Evidence for God from Science

I know how much you all love Ken Ham. Here's another two hour debate between him and Ross, this one on TBN. I think this one was much better done than the one on the Ankerberg Show.

http://www.itbn.org/index/detail/lib/Ne ... MNzxHCg2Kk

And since so many of you have argued that Ham consistently questions the salvation of OECs, I'd just direct you to 1.30.25ff. There, he says:

• I don't want people to misunderstand here. When you talk about the age of the earth, it's not a salvation issue per se. You know, for instance, the Bible says, If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead--it doesn't say if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead and believe in a young earth and six literal days you'll be saved. You know the Bible doesn't say that. So its faith in Christ that saves us. And that's what I want people to understand. It is faith in Christ that saves us. And so then people say, so then you can believe in millions of years and be a Christian. Well obviously there are Christians that believe in millions of years. There's Christians here who believe in millions of years. You can believe in evolution and be a Christian. Well there are Christians that believe in evolution.And then they say, well it doesn't matter.

Anyway, just thought y'all might like to see this. Ross did a good job, as always. Comfort shouldn't have even been there . . . provided nothing. But still a good show.

Jac, thanks for posting that link. It's always great to see Hugh Ross in a debate. I really admire the patience and grace that Ross has. He sat through the entire debate with Ken Ham constantly interrupting him, and continually misrepresenting what Hugh Ross believes. Seeing that this debate was recent, it seems Ken Ham really hasn't changed a bit. One would think that as many times Ross and Ham have debated, that Ham would at least honestly represent what Ross believes.

And one interesting note that was brought up in the debate, goes back to what Hugh Ross says. Ross says that as we learn more through science, one view(OEC or YEC) will become more clear, and one will become less believable, and obsolete. Now, Ross says there are fossils on the moon, and Ham laughed at him. Will science prove Ross' prediction about fossils on the moon, as true? Or will science prove that Ham was correct when he laughed at Ross' prediction?

RickD wrote:Jac, thanks for posting that link. It's always great to see Hugh Ross in a debate. I really admire the patience and grace that Ross has. He sat through the entire debate with Ken Ham constantly interrupting him, and continually misrepresenting what Hugh Ross believes. Seeing that this debate was recent, it seems Ken Ham really hasn't changed a bit. One would think that as many times Ross and Ham have debated, that Ham would at least honestly represent what Ross believes.

And one interesting note that was brought up in the debate, goes back to what Hugh Ross says. Ross says that as we learn more through science, one view(OEC or YEC) will become more clear, and one will become less believable, and obsolete. Now, Ross says there are fossils on the moon, and Ham laughed at him. Will science prove Ross' prediction about fossils on the moon, as true? Or will science prove that Ham was correct when he laughed at Ross' prediction?

Doesn't matter what science will prove, Ham will disregard it.
As for him misrepresenting what Ross believes, well...we've all been there that no matter how many times you may say something, someone will hear something else, usually what THEY want to hear to discredit you because they don't like some part of what you said.
I think for some, and Ham seems to be that way, to allow for the opponent to be correct in something is a bad thing because someone might think, "Hey if he is right about This maybe he has a point about That".
And Ham can't have that.

He is right on the salvation issue though, how old one believes the Earth to be and humans to be has NOTHING to do with our salvation in Christ.

He is right on the salvation issue though, how old one believes the Earth to be and humans to be has NOTHING to do with our salvation in Christ.

Ham never said this in the video. Ham had one paragraph, that Jac posted above, that seemed to show that the age of the earth isn't a salvation issue to him. But, in the rest of the video, he keeps holding up his bible, and saying that he gets his YEC from scripture. Implying, as usual for Ham, that anyone who holds a differing view on creation, than his view, doesn't start with scripture, but starts with science. And, as usual, again, when Ross tries to correct Ham, and say that he(Ross) started with scripture when he was 17, Ham cut Ross off again. It is clear to me that when Ham says that those who interpret the age of the earth, by "infallible man's interpretation of nature, and not by scripture", what he really means is that his interpretation of scripture(interpreted by infallible man), is equal to scripture itself. In other words, Ross, who believes in an old earth, relies on infallible man's interpretation of nature. But Ham, who believes in a young earth, does so because scripture says the earth is young.(not Ham's interpretation of scripture, says the earth is young.)

RickD wrote:

He is right on the salvation issue though, how old one believes the Earth to be and humans to be has NOTHING to do with our salvation in Christ.

Ham never said this in the video. Ham had one paragraph, that Jac posted above, that seemed to show that the age of the earth isn't a salvation issue to him. But, in the rest of the video, he keeps holding up his bible, and saying that he gets his YEC from scripture. Implying, as usual for Ham, that anyone who holds a differing view on creation, than his view, doesn't start with scripture, but starts with science. And, as usual, again, when Ross tries to correct Ham, and say that he(Ross) started with scripture when he was 17, Ham cut Ross off again. It is clear to me that when Ham says that those who interpret the age of the earth, by "infallible man's interpretation of nature, and not by scripture", what he really means is that his interpretation of scripture(interpreted by infallible man), is equal to scripture itself. In other words, Ross, who believes in an old earth, relies on infallible man's interpretation of nature. But Ham, who believes in a young earth, does so because scripture says the earth is young.(not Ham's interpretation of scripture, says the earth is young.)

