Good christian site on astronomy

[learning]

Hi, I get a newsletter from this site, and find it very educational in explaining what is going on in the night sky, and since some things will be happening in the next few months, that one won't be able to see for another decade or so , I thought I'ld mention this site if you want to look it up and sign up for their monthy newsletter.

www.classicalastronomy.com

I do not know where they stand on the age of the earth, I just know they know their stars and bring a lot of history and interesting facts to light.

[A-Man]

Thanks Learning, its a way cool website!

[apologetics]

Here is another great resource for astronomy information:

Hugh Ross's Reasons to Believe (http://www.reasons.org/index.shtml)

Ross is an old earth creationist and an evil man....just ask Ken Ham :wink:

A great website!

[One Bad Pig]

Hi, I get a newsletter from this site, and find it very educational in explaining what is going on in the night sky, and since some things will be happening in the next few months, that one won't be able to see for another decade or so , I thought I'ld mention this site if you want to look it up and sign up for their monthy newsletter.

www.classicalastronomy.com

I do not know where they stand on the age of the earth, I just know they know their stars and bring a lot of history and interesting facts to light.
Interesting site. I'm not sure I agree with their assessment of the demise of classical astronomy. I learned classical astronomy in 8th grade (I think we spent a quarter of the year on it) in a public high school. In college (Penn State), the vast majority of the people who took an astronomy class learned classical astronomy. I skipped the basic classes in favor of earning my way to a minor in astronomy. That didn't get me out of learning classical astronomy, though; I just got a hypercondensed version of it. One of the things I learned to do was tell time by knowing the stellar coordinates of a star in view and my latitude and longitude.

[dizzle]

Apologetics that was an uncool statement about Ken Ham. Let's deal with specific criticisms and see if they are valid. I find Ross' article on the alleged gnosticism amongst other nasty alleged implicaitons of YEC completely out of line.

I can be honest when I think YEC say uncool things as well.

[apologetics]

Apologetics that was an uncool statement about Ken Ham. Let's deal with specific criticisms and see if they are valid. I find Ross' article on the alleged gnosticism amongst other nasty alleged implicaitons of YEC completely out of line.

I can be honest when I think YEC say uncool things as well.

DDW,

C'mon! Firstly, it was a joke. Secondly, Ham and his staff personally attack Ross gleefully when given any chance. Ross, to my knowledge, has not recipricated. He might criticize YEC, but he does not do it nearly as vociferously as does AiG and Ken Ham. AiG has elevated the age of the earth and belief in YEC to the level of essential doctrine and in doing so have set up a false dichotomy. You either believe the Bible or you believe in billions of years and the Big Bang. This is ludicrious. The age of the earth is not even close to essential Christian doctrine. AiG has done a "Hugh Ross Expose," they have called him the "enemy" within. The ENEMY??? They have called his "teachings" (which they always italicize, casting a subtle invective upon him) "Bible-undermining." They actually equate their position to Biblical inerrancy, leaving Ross, I guess, to play the role of the apocrapha. Some of today's most brilliant scholars are OEC. Three that pop into my head right off: William Lane Craig, J. P. Moreland and Norm Geisler. AiG claims that Ross's teachings violate "the plain teachings of Genesis." PLAIN? Please! If the case were nearly as nicely shut as they would have us believe, this would not be a debate that has raged so hot for so long.

Simply put: Aig and Ken Ham are obsessed with Hugh Ross. They view him as public enemy number ONE. Ross might have made some disparaging comments about YEC as a whole (which I disagree with, as well), but he is not preoccupied with Ken Ham, regardless of Ham's feelings about him. Doing a search of "Hugh Ross" on AiG's website brings up 145 HITS!. "Obsessed" might not be strong enough.

As I have noted elsewhere....I am not necessary OEC. I think both sides have their valid points. However, what AiG espouses runs contrary to the findings of modern science more times than not. I apologize if the comment was out-of-line, however, I just don't see that it was.

