Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hugh Ross
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 10 of 90 (569925)
07-24-2010 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Flyer75
07-24-2010 6:07 PM


Re: Hugh Ross - lying for Jesus
Interesting, why do you say that?
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Flyer75, posted 07-24-2010 6:07 PM Flyer75 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Flyer75, posted 07-24-2010 7:07 PM Meldinoor has replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


(1)
Message 29 of 90 (570016)
07-25-2010 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Flyer75
07-24-2010 7:07 PM


My take on Hugh Ross
Hello Flyer,
I've been on a bit of a hiatus from posting on these forums, but I've still stopped by to read from time to time and stay up to speed with what goes on here at EvC. (Kudos to Percy for keeping it up and running in the midst of all these attacks). It's interesting to follow the development of threads and arguments, but also to see changes in individual posters' perspectives and viewpoints.
If you don't mind me asking, I've noticed that you've gone from what seemed a more open stance on biblical inerrancy vis--vis the age of the earth, to a more adamant YEC position. Is that an accurate observation? And if so, what has led you to become more closed to the possibility of a 4.5by old earth?
--------------------------------------------------
Now, in response to your post:
Flyer75 writes:
I'm a Biblical literalist and inerranst (is that the right word??). I believe God told us exactly what he wanted everyone to know, no matter the time period. In other words, I don't believe the God of the Bible is a God who sat back and said, "well, in the 19th century, they'll finally figure it out".
And yet God did leave us a lot to figure out in the 19th - 21st centuries. Besides the obvious scientific and technological discoveries like sanitation and penicillin (which you'll probably consider red herrings anyway since they don't figure in the Bible), a lot of doctrine and new ways of looking at scripture have developed over the years. Take Martin Luther or John Calvin as an example. Shall we reject their contributions to our understanding of scripture simply because they came on to the scene later with their ideas?
Flyer75 writes:
Ross, is one of those guys that for the "need to feel accepted in the scientific community" (amongst tons of others), has come up with a view of Scripture that tries to accommodate fallible man's science
Agreed. However, when there appears to be a mismatch between your understanding of scripture and the physical evidence, you have only three choices:
1. Change your view on scripture to accommodate the evidence
2. Lie about the evidence (and practice self-deception if you would avoid choice 3)
3. Just live with the cognitive dissonance
Ross clearly chose #1. It's up to you to explain why #2 or #3 is better.
Flyer75 writes:
First, the Bible doesn't say that the sun was created before the earth and only became visible later. That is an inference made by people (like Hugh Ross) that do not want to take the Bible for what it says.
I agree that Ross' interpretation of Genesis is a bit silly. It seems more honest to just go with "Genesis is an inspired myth" (as I do) than to treat it as allegory, and try to find scientific truth in it anyway. It's like saying: "Look, Genesis is allegory, except here where it gets this and this kinda right".
Flyer75 writes:
He further states: "The problem with an old-earth interpretation, which is driven solely by a desire to harmonize Scripture with secular scientific inferences, is that it opens the door to death before the fall, the loss of a historical Adam and Eve, which removes the proximal cause for the entry of sin into the world, and basically makes the first 11 books of the Bible irrelevant or completely unreliable. If you cannot read the Genesis narrative and understand it as hundreds of generations of Jews and Christians have, then the entire foundation of Christianity is destroyed.
I agree that OEC is driven by a desire to reconcile a creationist point of view with scientific knowledge, but beyond that we differ. I don't agree that death before the fall makes the entire bible unreliable or that it destroys the foundation of Christianity. And I think your friend takes an overly simplistic view of scripture. But, perhaps your or he could convince me otherwise if you can show me why.