Of course Ham believes that Ross and other OECs start with science and not with Scripture. But that doesn't mean he's saying that such people aren't saved. You can disagree with Ham all you want. You can think he's arrogant or whatever else. But at least be fair to him and don't misrepresent his words. He said plainly he the section I quoted and even gave you the timestamp for that you can believe in an Old Earth (and even evolution!) and still be a Christian. He even acknowledged that the people on the stage with him (Ross et al) were Christians even though they believe in an Old Earth.

Ham's charge, right or wrong, is that OECs start with science and read that into Scripture. He's basically charging them with eisogesis. He can be wrong about that, but that is his charge. His charge is NOT that they are not Christian or that everyone/anyone who eisogetes therefore is no really saved. Again, be fair, Rick. Disagree, but be fair.

Jac, I never said that Ham was saying that Ross wasn't saved. I just said that what PaulSacramento said here, is inaccurate:

He is right on the salvation issue though, how old one believes the Earth to be and humans to be has NOTHING to do with our salvation in Christ

While Ham has previously said that Ross is saved, Ham never said that "how old one believes the Earth to be and humans to be has NOTHING to do with our salvation in Christ".
Ham believes, and has said that what one believes about the age of the earth, does have something to do with the doctrine of salvation. In fact, Ham has repeatedly said that OEC compromises the doctrine of salvation.

And, a while back, in another similar thread, I actually defended Ham, when another board member said that Ham said Ross wasn't saved because Ross believes in an Old Earth. So, at least as far back as the Ankerburg debate, Ham has said that he believes Ross is saved.
So, just to be clear, I'm not saying that Ham says that Ross isn't saved. I have heard from Ham himself, in that Ankerburg debate, that he believes Ross is saved.

I really haven't heard anyone here, at least recently, say that Ham says Ross isn't saved. So, TBH, I'm not sure why this is an issue.

RickD wrote:Jac, I never said that Ham was saying that Ross wasn't saved. I just said that what PaulSacramento said here, is inaccurate:

He is right on the salvation issue though, how old one believes the Earth to be and humans to be has NOTHING to do with our salvation in Christ

While Ham has previously said that Ross is saved, Ham never said that "how old one believes the Earth to be and humans to be has NOTHING to do with our salvation in Christ".
Ham believes, and has said that what one believes about the age of the earth, does have something to do with the doctrine of salvation. In fact, Ham has repeatedly said that OEC compromises the doctrine of salvation.

And, a while back, in another similar thread, I actually defended Ham, when another board member said that Ham said Ross wasn't saved because Ross believes in an Old Earth. So, at least as far back as the Ankerburg debate, Ham has said that he believes Ross is saved.
So, just to be clear, I'm not saying that Ham says that Ross isn't saved. I have heard from Ham himself, in that Ankerburg debate, that he believes Ross is saved.

I really haven't heard anyone here, at least recently, say that Ham says Ross isn't saved. So, TBH, I'm not sure why this is an issue.

What, so you are accusing Ham of believing that the OEC view can have impacts on issues fundamental to soteriology? Sure he does. But EVERY theological position impacts issues fundamental to soteriology. On that view, there is no doctrine that has NOTHING to do with salvation. Again, you're just being unfair.

Jac3510 wrote:

RickD wrote:Jac, I never said that Ham was saying that Ross wasn't saved. I just said that what PaulSacramento said here, is inaccurate:

He is right on the salvation issue though, how old one believes the Earth to be and humans to be has NOTHING to do with our salvation in Christ

While Ham has previously said that Ross is saved, Ham never said that "how old one believes the Earth to be and humans to be has NOTHING to do with our salvation in Christ".
Ham believes, and has said that what one believes about the age of the earth, does have something to do with the doctrine of salvation. In fact, Ham has repeatedly said that OEC compromises the doctrine of salvation.

And, a while back, in another similar thread, I actually defended Ham, when another board member said that Ham said Ross wasn't saved because Ross believes in an Old Earth. So, at least as far back as the Ankerburg debate, Ham has said that he believes Ross is saved.
So, just to be clear, I'm not saying that Ham says that Ross isn't saved. I have heard from Ham himself, in that Ankerburg debate, that he believes Ross is saved.

I really haven't heard anyone here, at least recently, say that Ham says Ross isn't saved. So, TBH, I'm not sure why this is an issue.

What, so you are accusing Ham of believing that the OEC view can have impacts on issues fundamental to soteriology? Sure he does. But EVERY theological position impacts issues fundamental to soteriology. On that view, there is no doctrine that has NOTHING to do with salvation. Again, you're just being unfair.