[potato sundae]

does anyone else notice how this topic seems to set people on edge??:teeth:


check out this article, i found it quite nice
http://rossolson.org/creation/peace_proposal.html

[kofh2u]

Hi, I get a newsletter from this site, and find it very educational in explaining what is going on in the night sky, and since some things will be happening in the next few months, that one won't be able to see for another decade or so , I thought I'ld mention this site if you want to look it up and sign up for their monthy newsletter.

www.classicalastronomy.com

I do not know where they stand on the age of the earth, I just know they know their stars and bring a lot of history and interesting facts to light.

WAY COOL...

THE SIGN OF THE SON OF MAN WILL BE SEEN IN THE HEAVENS!


The Seven Day Adventist ought check with these guys! Their reading of Daniel and Revelation predicting the Second Coming in 1844-45 AD, AND it was marked by the sign...

... only they never noticed!

ANY SEVEN DAYERS OUT THERE?


While William Miller was not directly associated with the formation of the present Church of the Seven Day Adventists, they trace their roots to faith in his argument.

He had predicted the appearance of the “Expected One.” Using the Book of Daniel and the Book of Revelation, Miller set 1844 as the date for the appearance of the Christian Messiah.

The crowd of people (@100,000) whom his words excited, thought a person was coming. They sold all worldly goods, and, in anticipation, many gave away their goods, settled their accounts, and disposed of their property.

When the mystery of the prophecy did not end as they believed it should, vast numbers lost all interest in Adventism. Those who continued to believe that Miller had correctly calculated the event, reevaluated what he had said. They looked at the implied meanings.

Their reinterpretation, by those Adventist still intent and remaining convinced Miller was correct, said that the prediction meant a spiritual "entering into" of The Most Holy of Holies. Jesus would not have actually come physical at that time.

Furthering their previous miscalculations, they awaited a calculated date, @1930 , for the “coming out” of the Messiah from this heavenly sanctuary. No further revisions seem to have been made by the Adventist to this date. Bango! Another sign in heaven! They missedbthis one also.

Yet, where is he?

My answer is in the form of an astronomical analogy: (remember, I say, ASTRO-NOMICAL)

[apologetics]

does anyone else notice how this topic seems to set people on edge??:teeth:


check out this article, i found it quite nice
http://rossolson.org/creation/peace_proposal.html

Who's on edge here? :shifty:

:grin:

Yes, I have noticed this....this is why I generally attempt to completely avoid the topic. Many Christians (I have found this to be much more true with the YEC than with the OEC, but it does exist there, too) believe somehow that your belief in the age of the earth is essential doctrine upon which your salvation hangs. Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis is this exact type of group. It has made the reading of their material almost completely impossible for me...though they do present very valid points quite often.

This debate does get polarized quite quickly. I enjoyed that link and have attempted to maintain this approach. The fact that should be pounded into the head of every Christian is this: BOTH views show the implausibility of naturalistic evolution. An effort should be made for both sides to understand this, accumulate all the information you can on the subject and use it to defend the faith when given the chance.

[One Bad Pig]

Many Christians (I have found this to be much more true with the YEC than with the OEC, but it does exist there, too) believe somehow that your belief in the age of the earth is essential doctrine upon which your salvation hangs. Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis is this exact type of group.
No, they're not. Ken Ham believes that OEC tends to undermine the church's credibility over time, but he doesn't hang salvation on YEC.

[apologetics]

No, they're not. Ken Ham believes that OEC tends to undermine the church's credibility over time, but he doesn't hang salvation on YEC.

Let's have a little sampling of what AiG says about this issue. This is a sampling from articles from their website:

"‘AiG’s main focus is not the age of the earth, but biblical authority. The young earth is merely a corollary of this."

Through such efforts, I have noticed in recent times that many who previously embraced Ross’s teachings are now realizing how bankrupt they are—how much they undermine God’s Holy Word—and how such teaching can lead people away from the Gospel.

Because of AiG’s concern for those who have been publicly led astray by teaching that compromises God’s Word, Dr Mortenson has written a detailed critique of this article.

Ross is being quite inconsistent here. In one quick stroke of the pen, he leads his reader to disregard the ‘when’ of creation by stating that it has no bearing upon one’s relationship with Christ....And as we shall see, this ‘when’ of creation is quite foundational to one’s relationship to Christ.

A comment here: "the 'when' of creation is quite foundational to one's relationship to Christ." They have just implied here that IT DOES MATTER to one's relationship with Christ. What is at stake when speaking of one's relationship with Christ? Salvation. Seems pretty clear what they are driving at here.....

