete with your insults and lack of love. I find more Christian love among my atheist friends!

[Socrates]

Something YECs such as Gish pointed out long ago. Yet Ross misleadingly accuses YECs of being afraid that long ages would make evolution possible.

He is not misleading, read what AiG has to say about rapid speciation.

I have, while you evidently have failed to understand it. And you miss the point of what I said anyway. Maybe it would be easier to see the AiG explanation in their review of Ross's book The Genesis Question (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4128.asp):

‘Fear of the millions’

Ross claims that a main motivation of those opposing billions of years is fear that it would make evolution possible, hence the above subheading on p. 92. As usual, Ross’s claim betrays a willing ignorance of creationist literature as well as ignorance of evolution/variation as shown above. Many years before Ross wrote any of his books, leading creationists like Dr Duane Gish made it very clear that they believed the earth was only thousands of years old, on both biblical and scientific grounds. But Gish also strongly pointed out that evolution would be impossible even if billions of years were granted, e.g.:

‘Therefore, whether the earth is ten thousand, ten million, or ten billion years old, the fossil record does not support the general theory of evolution.’ [Gish, D.T., Evolution: The Fossils Say No! Creation-Life Publishers, San Diego, CA, 2nd ed., p. 43, 1973. This book has been superseded by Evolution: The fossils STILL say NO!, Institute for Creation Research, El Cahon, CA, USA, 1995.]

‘Considering an enzyme, then, of 100 amino acids, there would be no possibility whatever that a single molecule could have arisen by pure chance on earth in five billion years.’ [Gish, D.T., The origin of life: theories on the origin of biological order, ICR Impact 37:iii, 1976.]

But it is funny, no?

Soc, it is called a C - O - M - I - C. In America, that is the whole point of comics--they are suppose to be comical. Lighten up.

So, if AiG produced a cartoon that mocked a definite named person like, say, Ross, that would be OK would it? I suspect they would never hear the end of it.

And besides, you have called people much worse and it was not even suppose to be in a funny way so you are the LAST person who we can believe is actually justified in being indignant.

A debate thread is totally different from a comic officially produced by an ostensibly Christian ministry that affects to take the moral high ground. So my indignation is about the petty attack on a great christian scholar who did NOT resort to the same, and the hypocrisy of Ross and his supporters whinging about YECs -- who have NEVER mocked OECs by name in that way.

[A Beautiful Truth]

So, if AiG produced a cartoon that mocked a definite named person like, say, Ross, that would be OK would it? I suspect they would never hear the end of it.
So the almost bald guy in the AiG cartoons is not Ross? You are funny.



A debate thread is totally different from a comic officially produced by an ostensibly Christian ministry that affects to take the moral high ground.
Last I checked, the comic was a in a book published for Jr. High and the point had nothing with taking the moral high ground. Is it all Australians, or just you who does not understand the concept of comics? Your statements make me know that you do not deem the comics from AiG as really comical, either, but serious attacks. It is in the heart of AiG and their new "operation compromise" is the evidence of the fruit that is in their hearts. No, AiG does not understand comics because to them, it is too real.

So my indignation is about the petty attack on a great christian scholar who did NOT resort to the same, and the hypocrisy of Ross and his supporters whinging about YECs -- who have NEVER mocked OECs by name in that way.
You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. You should just drop it, it is not good for your image.

(but I see you are in the green again, your long silence has helped, no?)

~Charleen

[Socratism]

I recently read Hugh Ross's book, "Creation and Time", and was shocked and disappointed at the way he misrepresented, and in some cases mocked, the young earth position that so many people in this country subscribe to (perhaps because they believe what the Bible says?).

I don't think Christians should do things like that to their brothers and sisters in Christ.

[kuboes1831]

Soc

That is the pot calling the kettle black. Further I am sickened by attacks emanating from AIG on other Christians. Please put your house in order and learn some Christian love

[Socratism]

Soc

That is the pot calling the kettle black. Further I am sickened by attacks emanating from AIG on other Christians. Please put your house in order and learn some Christian love
Was that aimed at me or Socrates? I have no relationship with AIG.

If me I would like to know what I have said in the past that prompted your unwarranted comparison of what I said versus what Ross said in his book about young earth creationists.