Flyer75 writes:
The so-called 'scientific' evidence for an old earth is based on uniformitarian stratigraphy, radiometric geochronology, and a self-avowed bias against the Bible, first publicly popularized by Hutton and Lyell. The source of the underlying presuppositions for these is an anti-theistic worldview, not empirical science.
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to call BS on your misguided notion that the scientific consensus is slanted by anti-theistic biases. A significant proportion of scientists are theists, including evolutionist Ken Miller, who I'm sure you've heard about. He clearly has a different point of view regarding scriptural inerrancy, but that doesn't make him any less Christian than you.
-------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion, I'll present my own opinion on Ross.
I started reading his books around 7th grade, after my grandfather gave me his "The Fingerprint of God". His books inspired my interest in science, and were my first real forays into "grown-up" science. Soon I had read 4 or 5 of his books, and had come to (somewhat) grasp concepts like radiometric dating, relativity, etc, beyond what I would have learned in school at the time. I believe it was partly thanks to Ross that I reached the top percentiles of my class, especially in math and physics.
Besides inspiring me to learn about science, his books bolstered my faith substantially. I even found them to be a useful witnessing tool in a predominantly secular country (I grew up in Sweden). One day in 9th grade I asked my science teacher to let me give a presentation on the anthropic principle to the class. I took a week or so to prepare it, and then when I gave the presentation that I had intended to go on for half an hour, questions from the students and the teacher made it last for the full two hours of the class. The students were impressed by Ross' arguments for the improbability of life. But not so much as the teacher who told me it was great because: "most of them are probably never going to get to hear this argument again" (I don't know whether my teacher was a believer, although in retrospect I wonder if she may have been). She then gave me a book by Stephen Hawking: "The Universe in a Nutshell", and told me I'd make a great scientist someday.
I maintained an interest in origins throughout High School, occasionally having discussions and mini-debates with friends of mine. Finally deciding that I needed to know all sides of the debate, I picked up a book by Richard Dawkins, "The Ancestor's Tale". It made so much sense, and I was surprised to see the sheer magnitude of evidence for evolution. Evidence that Ross never seemed to mention in his treatment of the theory. I was disappointed and severely disillusioned with creationism, and ever since I have continued to study and explore the topic of origins. I'm now in my second year of college, and since I began reading Ross 8 years ago, I have gone from being at first a YEC to an OEC, TE, and finally an "evolutionist who is also a theist". (There is a subtle difference between the two)
Sorry to put you through those rather lengthy auto-biographical paragraphs. My point is, thanks to Ross and his more "honest" approach to science, I was dislodged from what might have been a life as a more close-minded YEC. So I owe him a great deal for awakening my interest on this issue.
On the other hand, I think he misrepresents the evidence and deludes the public as all other creation scientists do. His only virtue is that most of his discussions on cosmology are scientifically sound, even if he screws up on scripture and biology. Whereas YEC scientists screw up all three, in my opinion.
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor
Edited by Meldinoor, : Slight clarification
Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Flyer75, posted 07-24-2010 7:07 PM Flyer75 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Flyer75, posted 07-25-2010 9:56 AM Meldinoor has replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 53 of 90 (570169)
07-26-2010 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Flyer75
07-25-2010 9:56 AM


