Evidence for God from Science

Another quote from Hovind calling Ross a heretic and going further to count his "rebuke" as the first of the three warnings in Matt 18.

Ross: Can't you understand how that just closes down discussion when you say, “Hey, if you believe in long creation days you're a heretic and should be rejected from the church”?

Hovind: I didn't say that. I said if you believe there is death before sin. Now, that doctrine I would put in the category of heresy. Believing the days are long periods of time....

Ross: But you can't disconnect that from long creation days.

Hovind: Well, you've got a good point there, so you better consider what you believe. Titus Chapter 3 says I'm supposed to warn you twice and then reject you. So here's my first warning.

Debate between Hovind and Dr Hugh Ross. Source: htttp://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArch ... 1W1001.pdf

Quote from Hovind about Dr. Stephen Meyer whom he had debated earlier.

I debated [Dr Stephen Meyer] once. He is a legend in his own mind. My understanding is he got a doctors degree from a university he started just to grant him a doctors degree. It's a university with no students and he's the president. [...] I would be glad to debate him again if we could get him to stick to the topic of Creation/Evolution but it is always ad hominem attacks.

Truth Radio 2 August 2006 @ 14:00 (Tape 1)

Canuckster1127 wrote: Debate between Hovind and Dr Hugh Ross. Source: htttp://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArch ... 1W1001.pdf

The link you posted isn't currently working. I found this debate (part two) between Hugh Ross and Kent Hovind here:
http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_ ... 3W0601.pdf

*Loved this last comment made in the debate:
"Ross: The early Church Fathers figured it out long before the astronomers got into the game."

Canuckster1127 wrote:

RickD wrote:I wonder if there are any prominent OECs who say "the god of a young earth cannot be the God of the Bible". or "There's no doubt-the god of a young earth destroys the Gospel".

None that I'm aware of.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!? How about what I JUST QUOTED in this thread?!? And I'll provide the rest of it as well:

Rich wrote:the claim that the God of creation would lie to us with a false history of the universe, is a direct attack on the righteous character of God and cannot be tolerated within the Church! The God who would deceive His creatures with lies is not the God of the Bible. A Christian friend first presented this deceiver God to me as a senior in high school. Assuming he was correct, I rejected the "God of the Bible" as being unworthy of my worship. It wasn't until many years later that I read the Bible for myself and came to faith in Jesus Christ - the God who is the truth31 - my Creator. Why are those who advocate a deceiver God surprised when unbelievers reject their unrighteous God?

From this page

I would expect much more from certain members of this community. Are you people so insecure in your own position that your defense is to ignore arguments from the other side and simply refuse even potential validity to anything the other side may say? Are you so wrapped up in trying to discredit YEC that when one PHD scientist questions your beloved Ross' credentials that you assume he is questioning his Christianity, and then when called on it, you refuse to even admit your own fault?

Incredible. Absolutely incredible.

Jac3510 wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:

RickD wrote:I wonder if there are any prominent OECs who say "the god of a young earth cannot be the God of the Bible". or "There's no doubt-the god of a young earth destroys the Gospel".

None that I'm aware of.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!? How about what I JUST QUOTED in this thread?!?

Rich wrote:the claim that the God of creation would lie to us with a false history of the universe, is a direct attack on the righteous character of God and cannot be tolerated within the Church! The God who would deceive His creatures with lies is not the God of the Bible.

Are you people so insecure in your own position that your defense is to ignore arguments from the other side and simply refuse even potential validity to anything the other side may say? Are you so wrapped up in trying to discredit YEC that when one PHD scientist questions your beloved Ross' credentials that you assume he is questioning his Christianity, and then when called on it, you refuse to even admit your own fault?

Incredible. Absolutely incredible.

Jac, where did you get that quote from Rich? I'd like to see the rest of what he wrote. Thanks

See the edit, Rick.

Thanks

Jac, do you know of any YECs who believe in "the appearance of age"? The reason I ask is because in the debate with Ross and Jason Lisle, the question was asked to Lisle about why he thinks there is an appearance of old age(billions of years). Lisle went on to say that he thinks that the Earth or Universe(not sure which one he said) appears young. That is a good example from Rich's article. If you know of any more examples, please let me know.