The Bible gives us the real reason that these academics will not carefully consider the Gospel. It is not fear, but rebellion against their Creator. They love the darkness of their unrighteousness rather than the light of the God’s holy truth (John 3:19-20, Romans 1:18-23).

"These academics" refers to Hugh Ross and OEC's like himself. Who is this verse that AiG has referenced pointed toward? The unregenerate who have refused Christ......THE UNSAVED! This is not an indictment of the OEC's salvation possibilities? Please! You think differently, see what Matthew Henry states about this section of John 3:

They love darkness because they think it is an excuse for their evil deeds, and they hate the light because it robs them of the good opinion they had of themselves, by showing them their sinfulness and misery. Their case is sad, and, because they are resolved that they will not mend it, they are resolved that they will not see it. [4.] Wilful ignorance is so far from excusing sin that it will be found, at the great day, to aggravate the condemnation: This is the condemnation, this is what ruins souls, that they shut their eyes against the light, and will not so much as admit a parley with Christ and his gospel; they set God so much at defiance that they desire not the knowledge of his ways,

Young-Earth creationists (at least well-informed ones) have no such fear, because we know that (1) the Bible is the inerrant Word of God; (2) it clearly teaches young-Earth creationism, as careful exegesis and church history confirm; (3) the scientific ‘facts’ that evolutionists claim as proof of evolution or millions of years are really interpretations of selected observations, and those interpretations have been made with anti-Biblical philosophical assumptions;

They are clearly implying that YEC believes the Bible is inerrant and OEC does not. They go a step further with the closing sentence: anti-Biblical.... Is one who believes things that contradict the Bible saved in a historic Christian view of things?

[/box]Rather, evolutionary scientific theories, including old-Earth geological theory and ‘big bang’ old-universe astronomical theory (both of which Ross accepts as fact) are hopelessly flawed because of the atheistic, anti-Biblical assumptions involved. [/box]

Atheistic? Anti-Biblical? Is the picture getting any clearer here?

The cosmological ‘discoveries’ are a mixture of a few facts and an enormous amount of philosophical assumptions and atheistic interpretations.

Again, "atheistic interpretations," They are equating the OEC belief system with atheism. Atheists, by the Christian view, are NOT saved.

Christians’ faith is not built by wedding atheistic theories of history with the Bible.

Do we need any more evidence? Read that sentence very carefully. You do not have to read between the lines too much to see the powerfully implied statement.

The result is that Christians are led into error and any non-Christians who are led to Christ by Dr Ross are simultaneously led into error regarding the foundation of the Gospel that they have just believed.

So, now on top of biblically compromising, anti-biblical, atheistic philosophical presuppositions, a faith NOT built upon atheistic theories, we have the statement that OEC negatively affects the foundation of the Gospel. How are people saved? By that taught.....by the Gospel!. Notice that he said "lead to Christ," not born again or saved. Lots of people can be "lead to Christ" without ever accepting him.

The compromise reinterpretations of Genesis over the past 200 years have not caused more, but far less, people to be open to and believe the Gospel and the Scriptures.

OEC is damaging to the cause of people coming to Christ. It is actually causing MORE people NOT to be saved.

These have been just a few. There are plenty of others scattered throughout AiG's website. Ironically enough, here is an interesting except from an article entitled The dubious apologetics of Hugh Ross (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4149.asp). This section of the article is entitled, Ross's personal testimony:

Ross’s testimony is contained in nearly all of his books. The elements are essentially this. Ross was raised in a moral, but not Christian, or even religious, family. As a teenager, he became very interested in science. At the age of 15, he concluded that the big bang must be true, and that the existence of the world demanded that there be a Creator, so he began a study of religions. He decided that the one true religion should be self-consistent and that it should agree with the natural world. He began reading the Bible, starting with Genesis, and he saw that it alone met the requirements of being the one true religion. He found that the Bible contained no errors or contradictions, which led him to salvation through the blood of Jesus.