Re: My take on Hugh Ross
Thanks for your response, Flyer. Let me start by commenting, as others have, on your portrayal of Lyell and Hutton as atheists.
If wikipedia is anything to go by:
Wikipedia article on Lyell:
quote:
Later, Darwin became a close personal friend, and Lyell was one of the first scientists to support On the Origin of Species, though he did not subscribe to all its contents. Lyell was also a friend of Darwin's closest colleagues, Hooker and Huxley, but unlike them he struggled to square his religious beliefs with evolution. This inner struggle has been much commented on. He had particular difficulty in believing in natural selection as the main motive force in evolution
quote:
In other respects Antiquity was a success. It sold well, and it "shattered the tacit agreement that mankind should be the sole preserve of theologians and historians". But when Lyell wrote that it remained a profound mystery how the huge gulf between man and beast could be bridged, Darwin wrote "Oh!" in the margin of his copy.
One alternative source I googled quotes Lyell as saying: (page 14)
quote:
We have been able to prove that beings lived,
called by the Creator into existence on this
planet-to display the beautiful and perfect
harmony of the Universe-to show that all is
modeled on one plan; that different as are the
various genera that have lived...Geology shows
that all things are the work of one Intelligence-
One Mind-all links of one chain: that the Earth
must have been admirably fitted for successive
states which were to endure for ages. Thus do we
learn to admire the variety and beauty of design
displayed when we find traces and signs of the
same design, the same unity of plan, the same
harmony of wisdom through so vast a series as
has been established by the Infinite and Eternal
Creative power.
Wikipedia on Hutton:
quote:
As a deist, to him this mechanism allowed species to form varieties better adapted to particular conditions and was evidence of benevolent design in nature
Need I go on? I was actually not previously aware of Lyell's and Hutton's beliefs before I looked it up now, and it's fascinating to see how theories that so many YECs consider "atheistic" today, were originally put forth by individuals who believed in an Intelligent Designer (so to speak). Even Darwin was a believer when he began working on his theory, though certainly over the years he became increasingly skeptical of Christianity.
Of course, it doesn't really matter does it? Lyell and Hutton could have been radical atheists that roasted babies over piles of burning bibles, and their theories would still have to stand on their own. We need to evaluate their theories based on the current evidence, and apply the same rigorous examination to interpretations of scripture. If an interpretation of scripture is viable, it too can stand scrutiny, and it doesn't matter which pious individual theologian so-and-so's are its proponents.
To sum up my argument on the (un)importance of a proponent's religious perspective on the validity of a theory I'm going to quote St Augustine of Hippo. He was a Christian theologian who lived during the 5th century who wrote a work titled "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis" (De Genesi ad literam) where he wrote that Genesis should be taken as metaphor where it conflicts with known science. He wrote:
St Augustine writes:
It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.
The debate is older than most people think.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Flyer75 writes:
For example, Peter mentions the flood refers to it as a literal event. Christ loosely mentions creation and refers to it as a literal event. I feel that people who deny the literalness of the flood, but can yet accept Peter's words in the NT, have a serisous issue with Scriptural "authority".
Yes, I've heard this argument before. As far as I can tell there is no way to know whether Jesus actually believed the flood was both literal AND covered the entire planet. He refers to a well known story from Jewish tradition to make a point. Similarly, a theologian today could refer to a story, like George and the Dragon, to make a theological point, without necessarily explicitly specifying that the story is a myth. If the literal truth of a story doesn't really matter to the point you're making, it isn't necessarily important to mention whether it's literally true or not.
Flyer75 writes:
I'd have a hard time believing that they would have compromised scriptural authority based on science too
Do you think St Augustine compromised scriptural authority by seeing Genesis as metaphor?
Flyer75 writes:
IF Adam and Eve are myth or allegory, if the flood is just a version of a Babylonian folk tale, then we've been lied to, not only in the OT, but also throughout the more modern NT. The flood account in Genesis 6-9 is the MOST detailed account of event in ALL OF SCRIPTURE. The detail that the author goes through in those 3 chapters is astounding. And all for a myth?? We are given less detail in things that you would consider literal in scripture! Furthermore, Peter reiterates the account (in less detail) and likens it to the end times....so, will the end times be myth, localized, a select few....or are we being lied to. I have a feeling where this part of the conversation will lead us but I'll wait for your response.
The amount of detail in a story is hardly cause to consider whether it was inspired by a true event, or whether it was a legend, inspired by God to teach a lesson about His relation to us. To make a wild comparison that is a bit irreverent: George Lucas has put a lot of detail into the Star Wars universe, yet we all know that Star Wars is fiction. My point is that detail alone is not necessarily an indication of the literal truth of a story.
We also know the writers were human. I would guess that the writers of the Noachian deluge myth probably did believe it. Presumably it had been passed down from generation to generation over long periods of time. Deluge myths are prevalent among many different belief systems, and I would a hazard a guess that while some may have arisen independently, many stem from folk memory of past deluge(s). We know that catastrophic floodings have afflicted people many times in the past. It is certainly possible that God was involved in one of these, inspiring a family to build a vessel to save them from the disaster. I won't rule that out, though I suspect that the size of the ark given in Genesis is hyperbole, as is the magnitude of the flooding.
Or it could all be an allegory of salvation. It could be that God adapted a wide-spread folk myth and incorporated it into the faith of his people to shape their view on salvation and prepare them for the future arrival of Christ.
Do I think God is a liar? No, certainly not. Today with our scientific view of things and a rather bland sense of culture and tradition we demand that our stories be either complete fiction (like Star Wars) or literally true (science textbooks and police reports). I don't know if this has always been the case, but I doubt it.
Do I believe God has a plan for humanity? Yes, I believe that.
Do I think God truly influenced the beliefs of his people? Yes, I do.
Am I a theologian? No, I am not. All I can do is speculate and guess, and have faith that in the end, God knows best, and has a plan for us. In the meantime, I won't be afraid to challenge any of my beliefs (which are fallible) in light of the physical evidence that God's creation provides us with. I think Jesus would have approved.
Flyer75 writes:
FYI, I appreciate your conclusion Melindoor.
Thank you Flyer. And I appreciate your civil and honest debating style, even when you're wrong
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor
Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Flyer75, posted 07-25-2010 9:56 AM Flyer75 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-26-2010 3:43 AM Meldinoor has replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 58 of 90 (570174)
07-26-2010 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Bolder-dash
07-26-2010 3:43 AM