It is Christian love to point out cases where a Christian has said in print things that are not true or are distortions of the truth. That is what I did in my post.

It is not loving to keep one's mouth shut and say nothing, particularly on a thread whose topic is this one.

[Jorge]

I recently read Hugh Ross's book, "Creation and Time", and was shocked and disappointed at the way he misrepresented, and in some cases mocked, the young earth position that so many people in this country subscribe to (perhaps because they believe what the Bible says?).I couldn't agree more. One of the many examples possible has to be how Ross promotes that a "long-ages" interpretation is the simplest reading of Genesis. That is simply preposterous! I watched Ross debate Hovind on the J. Ankerberg Show and on several ocassions Ross repeated that if a person (even up to 5,000 people!) read Genesis for the first time, most of them (up to all!) would conclude that the 'days' refers to 'long ages' and not to 'literal' days. If that is as Ross says, then I'll confess right here and now that I require remedial reading comprehension.

Jorge

[Socrates]

So the almost bald guy in the AiG cartoons is not Ross? You are funny.

What cartoons do you mean? You'll have to ask AiG --- but for goodness's sake, there are heaps of bald men in the world -- only paranoid Ross devotees would think it has anything to do with Ross. :noid:

Last I checked, the comic was a in a book published for Jr. High ...

But Charleen would squawk noisily at AiG if they published a cartoon with Ross portrayed in a dunce cap with "ask me about Amway" and counting on his toes, the hypocrite.

... and the point had nothing with taking the moral high ground.

Oh, but Ross and his devotees love to try to take it. Yet another example of the double standards so typical of anti-YECs -- there's one rule for YECs and another for our enemies.

You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. You should just drop it, it is not good for your image.

:shoot: No, you should admit that Ross crossed the line, otherwise it's even worse for your image than your uncritical defence of him already is.

[A Beautiful Truth]

What cartoons do you mean? You'll have to ask AiG --- but for goodness's sake, there are heaps of bald men in the world -- only paranoid Ross devotees would think it has anything to do with Ross. :noid:

You are funny!

[Socrates]

Habakkuk refers to the earth as ancient, and Peter refers to it as old...
Here's a parody:

Socrates: materials superconduct only at very cold temperatures, well below freezing.

Charleen: No way -- they can work under a blowtorch -- haven't you heard of high temperature superconductors? Below freezing is not a high temperature!

Soc: This is referring to certain copper oxide superconductors that become superconducting at about 90 K or more. This is a very high temperature relative to other superconducting materials -- several times as high -- but it's still 180 celsius degrees below freezing, not blowtorch temperatures. Remember, terms like "hot" and "cold" are relative terms.

Charleen: Sorry, you're wrong -- they are called high temperature superconductors, and below freezing is just not a high temperature, while a blowtorch is. You're denying the plain meaning of the term "high temperature".

[A Beautiful Truth]

Here's a parody:

Socrates: materials superconduct only at very cold temperatures, well below freezing.

Charleen: No way -- they can work under a blowtorch -- haven't you heard of high temperature superconductors? Below freezing is not a high temperature!

Soc: This is referring to certain copper oxide superconductors that become superconducting at about 90 K or more. This is a very high temperature relative to other superconducting materials -- several times as high -- but it's still 180 celsius degrees below freezing, not blowtorch temperatures. Remember, terms like "hot" and "cold" are relative terms.

Charleen: Sorry, you're wrong -- they are called high temperature superconductors, and below freezing is just not a high temperature, while a blowtorch is. You're denying the plain meaning of the term "high temperature".

You are not making a mocking comic depiction of me, are you Soc? But I am a "saint" in the Lord's eyes, how could you? Why don't you put me in a dunce cap and write "Ask me about Amway" on it so that I can get really offended! :wink:

[burgy]

[QUOTE=Socrates]Exactly. So how on earth do you excuse Ross portraying him as a dunce?{/quote}

I agree with Socrates that the cartoon of Bishop Ussher was both stupid and in poor taste. It was also a wholly unwarrented attack of one who, being gone, cannot defend himself.

It was also poor tactics, IMHO.

Ubi caritas