Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
34 online now:
14174dm, DrJones*, ICANT, ringo, Tangle, Theodoric (6 members, 28 visitors)
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,715 Year: 18,751/19,786 Month: 1,171/1,705 Week: 423/518 Day: 41/58 Hour: 0/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hugh Ross
CosmicAtheist
Member (Idle past 3179 days)
Posts: 31
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 04-07-2010


Message 1 of 90 (569430)
07-21-2010 7:53 PM


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.

Edited by CosmicAtheist, : No reason given.

Edited by CosmicAtheist, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by nwr, posted 07-24-2010 10:01 AM CosmicAtheist has not yet responded
 Message 22 by Flyer75, posted 07-24-2010 8:07 PM CosmicAtheist has not yet responded

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 90 (569853)
07-24-2010 4:52 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Hugh Ross thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 711 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 3 of 90 (569859)
07-24-2010 9:39 AM


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.

Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-26-2010 7:24 AM Flyer75 has not yet responded

    
nwr
Member
Posts: 5586
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 4 of 90 (569861)
07-24-2010 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by CosmicAtheist
07-21-2010 7:53 PM


Hugh Ross - lying for Jesus
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CosmicAtheist, posted 07-21-2010 7:53 PM CosmicAtheist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Flyer75, posted 07-24-2010 1:39 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply
 Message 7 by nwr, posted 07-24-2010 3:08 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply
 Message 30 by kbertsche, posted 07-25-2010 1:25 AM nwr has responded

  
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 711 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 5 of 90 (569879)
07-24-2010 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by nwr
07-24-2010 10:01 AM


Re: Hugh Ross - lying for Jesus
I'm glad you think it's bs too nwr....although I'm sure for different reasons.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by nwr, posted 07-24-2010 10:01 AM nwr has acknowledged this reply

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 17427
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 6 of 90 (569883)
07-24-2010 2:36 PM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Flyer75, posted 07-24-2010 6:11 PM ringo has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5586
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 7 of 90 (569889)
07-24-2010 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by nwr
07-24-2010 10:01 AM


Re: Hugh Ross - lying for Jesus
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."

Edited by nwr, : fix typo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by nwr, posted 07-24-2010 10:01 AM nwr has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Flyer75, posted 07-24-2010 6:07 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 711 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 8 of 90 (569921)
07-24-2010 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by nwr
07-24-2010 3:08 PM


Re: Hugh Ross - lying for Jesus
nwr writes:

put that down as more "lying for Jesus."

I think Jesus would take issue with Ross himself on what he is saying.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by nwr, posted 07-24-2010 3:08 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Meldinoor, posted 07-24-2010 6:12 PM Flyer75 has responded

    
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 711 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 9 of 90 (569924)
07-24-2010 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by ringo
07-24-2010 2:36 PM


Ringo writes:

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by ringo, posted 07-24-2010 2:36 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by ringo, posted 07-24-2010 6:23 PM Flyer75 has not yet responded

    
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 3096 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 responded

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

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 17427
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 11 of 90 (569931)
07-24-2010 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Flyer75
07-24-2010 6:11 PM


Flyer75 writes:

Ringo writes:

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Flyer75, posted 07-24-2010 6:11 PM Flyer75 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by subbie, posted 07-24-2010 6:40 PM ringo has responded
 Message 32 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-25-2010 3:59 AM ringo has responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 32 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 12 of 90 (569938)
07-24-2010 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by ringo
07-24-2010 6:23 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by ringo, posted 07-24-2010 6:23 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by ringo, posted 07-24-2010 6:47 PM subbie has not yet responded
 Message 15 by Flyer75, posted 07-24-2010 6:50 PM subbie has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17427
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 13 of 90 (569939)
07-24-2010 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by subbie
07-24-2010 6:40 PM


subbie writes:

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by subbie, posted 07-24-2010 6:40 PM subbie has not yet responded

  
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 711 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 14 of 90 (569940)
07-24-2010 6:49 PM


Ringo, there is a difference between an OEC and a YEC. One believes that there are millions of years in Genesis when it's not stated, one goes by what the first two chapters of Genesis says....

Melindoor, I didn't forget you...it takes a longer response.


Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by ringo, posted 07-24-2010 8:24 PM Flyer75 has not yet responded

    
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 711 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 15 of 90 (569942)
07-24-2010 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by subbie
07-24-2010 6:40 PM


subbie,

very interesting you mention Kurt Wise as i'm a great fan of his...why do you mention him?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by subbie, posted 07-24-2010 6:40 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by subbie, posted 07-24-2010 6:55 PM Flyer75 has responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019