Evidence for God from Science

jlay,

Great reference. I searched bonobos and that's the first time I heard that. I'm going to look into that further.

We aren't dealing with science here are we? Maybe a sect of scientism that has enjoyed and is now protecting its, till recently, unchallenged status.

A question for the OEC.

Why do you trust the "scientific community" on old earth ideology?

... yet on the other hand you reject the exact same "scientific community" when they declare goo to you undirected evolution?

Who's deciding when to stick with secular orthodoxy and when to reject it?

Adam_777 wrote:jlay,

Great reference. I searched bonobos and that's the first time I heard that. I'm going to look into that further.

We aren't dealing with science here are we? Maybe a sect of scientism that has enjoyed and is now protecting its, till recently, unchallenged status.

A question for the OEC.

Why do you trust the "scientific community" on old earth ideology?

... yet on the other hand you reject the exact same "scientific community" when they declare goo to you undirected evolution?

Who's deciding when to stick with secular orthodoxy and when to reject it?

Why do you assume that it is all or nothing? Why do you assume that accepting an old earth ideology is based primarily upon science when you've been told repeatedly that OEC relies upon a literal rendering of Genesis?

How many times have you been told in this thread that Science is corallary for the OEC position and yet you continue to erect this same strawman argument?

This is a cool seminar given by someone who ran the gamut of belief from atheism to finally receiving the Biblical truth that God did what He said and his smoking gun for his conclusions is the veracity of scripture compared to the weak self refuting nature of Old Earth/Evolution ideology.

He was converted by the evidence for Young Earth Creation.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 8540143&ei

Canuckster1127 wrote:How many times have you been told in this thread that Science is corallary for the OEC position and yet you continue to erect this same strawman argument?

Saying it, doesn't make it true, my friend. I was converted from the OEC view once the poor "science" (if you even want to call it that) was shown for what it is. I'm a draftsman. I can't just dream of how things could have worked in an imaginary science fiction way. I have to design things that actually work. The Old Earth view has so many Mac Truck sized holes in it that it is almost a compliment to call it science fiction.

Adam_777 wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:How many times have you been told in this thread that Science is corallary for the OEC position and yet you continue to erect this same strawman argument?

Saying it, doesn't make it true, my friend. I was converted from the OEC view once the poor "science" (if you even want to call it that) was shown for what it is. I'm a draftsman. I can't just dream of how things could have worked in an imaginary science fiction way. I have to design things that actually work. The Old Earth view has so many Mac Truck sized holes in it that it is almost a compliment to call it science fiction.

Again, repeating your position isn't a refutation.

Let's cut to the chase. It sounds to me like you're equating OEC with any position that holds to an old earth.

To show me that you understand what an OEC position is, why don't you define it for me as you believe an OEC adherent would define it. That shouldn't be difficult for you, since you claim to have been one in the past.

I would say Hugh Ross is the most Scientifically equated adherent/defender but my understanding is that the days of Genesis are expanses of time either isolated to the first four days described in Genesis or the whole week. Hugh Ross teaches that we evolved from soulless hominids. While he doesn't prescribe to the overarching theory of evolution. He does prescribe to portions that he feels lines up with the fossil record but he's not real clear on where he draws the line.

Some people think that Genesis must be taken as allegory to describe the refusal of God's command and that Adam and Eve are probably figurative of a Human condition and not actual people. Noah's Ark while possibly real was more likely a preaching platform and also allegorical to point to the ark of salvation. Most if not all Day Ager/OEC Christians are committed to a local flood and reject the Global flood based on the problems this would pose because of the accepted orthodoxy of the fossil record. Are you going to give me any credit or are you intent on nit-picking?

Adam_777 wrote:I would say Hugh Ross is the most Scientifically equated adherent/defender but my understanding is that the days of Genesis are expanses of time either isolated to the first four days described in Genesis or the whole week. Hugh Ross teaches that we evolved from soulless hominids. While he doesn't prescribe to the overarching theory of evolution. He does prescribe to portions that he feels lines up with the fossil record but he's not real clear on where he draws the line.

Some people think that Genesis must be taken as allegory to describe the refusal of God's command and that Adam and Eve are probably figurative of a Human condition and not actual people. Noah's Ark while possibly real was more likely a preaching platform and also allegorical to point to the ark of salvation. Most if not all Day Ager/OEC Christians are committed to a local flood and reject the Global flood based on the problems this would pose because of the accepted orthodoxy of the fossil record. Are you going to give me any credit or are you intent on nit-picking?

1. OEC is not personality driven nor is Hugh Ross the founder or primary proponent. OEC is not rooted in modern science as it has existed throughout church history going back to the very earliest church fathers and maintaining a presence throughout all of church history.

2. OEC does not equate to evolution. Theistic evolution is in the mind of some a subset of OEC but it is not representative of the entire movement.

3. OEC does not take Genesis as an allegory nor do a large percentage of people interpret Noah's ark as you suggest. The primary interpretation of Genesis in terms of the application of the word "yom" is a matter of hermeneutics not a question of myth or allegory.

4. The fossil record is not an issue with regard to OEC as, has been stated to you repeatedly, OEC is based upon a literal scriptural hermeneutic and has been present since well before many of the issues you're attempting through guilt by association type rhetorical arguments that any reasonably educated person can see almost immediately for what they are.

Your explanation employs negative points, innuendos and demonstrates in my opinion, a very limited, biased and narrow understanding of OEC and while you're free to claim that you were once OEC, it leaves me thinking that you don't have a very strong understanding of it all.