This story reflects the statements of Romans 1 regarding what is called natural revelation, and we can rejoice in his salvation. But Ross claims that as a teenager he was struck with how well the Genesis account agreed with what he knew that science had revealed about the origin of the world. That is difficult to believe. Nearly everyone who reads the Genesis creation account for the first time comes away with the strong impression that the Bible and ‘science’ have serious disagreements about origins. That is why there are so many different ways in which harmonization is attempted.

Much of Ross’s harmonization is very similar to that of the late Peter Stoner, who had a popular level book that enjoyed broad readership about the time that Ross was a teenager.48 Could it be that Stoner influenced Ross? If so, why does Ross fail to acknowledge this? Interestingly, Hugh Ross wrote the foreword to the progressive creationist book by Stoner’s grandson, which echoes Ross’s scientific sloppiness, egregious eisegesis, and general Scriptura sub scientia approach.49 Ross clearly implies that he came to his understanding of Genesis solely by his own reading of the passage. If there were any other influences that guided him, then his repeated omissions go far beyond merely misleading.

Why else would the author of this article, Danny Faulkner, have even included this section if not to question Ross's sincerity.....and possibly his salvation? It is very odd.....

If asked, I doubt Ken Ham would come right out and say, "yes, a belief in YEC is the only way to salvation," however, the implication of their articles is very clear. OEC compromises the Bible, does not believe the Bible, erodes the foundation of the Gospel and turns people AWAY from Christ. Sounds like the way most Christians feel about a cult.....and we all know that Christians don't believe cultists to be enjoying salvation.

[learning]

Hey, I didn't want to get into this kinda debate here! :) anyways, I have posted six versions of creation on the biology forum, and there are pros and cons to them all. I can only be thankful that I have come through all of this with faith that God gave back.

Jesus did say that there would be a sign in the sky before He returns, but there are a lot of other things that have to happen. Personally, I rather think that it will be a couple of hundred years from now, but that's because of the way I interpret something in Daniel, something about the number of days from when the temple will be destroyed to when it will be restored again, and I interpret that from when it was destroyed in 70 A.D., subtract 2300 from it in years (they do use days as representing years sometimes) and that's where I get that from.

But I could be way off, and it doesn't matter, Jesus said that no one would know the day or the hour, and even if we had a sort of date of year and month, we still could be off from where we live on the globe. I DO know that prophecy that Jesus made about Jerusalem has come true, and there's no way one could say that that is self fulfilling, cause the Jews that have come back to Israel, don't even follow Jesus, or a lot of them don't. But here's the prophecy, and what is next in line is Luke 21: 24-28.

"and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles is fulfilled.
There will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth dismay among nations, in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the waves, man fainting from fear and the expectation of the things which are coming upon the world; for the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
But when these things begin to take place, straighten up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near."

I read in National Geographic where they say in the next 30 years that if it stays as warm and the polar ice caps keep melting, that the waters of the oceans could rise, even causing many Pacific Island countries to drown, and I guess that could cause 'roaring of the oceans and high waves' eh?
And also, I came across a law in the Israeli Knessett, that as of July 1980, they declare that Jerusalem is their capital, that they will protect the religious sites, but that they have sovereignty over Jerusalem. I consider that a fulfillment of the prophecy in verse 24.
I don't know what the 'signs' in the sun, moon and stars would or could be.

[One Bad Pig]

Let's have a little sampling of what AiG says about this issue. This is a sampling from articles from their website:
When you quote something, please provide the source. It looks like most of this stuff is from this article (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0823ross_full.asp), not several.

A comment here: "the 'when' of creation is quite foundational to one's relationship to Christ." They have just implied here that IT DOES MATTER to one's relationship with Christ. What is at stake when speaking of one's relationship with Christ? Salvation. Seems pretty clear what they are driving at here.....
I think that the assertion is poorly worded. In plain meaning, it does imply what you say it does. However, this position is not borne out by the rest of the article, which argues that because uniformitarian theories are accepted in favor of the plain meaning of the text, it opens the door to rejecting the plain reading of scripture elsewhere.

The Bible gives us the real reason that these academics will not carefully consider the Gospel. It is not fear, but rebellion against their Creator. They love the darkness of their unrighteousness rather than the light of the God’s holy truth (John 3:19-20, Romans 1:18-23).

