Evidence for God from Science

Gman wrote:

DannyM wrote:

RickD wrote:

DannyM wrote:Is that it? Was anybody listening to Pastore's earlier discussion with Ron Rhodes?

1 hour isn't enough time to discuss this. We need more debates. Although, everything that was discussed tonight, was discussed in the Ankerberg debates.

Yeah, been there done that! Pastore did say that he intends to do more similar shows, so you guys keep your ears open over there and post them up, yes?

I agree that it should have been longer... But there where some interesting points here and there. I've got the Ankerberg debates, however there where a few different points in this discussion.. About Pastore... We will keep our ears open, but hopefully dayage will give us a heads up again..

Thanks again dayage..

RickD wrote: Gman, What did you hear that was different in this discussion? I didn't hear anything new discussed. Maybe I missed something. Oh, I do remember something new. At the beginning of the debate, Lisle said clearly that he doesn't doubt Ross' salvation. I think that's an important fact to point out.

dayage wrote:Hey everyone,

I agree it should be longer. Dr. Ross has debated a number of young-earth creationists over the years. I have most of the recordings. It was frustrating to me that Dr. Lisle did not seem to want to debate science, just the Bible. This is something I've noticed a lot about Answers in Genesis. They do not believe that science can tell us anything about the past, only the Bible can talk about the past. This is their fall-back position when Humphreys and others try to put forth young-earth scientific models which fail.

Gman wrote:

dayage wrote:Hey everyone,

I agree it should be longer. Dr. Ross has debated a number of young-earth creationists over the years. I have most of the recordings. It was frustrating to me that Dr. Lisle did not seem to want to debate science, just the Bible. This is something I've noticed a lot about Answers in Genesis. They do not believe that science can tell us anything about the past, only the Bible can talk about the past. This is their fall-back position when Humphreys and others try to put forth young-earth scientific models which fail.

I think that Jason from AIG made that very clear dayage... And, if anything, that science was a distortion of the Bible...

RickD wrote: I am finding that to be true. The part about Lisle and science. I just watched a video of the creation museum. A British reporter was interviewing Lisle about how the museum has a model of children and dinosaurs together. The interviewer asked (while rolling his eyes)if Lisle actually believed that people lived with dinosaurs. Lisle basically said that despite what science says, The Bible says it's true, so we have to believe it. I get the impression that no matter what truth hit him over the head, Lisle would never change his interpretation of the Bible. An unbeliever is looking at Lisle as a joke because the unbeliever knows that science doesn't backup Lisle's beliefs. So, Lisle is saying that if we don't believe his interpretation of Genesis, we can't believe the rest of the Bible. Sadly, people are "throwing away " the rest of the Bible because they can't believe Lisle's interpretation.

dayage wrote:Hey everyone,

I agree it should be longer. Dr. Ross has debated a number of young-earth creationists over the years. I have most of the recordings. It was frustrating to me that Dr. Lisle did not seem to want to debate science, just the Bible. This is something I've noticed a lot about Answers in Genesis. They do not believe that science can tell us anything about the past, only the Bible can talk about the past. This is their fall-back position when Humphreys and others try to put forth young-earth scientific models which fail.

REVISITING CHURCH HISTORY
Duncan and Hall cite numerous sources to support their 24-hour inter-
pretation. Unfortunately, they fail to prove their case, mostly because of
faulty scholarship.

Sir Isaac Newton
Duncan and Hall, for example, quote Sir Isaac Newton to "support" their
case for a 24-hour interpretation of the Genesis days. The quotation they
cite is a brief excerpt of a six-page letter written in 1680 or 168P Appar-
ently, Duncan and Hall did not peruse the entire letter or Newton's other
writings to determine what he meant. They assert that "clearly Newton
viewed [the creation days] as normal days." In the same paragraph from
which they quote, however, Newton writes, "Now for ye number and length
of ye six days: by what is said above you may make ye first day as long as
you please, and ye second day too."? Also in that same paragraph, Newton
goes on to suggest that Earth's first rotation, occurring he thought on the
third creation day, took at least one year to complete.
In the following paragraph, Newton attributes the generation of the
hills and mountains to gradual, natural processes. He also acknowledges
that his contemporaries employ Proverbs 8:25, Job 15:7, and Psalm 90:2
to establish the antiquity of the earth," but he apparently sees little need
for such proof texts because the fact is so obvious. In this letter and other
writings," Newton expresses his "day-age" view and indicates that others
in his peer group shared it.

The Church Fathers
Just as we dispute Duncan and Hall's reliance upon Newton, so we dispute
their reliance upon earlier Church history. Duncan and Hall depict the
creation-day debate as an artifact of Darwinian theory, specifically of the
attempt of theologians to accommodate it. Actually, as we mention when
we establish our interpretive case for the day-age view later in this vol-
ume, the 24-hour interpreters ironically rest far more heavily than Dar-
winists ever have on Darwinian theory to explain hypothesized speciation
in the eras since the Fall of man and the Genesis Flood.
The 24-hour creationists repeatedly and emphatically identify their view
as uniquely "traditional," "orthodox," "literal," and "classical." Duncan and
Hall begin their argument by stating that scientific issues only, not exegeti-
cal ones, drive the day-age interpretation.
Ample documentation supports our claim that the early Church fa-
thers did indeed discuss the when of creation (in addition to the Who, the
how, and the order)." Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Lactantius, Victorinus of
Pettau, and Methodius of Olympus all explicitly endorse six consecutive
thousand-year periods for the Genesis creation days.!" According to
Ambrose, so did Hippolytus. Though uncertain about the duration of the
creation week, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Augustine explicitly
rejected the 144-hour notion."
As they did with Newton, Duncan and Hall quote selectively from
Basil and Ambrose. They choose words that seem to show unequivocal
support for their interpretation. However, further research into the writ-
ings of Basil and Ambrose reveals that they wrestled with the issue and
struggled with ambiguity. In the same passages, they wrote of "ages" for
creation. l2
Duncan and Hall also cast Luther, Calvin, and the framers of The
"westminster Confession as dogmatic, 24-hour creationists. While many of
these men espoused a 24-hour-day view, they focused their certainty on
the Who, the how, and the what of creation. As detailed as it is on the
subject of creation, for example, The Westminster Confession never specifies
the length of the creation days. While it teaches that God created in the
space of six days, it simply mirrors the language of Scripture at that point.
Thus, Duncan and Hall beg the question by assuming that the days neces-
sarily are 24 hours long. The key question is, What does Scripture mean
when it says that God made the heavens and the earth in six days?
It seems reasonable to conclude that the timing of creation had little
doctrinal or apologetic significance until scientists uncovered evidence for
the antiquity of the universe, earth, and life. Only after these discoveries
does the when of creation become an important evangelistic issue, one worthy
of in-depth analysis. -p 68