I was watching a video sent to me by a Creationist on YouTube
Hugh Ross as many of you know is a Old Earth Creationist. He accepts the big bang and the age of the earth/universe but not biological evolution. Can someone with more academia than I help me understand the flaws in this? I know a lot of Hughs arguments against evolution (and abiogenesis) are basically fine tuning fallacies and complexity arguments as well as downright rejection of genetic evidence that supports similarity of species as well. But I could use some help with this one.
CA, I have a different take then you do so sorry that I can't answer your question that you pose. My question goes back to how can he believe that God can raise his Son from the dead but that God couldn't have possibly caused a worldwide flood???
Take another example from another OEC. Bernard Ramm. He completely believes in the literalness of the Jonah story in the OT. He believes every fact of it, yet doesn't believe scripture when it refers to Gen 1-11.
I'll comment more on this as the discussion progresses.....
But CA, you have a few different camps in the Christian community regarding this subject...YEC, OEC, TE, and then way left TE who claim Chrstianity but don't even believe that Adam and Eve were real people....i.e. those over at Biologos Foundation
I could give you my opinion, and its the opinion of allot of YEC writers as to why a Hugh Ross believes in OEC and not a literal 6 day creationism, and then as to why he doesn't believe in evolution.
CosmicAtheist writes: I was watching a video sent to me by a Creationist on YouTube
Well, that video was good for a laugh.
Ross starts by subtracting 50 million from 3.85 billion, and saying that there was no time at all for life to get started.
That reminds me of mathematician Paul Erdos. He used to say that when he was young, the earth was 2 billion years old. And now it is 4 billion years old. So, doing the math, Erdos calculated that he (Erdos) was 2 billion years old.
The point is that you cannot subtract like that. Both the 3.85 billion, and the 50 million that Ross uses are estimates. So, when you subtract, the conclusion should that it leaves no time at all, give or take a few million years, for life to develop. And Ross knows that quite well. So the only reasonable conclusion is that Ross is quite deliberately lying (misleading his audience) on this issue. Unfortunately, we see this "lying for Jesus" altogether too often from Christian apologists.
So, yes, life did develop fairly rapidly. But there was still lots of time for a possible natural abiogenesis.
It's also important to recognize, at this point, that Ross is talking about abiogenesis, and not about evolution. While many evolutionists believe that abiogenesis probably occurred as a natural event, they will also tell you that the issue of the origin of life is far from settled.
Next, Ross says something about carbon 12/carbon 13 ratio, and concludes that this rules out prebiotic life. That sounds like more nonsense. Neither life nor prebiotic life (whatever that is) would affect the carbon 12 carbon 13 ratio on earth. Only nuclear events do that. What living things can do, is affect the concentration in biological products. For example, the carbon 14 dating depends on their being nuclear events due to solar radiation that increase the carbon 14 in the atmosphere, and then living things that get their carbon from the air will have more carbon 14 than things where carbon comes from sources other than the air. It seems to me that what Ross is saying about carbon 12/ carbon 13 ratios makes no sense. And Ross is probably presenting that again as a deliberate lie, intended to mislead (more "lying for Jesus").
Next he gets onto the chirality question. The important point here is that most of the amino acids and sugars that we find are the products of living organisms. So all it would take is that natural abiogenesis on earth just happened to produce organisms of that chirality early on, and those organisms managed to dominate the biosphere. There isn't anything particularly implausible about that.
Sorry, my tolerance for bullshit ran out, so I did not listen to the rest of the video. If he went on to something else, then hopefully somebody with more patience will be able to comment.
I was disappointed by the video. I had heard that Hugh Ross was "the only honest creationist" but in the video, he comes across a lot like Kent Hovind.Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can\'t find it.
nwr writes: Sorry, my tolerance for bullshit ran out, so I did not listen to the rest of the video.
I went back and listened to the rest of the video. I was right about the "bullshit" part.
Ross says that astro-biologists are looking for evidence of life elsewhere in the cosmos, because they have given up on the possibility that life originated on earth.
No, that's wrong. They have not given up on the possiblle origin of life on earth. Research into that continues. People are interested in evidence of life elsewhere, because people have always been interested in evidence of life elsewhere.
I guess I have to put that down as more "lying for Jesus."
He then mentions that they are looking for organic molecules in dust clouds, because that's the only place that they would find them. Well, that's about right. But it's the only place they would find them, because they are limited to what they can see through their telescopes. If there are earthlike planets, they transmit too little light to be able to detect even that planet, let alone evidence of organic molecules. Ross implies that they look in the dust clouds because that's the only place that life could. No, Ross is completely wrong in that interpretation. Ross is not stupid and not ignorant. He has to know that he is presenting a seriously distorted picture. Put it down to still more "lying for Jesus."
I had heard that Hugh Ross was "the only honest creationist"
As a YEC, I have no use for Ross.....and most creationists that I read don't either.
As far as I'm concerned, there's little or no difference between OEC and YEC. They're both anti-scientific and fundamentally dishonest. According to something I read somewhere sometime, Ross was the only known exception - but there goes another bubble burst.Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can\'t find it.
As far as I'm concerned, there's little or no difference between OEC and YEC. They're both anti-scientific and fundamentally dishonest. According to something I read somewhere sometime, Ross was the only known exception - but there goes another bubble burst.
I'm afraid the closest we're going to get to that is Kurt Wise.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
I'm afraid the closest we're going to get to that is Kurt Wise.
Aha! *light comes on* That's probably who I was thinking of. In that case, I'm no longer disappointed and the bubble is repaired - until somebody posts a video of Kurt Wise.Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can\'t find it.