"These academics" refers to Hugh Ross and OEC's like himself. Who is this verse that AiG has referenced pointed toward? The unregenerate who have refused Christ......THE UNSAVED! This is not an indictment of the OEC's salvation possibilities? Please!
Surely your reading comprehension skills are not this poor. "These academics" clearly does NOT refer to OECs. The author of the article was replying to this statement by Hugh Ross:
In the anti-Christian academics we see the fear of having to take the Gospel into careful consideration. That's just too risky for those terrified by the prospect of peer ridicule and rejection, terrified to face the losses that might accompany a change to Christian values and morals through a relationship with Christ.
How is that referring to OECs?

You think differently, see what Matthew Henry states about this section of John 3:
Matthew Henry was a great man of God. However, he mis-understood a few things. I'm not finding fault with his interpretation here, but you need to find more up-to-date sources if you're going to be taken seriously here.

Young-Earth creationists (at least well-informed ones) have no such fear, because we know that (1) the Bible is the inerrant Word of God; (2) it clearly teaches young-Earth creationism, as careful exegesis and church history confirm; (3) the scientific ‘facts’ that evolutionists claim as proof of evolution or millions of years are really interpretations of selected observations, and those interpretations have been made with anti-Biblical philosophical assumptions;

They are clearly implying that YEC believes the Bible is inerrant and OEC does not. They go a step further with the closing sentence: anti-Biblical.... Is one who believes things that contradict the Bible saved in a historic Christian view of things?
They are not implying that. Read what the text was replying to:

In the Christians who remain adamantly committed to the young-earth view exists a deep-seated fear that someday, somewhere, somehow scientists will discover some fact that clearly and irrefutably contradicts a scriptural statement.
How does this imply that OEC's are not inerrantists? The "anti-Biblical" assertion is warranted, IMO. Why do people so adamantly defend the Big Bang and evolutionary theory? Because it does not require God in their eyes.

The cosmological ‘discoveries’ are a mixture of a few facts and an enormous amount of philosophical assumptions and atheistic interpretations.

Again, "atheistic interpretations," They are equating the OEC belief system with atheism. Atheists, by the Christian view, are NOT saved.
Nope. They are equating the philosophical underpinnings of uniformitarianism with atheism, and asserting is is illogical to use a theory grounded in atheism to prove theism.

If asked, I doubt Ken Ham would come right out and say, "yes, a belief in YEC is the only way to salvation," however, the implication of their articles is very clear. OEC compromises the Bible, does not believe the Bible, erodes the foundation of the Gospel and turns people AWAY from Christ. Sounds like the way most Christians feel about a cult.....and we all know that Christians don't believe cultists to be enjoying salvation.
The implication of your extended rant is that you have a deep-seated hatred of AIG. I don't agree with everything AIG puts out, but I really don't see all the implications you do. I do believe that OEC compromises the Bible to some extent, and erodes the foundation of the Gospel, which can lead to uncertainty about the Gospel (and can cause people to fall away). This is far from implying that OECs do not believe the Bible. Please try to be intellectually honest.


Hey, I didn't want to get into this kinda debate here! :) anyways, I have posted six versions of creation on the biology forum, and there are pros and cons to them all. I can only be thankful that I have come through all of this with faith that God gave back.
I didn't either. It's not a bad site, really. I just have a difficult time letting misrepresentation slide.

[apologetics]

When you quote something, please provide the source. It looks like most of this stuff is from this article (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0823ross_full.asp), not several.

Wrong! I didn't even use this article. Since I was using quotes from several articles I wasn't going to waste time citing everything. It was stated that this was AiG's website. Unless you are claiming I was making the quotes up, the source of the citations is pretty obvious.

Surely your reading comprehension skills are not this poor. "These academics" clearly does NOT refer to OECs. The author of the article was replying to this statement by Hugh Ross:

As I stated, you used an article which I did not use, therefore, your initial premise is incorrect. Secondly, from the plain reading os the statement, "These academics," it does not take a linguistic expert to understand that the emphasis is not singularly, but plurally. Plurally means more than one....Ross is one....who exactly are the others? Certainly you do not believe that they used a plural to refer to ONLY Ross. :ahem:

I didn't either. It's not a bad site, really. I just have a difficult time letting misrepresentation slide.

misrepresentation? You have hardly rebutted what I asserted, regardless of what you claim. I am not going to take any more time even debating this. The assertions stand on their own merits. A full reading of the articles....and they are plentiful....on AiG's site allows one to come to their own decision.