Well, part of the problem I have with Rich's article is that he misrepresents the appearance of age argument anyway. Lisle does believe in the appearance of age, as do I. Pretty much any YEC would hold to it. No one, not Lisle, not anyone, argues that appearance of age means God created the word to look like it is old for the purpose of looking like it is old. The appearance of age has everything to do with function. It is, you may say, a logical requirement.

What you would expect if the universe were young would be some things that appear old (starlight) and other things that appear young (hence, the horizon problem). Those that appear old are usually attributable to function--if God hadn't made the light "in transit," there would be no way for us to have seen it.

With that said, there are some other solutions possible to the starlight problem . . . I just use it as the standard example when talking about appearance of age.

In any case, I still find it amazing that people on this site accuse YEC of being so divisive when your own main site has comments as offensive as the one I posted. I find it more amazing that when I have referenced that multiple times, people still claim they know of no such comments. I find that very one sided . . .

Jac, correct me if I'm wrong. What you are saying, is that God created light in transit so we could see that light. Because if the universe is young, the light from a star that appears, for example 168,000 light years away would never been seen unless it was created in transit? So, any light that appears any further away than, say 6,000-10,000 years had to be created in transit? So, the star isn't actually 250,000 light years away, it just appears that way? SN 1987 was measured by scientists to be approx. 168,000 light years away. So, they assume the light we see from SN 1987 actually left @168,000 years ago. But, if the light from sn1987 was created in transit, it could have left it's point of creation @ 6000 years ago? So, doesn't that mean that the supernova never actually existed? Just light that appears 168,000 ly away? I'm not sure I understand light created in transit. So, did sn 1987 actually exist as a supernova? Or, was it just created light made to appear like something that never actually existed?

Rick,

Regarding starlight, like I said, there are a lot of possibilities out there. AIG rejects the light-in-transit appearance of age style argument to explain the problem. Others don't. Those who support it don't see it as a false history any more than when you turn on a movie, the presumed history is a false history (in terms of the movie). Perhaps God provided such events as you are pointing to so that we could learn something about the nature of the universe itself. He certainly gave us His Word to explain how the universe originated to avoid any confusion on the matter.

Other solutions include time dilation, a fixed boundy universe in which the earth sits in a gravity well, distictions between calculated and observed time, etc. We've only come to start understanding the mathematical implications of time and the speed of light in the past few decades. Who knows what we will discover in the near future? I don't have a definitive answer to the problem, but there are several promising leads, including the one already discussed. I'm certainly not willing to ignore what I see as insurmountable textual evidence in the Bible and reinterpret that in light of questions modern science has proposed given our still very limited knowledge of the subject, especially given the potential answers that are currently being researched.

Jac3510,

Where I think Ross goes down this road is his belief that nature is the 67th book of Scripture. That literally raises general revelation to be on par with special revelation, or, to put it the other way, lowers special revelation to the level of general. That view literally does undermine the authority of Scripture in that it lets our interpretation of general revelation (aka, science) trump the plain meaning of the text.

This arguement is still being used? Dr. Ross has not said this in years, and even when he wrote this in Creation and Time he clearly stated on page 57-58:

Some readers might fear I am implying that God's revelation through nature is somehow on an equal footing with His revelation through the words of the Bible. Let me simply state that truth, by definition, is information that is perfectly free of contradiction and error....This dual and perfectly harmonious revelation reflects God's character and purpose.

For the past number of years he refers to the two books or dual revelation, which are both factual and historic Christian views.

Yes, Christians have long distinguished between and accepted that there is general and special revelation. But traditional Christianity doesn't give them equal authority. Traditional Christianity recognizes that GR is incomplete and must be understood in light of SR, not the other way around.

The moment Ross argues against a biblical interpretation by citing GR, he debases Scripture. His problem is methodological.

Jac3510 wrote:Yes, Christians have long distinguished between and accepted that there is general and special revelation. But traditional Christianity doesn't give them equal authority. Traditional Christianity recognizes that GR is incomplete and must be understood in light of SR, not the other way around.

The moment Ross argues against a biblical interpretation by citing GR, he debases Scripture. His problem is methodological.

The moment Ross argues against a biblical interpretation by citing General Revelation he debases Scripture?!?!

Interpretation is not Scripture. Truth is Truth regardless of whether the source is Scripture or General Revelation. Equating a biblical interpretation with Scripture itself is the same error as equating science with nature. Man's interpretation or theology based upon scripture is not Scripture itself.