What am I being unfair about? You posted a quote that Ham says that one can be an OEC, and still be saved. I know Ham said that, and I haven't heard anyone deny that Ham said that here. At least since the time I referred to, where I corrected the person. Where am I being unfair? What have I said about Ken Ham that is inaccurate?

****Edit***
Can you point to an instance that Ross says that if one believes in YEC, that affects his salvation?


And, I disagree with what you said here

But EVERY theological position impacts issues fundamental to soteriology. On that view, there is no doctrine that has NOTHING to do with salvation

One can believe in YEC, or OEC, and that has absolutely no bearing on one's salvation. Unless one believes in some weird offshoot of either, that denies essentials of Christianity.(Which neither Ham's YEC, or Ross' OEC does)

Sorry, just lurking and this caught my attention.

Ham appears to here dichotemise "Christian" and "faith in Christ that saves." After his words "And so then people say" this is the transitioning point. Ham appears to be crafting his words here.

If Ham's statement is true: "Well obviously there are Christians that believe in millions of years" -- then there is nothing more that needs to be said than that. Why the long speech if it is obvious. He could have just said that. That he didn't suggests Ham was playing with words and symantics.

Whether or not Ham renegs on it now, he has stated if you don't have faith in God's Word then you don't have faith in God who gave it to us, and as such Christ. Ham has clearly said if you believe in millions of years then you don't have faith in God's Word. I know, because when I didn't care about this issue many years ago, it was no issue for me to accept YEC when I heard his words. He just seemed so adamant and I hadn't explored the issue either scientifically or Scripturally so I had no issue accepting YEC.

So... given my direct experience of what Ham has previously said, unless he's had a heart change -- what he is calling "Christian" and those who "have faith in Christ that saves" are two different things.

I'd be interested in seeing a statement from Ham that those who believe in millions of years have faith in Christ (and God's Word for that matter) and are saved. That'd do it for me.

Not a fan of either Ken Ham or Ray Comfort. Both try to extend their religious belief into some sort of evidence for their own view of science. Ham has his creation museum and website that treat the Bible as if it is a science textbook from God, and Comfort has his "atheist's nightmare banana."

As far as the debate goes, it's not too far off from what I've seen from Ham.

Oh that Ham character again, such a fitting name...

Ham continually brought up "just look at what it says literally!" He fails to realize the English words used were not the original ones meant to be used. We really need to go beyond our understanding the English language if we want to understand everything. I really can't stand listening to him in debates. Ross was a delight, however. I'm definitely going to be checking out more of his debates in the future after this.

Is there anything out there regarding Ham's claim that cancer and carnivorous animal behavior have been discovered from the fossil record before the fall and such?

Is there anything out there regarding Ham's claim that cancer and carnivorous animal behavior have been discovered from the fossil record before the fall and such?

Ham believes cancer has been found in dinosaur fossils. Keep in mind that Ham believes fossilized dinosaurs are the result of a global flood. So, according to Ham, cancer and carnivores came after, and as a result of Adam's sin.

RickD wrote:

Is there anything out there regarding Ham's claim that cancer and carnivorous animal behavior have been discovered from the fossil record before the fall and such?

Ham believes cancer has been found in dinosaur fossils. Keep in mind that Ham believes fossilized dinosaurs are the result of a global flood. So, according to Ham, cancer and carnivores came after, and as a result of Adam's sin.

Well that makes plenty of sense, lol. But how much evidence HAS been found for million-year old fossils containing traces of cancer?

I managed to find these articles...
http://www.livescience.com/10822-cancer ... laims.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... mmies.html
http://phys.org/news/2010-10-scientists ... -made.html
All dealing on the subject that the evidence of cancer in the fossil record are quite untrustworthy, since such a disease is more than likely man-made.

If Ham's statement is true: "Well obviously there are Christians that believe in millions of years" -- then there is nothing more that needs to be said than that. Why the long speech if it is obvious. He could have just said that. That he didn't suggests Ham was playing with words and symantics.

I suppose I have watched and read as much of AIGs material as anyone.

AIG absolutely believes that a young earth and literal 24 hour creation is FOUNDATIONAL to the Christian position. That doesn't mean that they believe that holding these positions is contingent on saving faith. K, I think you are suspiciously reading into this as so many here do. Quite frankly, there is just a lot of venom on this board. Knowing Ham's view on a young earth, his positions are born from a consistent exercise of those beliefs. He sees the decay of the church today as a direct result of people abandoning a YEC view. That being if Genesis is figurative, then why not the rest. I don't care if you agree or not, I am simply summing up their position. Anyway, I'm not here to carry water for Ham. In a past thread that was equally critical I challenged people to present specific quotes and got nothing that I recall, excpet for rhetoric. Ham holds staunchly to a YEC view, and that day-age, gap theory, etc. are all a compromise that undermines the authority of scripture. He is perfectly in his rights to promote and defend that position and point out what he considers flaws in the opposing theories.