Call that nitpicking as you wish, but it appears to me that you're simply here to argue, attack and cheerlead for a position that I don't doubt you believe sincerely. The methods of argument, the misrepresentations and the unwillingness to engage in a give or take that demonstrates even a minimal respect for those whom you are speaking to, on a site which is giving you a great deal of lattitude. Couple that with an inability to even neutrally define the position you're attacking, when asked politely to do so, and I find your responses quite revealing and not highly flattering to the viability of your position or your knowledge of the issues involved.

Other than that, it's a great definition.

Adam_777,

Hugh Ross teaches that we evolved from soulless hominids.

This is a lie. As someone who has spoken to Dr. Ross both in person and over the Phone, read his books (including Who Was Adam?) and has followed his ministry for 15+ years, I know for a fact that is a lie. What was your source?

Was Noah's flood a local event? Yes. I get that from the Bible.

Was the building of the ark a preaching platform? Yes (Hebrews 11:7; 2 Peter 2:5).

Did the flood kill all humans? yes

Were Adam and Eve the literal first two humans? Yes

Were things like Neanderthals human? No. We have over 12 mtDNA samples and at least one nearly completed nuclear DNA sample that shows they were not human.

All of the yom are long periods of time. Hebrews four says we can still join God in His seventh day.

dayage wrote:Adam_777,

Hugh Ross teaches that we evolved from soulless hominids.

This is a lie. As someone who has spoken to Dr. Ross both in person and over the Phone, read his books (including Who Was Adam?) and has followed his ministry for 15+ years, I know for a fact that is a lie. What was your source?

Uh, Hugh Ross. I've heard him discuss it more than once. He gets confronted about it in this debate:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 120#p63654

Hugh Ross seems to stay intentionally ambiguous so maybe he means something other then what it sounds like he's saying. I always find it disturbing when he talks about the universal flood in the hopes that it doesn't get questioned. No offense, but he always seems like he's trying to cover his tracks verses digging in and really allowing the truth to speak for itself.

Adam_777,

Uh, Hugh Ross. I've heard him discuss it more than once. He gets confronted about it in this debate:

I have that whole debate. Link me to the one where he says we evolved.

I always find it disturbing when he talks about the universal flood in the hopes that it doesn't get questioned. No offense, but he always seems like he's trying to cover his tracks verses digging in and really allowing the truth to speak for itself.

Really, tell me what you have heard him say. Where did you hear him?

dayage wrote:I have that whole debate. Link me to the one where he says we evolved.

Well, that's the rub. He goes to great lengths not to use certain terms but when he's talking about the bipedal hominids that came before Adam and the nature of his analysis of the fossil record the parallels are uncanny. I admit I infer it from the way he talks but like I said, he often resides in a very ambiguous mind set.

I'm open to additional information but I'm not talking from a second hand position. I've looked at his talks first hand and the critiques of his positions. I haven't found say, John McArthur's book "The Battle for the Beginning" dishonest where he critiques Hugh Ross' often difficult to discern statements:



This book is an excellent read if you ever get your hands on it.

dayage wrote:Really, tell me what you have heard him say. Where did you hear him?

You can get his seminars online. I liked this talk it's interesting. John Lennox does a great job at the end and He is one who sides with you guys:

//bethinking.org/download/player/ross-lloyd-lennox-on-genesis-1-3

Adam_777 wrote:

dayage wrote:I have that whole debate. Link me to the one where he says we evolved.

Well, that's the rub. He goes to great lengths not to use certain terms but when he's talking about the bipedal hominids that came before Adam and the nature of his analysis of the fossil record the parallels are uncanny. I admit I infer it from the way he talks but like I said, he often resides in a very ambiguous mind set.

I'm open to additional information but I'm not talking from a second hand position. I've looked at his talks first hand and the critiques of his positions. I haven't found say, John McArthur's book "The Battle for the Beginning" dishonest where he critiques Hugh Ross' often difficult to discern statements:



This book is an excellent read if you ever get your hands on it.

dayage wrote:Really, tell me what you have heard him say. Where did you hear him?

You can get his seminars online. I liked this talk it's interesting. John Lennox does a great job at the end and He is one who sides with you guys:

//bethinking.org/download/player/ross-lloyd-lennox-on-genesis-1-3

Adam,

You seem to be doing the exact same thing you accuse Ross of doing, skirting the details and just offering more links as rebuttals. Why don't you provide specifics as to what Ross said and exactly where you disagree with him. I spent an hour yesterday listening to a link you (or jlay I'm not sure) provided (the biologist turned YEC Christian) and it was an hour wasted as nothing of any value was discussed other than the usual gibberish we hear from YECers how we're not Christian because we don't believe God could have done it in 6 days.

Byblos wrote:You seem to be doing the exact same thing you accuse Ross of doing, skirting the details and just offering more links as rebuttals.

It's not an excuse. I admit I infer it. Like I said I'm open to correction. It just seems that in certain areas Hugh kind of avoids the implications of what he's saying, so no he never directly addresses or endorses evolution but some of his language seems suspicious to me. I'll say simply that that is my opinion because I can recognize that in a way I'm arguing from silence. Is that good?

Byblos wrote:I spent an hour yesterday listening to a link you (or jlay I'm not sure) provided (the biologist turned YEC Christian) and it was an hour wasted as nothing of any value was discussed other than the usual gibberish we hear from YECers how we're not Christian because we don't believe God could have done it in 6 days.

This is down right slanderous and dishonest. The YEC position never says that you must believe a young earth to be a Christian because Jesus doesn't say that. We hold that the OEC position is exegetically unbiblical, illogical, and short on evidence but you don't have to be logically consistent to be saved, and we should all praise Jesus for that.

Would you please retract the above statement?