Biblical Interpretation does not equal Scripture. Equating them diminishes Scripture often because when Christian do that and lack the humility to admit that their theology or interpretation may be wrong, they then make their theology the issue as to whether Scripture is true and infallible and what's more, many non-christians take their word for it and quite naturally accept their message and then that point of view becomes a stumbling block to others coming to Christ.

I don't know what "traditional Christianity" you're speaking of that fails to recognize some degree of context in terms of the scope of truth that Special Revelation covers versus that of General Revelation or that assumes that there is a gap between the truth of nature and the truth of the Bible. It seems to me that this type of statement carries it's own methodological danger by failing to recognize the difference between what is Scripture and what is Theology.

Jac3510,

Have you actually looked at church history on this issue? The distinction is made based on how much info the different revelations can give us about God and salvation, not whether or not one has more authority.

John Calvin (1509-1564 A.D.)
“In attestation of his wondrous wisdom, both the heavens and the earth present us with innumerable proofs not only those more recondite proofs which astronomy, medicine, and all the natural sciences, are designed to illustrate, but proofs which force themselves on the notice of the most illiterate peasant, who cannot open his eyes without beholding them. It is true, indeed, that those who are more or less intimately acquainted with those liberal studies are thereby assisted and enabled to obtain a deeper insight into the secret workings of divine wisdom. No man, however, though he be ignorant of these, is incapacitated for discerning such proofs of creative wisdom as may well cause him to break forth in admiration of the Creator. To investigate the motions of the heavenly bodies, to determine their positions, measure their distances, and ascertain their properties, demands skill, and a more careful examination; and where these are so employed, as the Providence of God is thereby more fully unfolded, so it is reasonable to suppose that the mind takes a loftier flight, and obtains brighter views of his glory. Still, none who have the use of their eyes can be ignorant of the divine skill manifested so conspicuously in the endless variety, yet distinct and well ordered array, of the heavenly host; and, therefore, it is plain that the Lord has furnished every man with abundant proofs of his wisdom. The same is true in regard to the structure of the human frame. To determine the connection of its parts, its symmetry and beauty, with the skill of a Galen, (Lib. De Usu Partium,) requires singular acuteness; and yet all men acknowledge that the human body bears on its face such proofs of ingenious contrivance as are sufficient to proclaim the admirable wisdom of its Maker.”
(Institutes of the Christian Religion, bk. 1, ch. 5, sect. 2)

The Belgic Confession (1566 A.D.)
“Article 2: The Means by Which We Know God
We know him by two means:
First, by the creation, preservation, and government of the universe, since that universe is before our eyes like a beautiful book in which all creatures, great and small, are as letters to make us ponder the invisible things of God: his eternal power and his divinity, as the apostle Paul says in Romans 1:20.

All these things are enough to convict men and to leave them without excuse.

Second, he makes himself known to us more openly by his holy and divine Word, as much as we need in this life, for his glory and for the salvation of his own.”

I could go on and on.

Bart,

You don't do faux outrage very well.

I'm not equating interpretation of Scripture with Scripture. I said when a person "argues against a biblical interpretation by citing GR, he debases Scripture." It is, again, an issue of hermeneutics. What is your basis for interpreting Scripture? Do you interpret the text based on what is found within the text, or do you believe it is valid to important your views of science to understand the text?

Any hermeneutic that legitimizes eisogesis debases Scripture. Ross' hermeneutic does exactly that. Now, let me make a further point of clarification: I don't have a problem in the world comparing Scripture with science to see the harmonization. I don't have a problem with seeing a conflict and deciding that one of the two has been misinterpreted. What I am saying is that when someone says a word or verse must be this or that because that is what science teaches, you have debased Scripture, making it subservient to science. And I'm sorry, but that's just what I see Ross doing.

These comments should also address DAs attempt to show that I've misunderstood my church history.

Jac3510 wrote:What I am saying is that when someone says a word or verse must be this or that because that is what science teaches, you have debased Scripture, making it subservient to science. And I'm sorry, but that's just what I see Ross doing.

Students of bible prophecy throughout the ages have had varying interpretations of unfulfilled prophecies. Some with different locations, timing, sequence of events, literal, figurative, but once the prophecy is fulfilled it becomes subservient to history. I don't see how this is a debasement of scripture or any different from your above example. So when someone says that this verse must mean this because that is what history teaches about prophecy, than most Christians just say cool!

*EDIT Hey this was my fiftieth post. I'm a Recognized Member! WoaYeah...