[Socratism]

Plurally means more than one....Ross is one....who exactly are the others? Certainly you do not believe that they used a plural to refer to ONLY Ross.

As far as I can tell this would be quite acceptable, since people are usually referring to the website of Ross, where one finds articles from many people other than Ross himself.

[One Bad Pig]

Wrong! I didn't even use this article. Since I was using quotes from several articles I wasn't going to waste time citing everything. It was stated that this was AiG's website. Unless you are claiming I was making the quotes up, the source of the citations is pretty obvious.
Either you used the article I referenced, or you used articles that copied directly from that one. I know you didn't make the quotes up. Regardless, it is considered impolite (and against Tweb policy, I might add) to quote from an article and not acknowledge the source.

As I stated, you used an article which I did not use, therefore, your initial premise is incorrect. Secondly, from the plain reading os the statement, "These academics," it does not take a linguistic expert to understand that the emphasis is not singularly, but plurally. Plurally means more than one....Ross is one....who exactly are the others? Certainly you do not believe that they used a plural to refer to ONLY Ross. :ahem:
I see your reading skills have not improved. "These academics" referred to academics that Hugh Ross talked about in his article! Read before you rant!

misrepresentation? You have hardly rebutted what I asserted, regardless of what you claim. I am not going to take any more time even debating this. The assertions stand on their own merits. A full reading of the articles....and they are plentiful....on AiG's site allows one to come to their own decision.
It is obvious from your reply that you are not looking for rebuttal. You're right, though, that a full reading of the articles on AIG's website does allow one to come to their own decision. Mine just happens to stand in stark contrast to yours.

[learning]

Do we agree that God made the stars? Does it really matter 'How'? Yes, some would say that a certain view on 'how' they are made, may take a certain interpretation of the Bible a different way, but do we agree THAT He made them? I think that is all that matters. From my study of science and timelines, it just seems that we learn different views and learn that we are wrong about some views, but science truly to be science, to me, is the study of what God made, and how, and that can change, but not THAT God made them.

"He calls the stars by name"
"He numbers the stars"
"He brings out the stars like sheep"
(this really intersts me, cause I know from observing sheep, they tend to be rounded up in a circle, and then we see pictures of gallaxies in circles!)
I know the quotes are from the Bible, but not sure exactly where, but most I think are in the Psalms.

[potato sundae]

, it just seems that we learn different views and learn that we are wrong about some views, but science truly to be science, to me, is the study of what God made, and how, and that can change, but not THAT God made them.


I totally agree...its just that sometimes these debates become, eh, heated? We all have the same stuff,you know; same stars, same bible, same God -- only viewed under a slightly different light (no two people are the same)...

[Augustine2004]

To me, one must give the Bible total authority over one's life. If you can't trust what the Bible says about Genesis -- if you follow the current scientific consenus or Ross' Reason to Believe line in the places where it seems to contradict the Bible -- how can you say that you do give the Bible total authority over your life?

Call me a Bible idolator if you want [:smile]. Sure, interpretation can be doubtful or debatable, but the AiG line seems better than that of Ross anyway.

As for peace, I am all for it. However, Paul's warning against divisiveness I take to mean warning against dividing man from God, not dividing men and women from others. Combat error even if you have to make war. Only, do keep your emotions in check. Please?

[learning]

Augustine, if you believe that their view is the closest to what God meant, that is what freedom in America means, and freedom in Christ too. But, I had lost faith in the Bible years ago, and it wasn't just this subject, but when God gave me back my faith, I actually prayed 'Give me some clear answers on this subject' and I heard that still small voice say 'I am enough'. So, for me, it seems, this subject is not all that important right now in my walk with God. I look into it from time to time because I find it interesting and like to see what's happening, but I do have confidence, thankfully, that He, God, is enough.
I know that God has spoken through His word, and I love the prophecies, though I am not always clear on those too, but isn't it wonderful that our Creator is the great 'I am' and for me, He is enough!