The reliability of wiki
Hi Bolder-dash,
That's why I also relied on a separate source for Lyell. But you can simply google for information on Lyell and Hutton's religious beliefs and find plenty of information from a variety of sources.
Do you disagree with the quoted passages from wiki?
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor
Edited by Meldinoor, : Changed title

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-26-2010 3:43 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-26-2010 4:25 AM Meldinoor has replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 65 of 90 (570183)
07-26-2010 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Bolder-dash
07-26-2010 4:25 AM


Re: The reliability of wiki
Bolder-dash writes:
I don't necessarily have an opinion about their particular beliefs, but I think it would have been difficult during their time to speak out as a complete atheist.
Possibly. But even if that's true, there's no indication that either Hutton or Lyell were complete atheists. There's no reason to assume that either of them were, at least as far as I know.
Bolder-dash writes:
And sure, I think it would be great to discuss scientific believes and the validity of arguments without first assigning one's religious faith as a criteria for credence; but since every non-evolutionist is swathed by evolutionists with the dismissive cloth of religious faith, I think one has to apply the same level of doubt to the objectivity of anyone who has an opinion about evolution and is atheist.
I for one don't care about the religious beliefs of the proponent of any theory. The theories that Lyell and Hutton put forth, as well as Darwin, have been studied and critiqued by members of many different faiths, and the evidence can stand on its own.
By the way, would you please consider moving your argument with crashfrog et al, regarding the evidence for evolution to a different thread? I know this thread is already a bit off topic, but your discussion is hardly relevant at all to the subject matter. I don't mean to be rude, but there you go. Thanks!
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-26-2010 4:25 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-26-2010 7:55 PM Meldinoor has replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 71 of 90 (570281)
07-26-2010 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Bolder-dash
07-26-2010 7:55 PM


Bolder-dash writes:
exceedingly rude and shameless
Dear Bolder-dash,
I haven't been rude or shameless to you ONCE yet. So don't tempt me. The discussion that we had going here before you hijacked the thread with the same arguments that you seem to bring up in EVERY thread you take part in, was about Hugh Ross and his reasons for taking a more scientific perspective than YECs. Lyell and Hutton's personal beliefs were a brief tangent discussion that lasted for about two posts. Whereas your discussion on the evidence for evolution has gone on for about half the thread now, and without trying to tie it back to the topic.
Start your own topic dealing with the specific aspects of evolutionary theory that you disagree with. Lay out your own arguments against it, and for whatever alternative model you favour. The reasons your previous topic proposals never took off was because you did not delineate your topics, and you didn't put forth an argument in your own words.
Try this: do what I suggested. Propose a topic, including your own arguments, and some specific topic delineation about the parts of the TOE you wish to discuss. Put all of that in your OP. If the topic isn't promoted after you have done all that, then I'll join you in criticizing moderation for neglecting your proposals. But don't derail this topic.
As always:
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-26-2010 7:55 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-26-2010 11:45 PM Meldinoor has replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 73 of 90 (570288)
07-26-2010 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Bolder-dash
07-26-2010 11:45 PM


Bolder-dash writes:
The topic was about asking people to refute Hugh Ross's argument about the time necessary for abiogenesis to take place.
You're right. But that is not what you're talking about either. The discussion we were having was at least about Hugh Ross' reasons to choose a less literal interpretation of scripture. We were still on the topic of Hugh Ross. The difference is that our tangent discussion did not go on for page after page after page. I was actually going to suggest to Flyer75 and whoever else was interested in continuing in the vein of our discussion, that we could start another thread. And I will if the discussion continues.
Your discussion has gone on and on and has not tied back to Hugh Ross at all. It would be a courtesy to readers of the thread if you chose to move it to a separate thread. I've posted a simple outline with some suggestions for you if you want to propose a new topic. Hopefully you will consider following my advice.
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor
PS. As I am not a moderator, and our current discussion is a moderation issue, I will not continue to talk about this. Please take my suggestions as the friendly advice that they are and chill out a little. Not everyone who disagrees with you is out to get you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-26-2010 11:45 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-27-2010 12:06 AM Meldinoor has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024