Evidence for God from Science

There is a reason Hovind did jail time. I would not carelessly continue to lump Ham and Hovind together as is being done.

Hovind had some good info and points (and bad ones), but he was an arrogant condescending punk, who liked to laugh at his own jokes and not pay his bills. He gave a big black eye to YECers everywhere.

RickD wrote:

Gman wrote:

RickD wrote:I see what you're saying about their strong beliefs. I guess they(Hovind and Ham) just don't come across as humble and loving and patient with their views. It seems to me that Hugh Ross tells people the reasons why he believes what he does. Hovind and Ham seem to try to "convince" people and change peoples' minds in the flesh instead of letting the Holy Spirit do His work.

I can't see how being OEC or YEC would effect one's salvation. Hovind and Ham say they adhere to a strict interpretation of the Bible but when you study it further, you find that they don't.

The years I've debated this topic on this forum, however, I would say that the YEC camp predominately does believe that your interpretation of Genesis or creation does in fact effect one's salvation. No all, but the majority I've encountered do even calling it satanic...

I still remember that debate between Ham and Ross. Ham was stoned faced the entire time and didn't even crack a smile once. A very strange individual.

Yes, Gman, that is exactly what Message I've been getting from those 2 yec's.

I'd go so far to say that there is an element of YEC belief, that elevates literalism and their particular hermeneutical approach to an almost gnostic like religious system that resembles a cult more than orthodox historical christianity. Note that I'm not saying all YECs fall in that category. Some however have taken their approach to Scripture and made it in effect, a fourth member of the trinity to where there is no room for honest disagreement, prayerful consideration and one gets the feeling that there's an unstated (even stated at times) belief that any who do not agree with them down the lowest jot and tittle are in danger of hell fire and not saved.

RickD wrote:Yes, Gman, that is exactly what Message I've been getting from those 2 yec's.

I would say it's predominant in the YEC camp but not everywhere. I've also lost a few of my Christian buddies when they found I was OEC at my church.

Here is another interesting thing. The view that God created a world under the 2nd law of thermodynamics where there is decay or natural death. Many, many people struggle in this area. Even Darwin couldn't handle it...

“I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae (parasitic wasp) with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice." Charles Darwin —letter to Asa Gray.

I've even heard Christians calling God evil for setting it up this way and that they couldn't worship that. Can you imagine that? I sure would be careful before I made such an accusation about God and His plans.

I really think that this article by Rich sets the record straight...

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... hK1UgUeKuA

Enjoy..

We have to be strong in our faith.. And strong enough to believe in Him whatever he throws at you...

jlay wrote:There is a reason Hovind did jail time. I would not carelessly continue to lump Ham and Hovind together as is being done.

Hovind had some good info and points (and bad ones), but he was an arrogant condescending punk, who liked to laugh at his own jokes and not pay his bills. He gave a big black eye to YECers everywhere.

jlay, I only lumped Ham and Hovind together because they both doubted Ross' salvation. That was all I was saying. They both judged his beliefs before actually knowing what he believed.

Gman wrote:

RickD wrote:Yes, Gman, that is exactly what Message I've been getting from those 2 yec's.

I would say it's predominant in the YEC camp but not everywhere. I've also lost a few of my Christian buddies when they found I was OEC at my church.

Here is another interesting thing. The view that God created a world under the 2nd law of thermodynamics where there is decay or natural death. Many, many people struggle in this area. Even Darwin couldn't handle it...

Gman, the 2nd law of thermodynamics was one of the main reasons I started to lean towards oec. The responses I heard from yec's about that seemed very weak to me.

Gman wrote:We have to be strong in our faith.. And strong enough to believe in Him whatever he throws at you...

Gman, that is my point about Ham and Hovind, especially Hovind. They are so defensive that they don't come across as secure in their faith. If someone is a secure Christian he/she doesn't need to "prove" anything.

RickD wrote:Gman, that is my point about Ham and Hovind, especially Hovind. They are so defensive that they don't come across as secure in their faith. If someone is a secure Christian he/she doesn't need to "prove" anything.

Yes exactly.. As Bart was saying earlier, almost "cult" or a "kid like" faith... Complete with hissy fits.

Ham doubted his salvation. I haven't heard this before. Can you share a link? Thx.

Gman wrote:I still remember that debate between Ham and Ross. Ham was stoned faced the entire time and didn't even crack a smile once. A very strange individual.

You can say that again! You mean this debate-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vr_tqEEQ ... re=related

A ten part series well worth watching. Ken Ham was stony-faced and angry the whole time. Hugh Ross and Walter Kaiser were polite and articulate throughout, showing amazing grace in their patience with the interrupting and rude Ham throughout the series. Ham was also full of contradictions, first decrying anything that was not written and then appealing to unwritten interpretations as the series goes on…This series is very telling.

touchingcloth wrote:

zoegirl wrote:He's already said that he leans towards OEC

Old or young creationism is a crock of unscientific nonsense...YEC more so.

Tc, do you believe the universe had a starting point?

jlay wrote:Ham doubted his salvation. I haven't heard this before. Can you share a link? Thx.

It's in the link quoted by DannyM. Kinda long, but well worth the time. This is what I was referring to when I said Ham was defensive, and really didn't know what Ross believed about Adam's fall. Ham doubted Ross' salvation before knowing what he believed.

In fairness, when I googled and searched for a direct quote on this issues, I did find at least once where Ham or an author on Answers in Genesis specifically stated that they did not doubt Ross' salvation.

However, there are also multiple cases where there are statements made about Ross or about OEC in general that brusg right against the issue by claiming that Rodd or OECers by their beliefs are undermining the inpiration of Scripture which they see as then undermining the doctrine of salvation which in their view is rooted primarily in the Bible.

It makes one wonder if and how anyone was saved before canonization were complete.

It's something of a dance. Despite the occassional disclaimer there's a constant repeating and equating that the creation account must be taken as scientifically literal or else every other major doctrine in Scripture is undermined.

Canuckster1127 wrote:In fairness, when I googled and searched for a direct quote on this issues, I did find at least once where Ham or an author on Answers in Genesis specifically stated that they did not doubt Ross' salvation.

However, there are also multiple cases where there are statements made about Ross or about OEC in general that brusg right against the issue by claiming that Rodd or OECers by their beliefs are undermining the inpiration of Scripture which they see as then undermining the doctrine of salvation which in their view is rooted primarily in the Bible.

It makes one wonder if and how anyone was saved before canonization were complete.

It's something of a dance. Despite the occassional disclaimer there's a constant repeating and equating that the creation account must be taken as scientifically literal or else every other major doctrine in Scripture is undermined.

Canuckster, that debate is fairly old, so maybe Ham has since changed his mind about Ross being a sincere Christian. Or maybe since the debate, Ham actually listened to what Ross believes about the doctrine of salvation. I think a lot of the problem came from the belief of Ross that death of animals and plants before Adam's fall didn't change the doctrine of salvation. Ham believed(not sure if he still believes) that any death before Adam's sin would change the doctrine of salvation.

I'm not aware of any modifications or changes from Ham.

It was actually a little painful watching Ham attempting to argue OT with Walt Kaiser. Kaiser has quite literally probably forgotten more than Ham will ever know with regard to OT language and cultural studies. I don't say that as a personal swipe at Ham, but Ham is trained in science. His basis for authority and personal knowledge is clearly based in his predetermining his position and then going looking for books and others who already support that position and then repeating his position over and over and I did not see very much evidence in the context of that conversation that there was any openess on his part to actually listen to what Kaiser was telling him.