Does the Isaiah Scroll Point to Jesus?

Dr. Craig Responds to Hugh Ross's View of God's Own Dimensions of Time

Give and Take: Moon’s Magnetic Field Made Humanity Possible

▶ Latest Scientific Evidence for God's Existence - Hugh Ross, PhD - YouTube

▶ Latest Scientific Evidence for God's Existence - Hugh Ross, PhD - YouTube

Why The Universe Is The Way It Is

Here is a lecture given by Astrophysicist Hugh Ross. It is based on his book, Why The Universe Is the Way It Is. I admire Dr Ross and his work a great deal. I don't agree with everything he says but I appreciate even the way he argues for and explains even those.He makes a great case for Intelligent Design.








Why The Universe Is The Way It Is - Part 1 - YouTube

Debate: Hugh Ross vs. Lewis Wolpert: Is there Evidence for a Cosmic Creator? - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten has posted a debate between Dr Hugh Ross and Lewis Wolpert. on  the topic: Is there evidence of cosmic creator? You can listen to the debate by going to the link at Apologetics 315:
 
Debate: Hugh Ross vs. Lewis Wolpert: Is there Evidence for a Cosmic Creator? - Apologetics 315

Hugh Ross does a great job in arguing for why there is enough evidence to believe that there is a cosmic creator. Lewis Wolpert 's argument appalled me. It broke down to: "I am not a physicist. I do not understand the evidence Hugh Ross is bringing.  There is no evidence for the existence of God." In other words, Wolpert said: I've made up my mind, so do not bother me with facts. Really close-minded. He really lost this debate.

One of the points of evidence Ross uses is about what we have learned about Dark Matter over the past 12 years. Here is a video that presents some information about Dark Matter and some of the conclusions that are being drawn. I don't agree with everything in the video about multiple universes but there is a lot of good science in it representing many view points today.

Habitable zone - Controversy

You may or may not be aware of a discussion with an atheist named Ryan Anderson regarding the fact that he believes that Dr Hugh Ross is wrong when he wrote:

"If the Earth were one half of one percent closer to the sun, water on Earth would boil off. If the Earth were one half of one percent farther from the sun, all the water would freeze." (More Than A Theory)

However the statement does not exist in More Than A Theory. He attributes the quote to have been made on then John Ankerberg show, but I wonder if he saw it because the following book references the same thing:
Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person's Answer to Christian Fundamentalism By David Mills on page 250. You can read the exchange om my post: Faithful Thinkers: Audio: Major Creation/Evolution Models

Unfortunately, Anderson took things way to far alleging that Ross is dishonest and worst or doesn't know what he is talking about at best (about the Habitable zone and Creation/Evolution models). Anderson commented the following:

Also, it should be noted that as far as I know, Hugh Ross has never backed away from his absurd claim that "If the earth were 0.5% closer to the sun it would broil and if it was 0.5% farther from the sun it would freeze." [paraphrase]. The only reason I can think of for someone with a "PhD" to make such a clearly demonstratably false claim is to mislead. But that's par for the course with creationist, regardless of their "camp".

And today he said:

Actually, if you make an assertion that's wildly outside the range of what is currently thought to be the case, you have an obligation to substantiate that assertion.

He's [Dr Hugh Ross] actually a good example of why, as a layman, one should look for consensus among scientist rather than looking at one scientist. There are bad ones in every profession. But you of course will only look at the scientist that support the positions you want to believe.

Yes, indeed it is important to look at the balance of consensus among experts to determine if something is true or not. However we know that consensus does not always equal truth. There was once a consensus that the Earth was flat. And another that the whole universe revolved around the Earth. But the value of consensus is not issue now. Let's see if with simple back of the envelope calculation if we can figure out if  Dr Ross is wrong in the numbers he is proposing. First the Habitable zone is the range of distance from sun in which the earth retains liquid water. Any closer the water boils and evaporates. Farther and the water freezes.  The distance of the Earth to the Sun is called an Astronomical Unit (AU) which is about 93 x 10⁶ (93 million) miles. For the sake of this calculation I am approximating the earth's orbit as a circle although it is elliptical. I am also taking the range of the Habitable Zone from the following Wikipedia page:

Habitable zone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

INNER edge	OUTER edge	References	Notes
0.725 AU	1.24 AU	Dole 1964 [18]	Used optically thin atmospheres and fixed albedos.
0.95 AU	1.01 AU	Hart et al. 1978, 1979 [19]	stars K0 or later cannot have HZs
0.95 AU	3.0 AU	Fogg 1992 [20]	Used Carbon cycles.
0.95 AU	1.37 AU	Kasting et al. 1993 [21]
–	1%–2% farther out	Budyko 1969 [22]	... and Earth would have global glaciation.
–	1%–2% farther out	Sellers 1969 [23]	... and Earth would have global glaciation.
–	1%–2% farther out	North 1975 [24]	... and Earth would have global glaciation.
4%–7% closer	–	Rasool & DeBurgh 1970 [25]	... and oceans would never have condensed.
–	–	Schneider and Thompson 1980 [26]	disagreed with Hart.
–	–	Kasting 1991 [27]
–	–	Kasting 1988 [28]	Water clouds can shrink HZ as they counter GHG effect with higher albedos.
–	–	Ramanathan and Collins 1991 [29]	GHG effect IR trapping is greater than water cloud albedo cooling, and Venus would have to have started "Dry."
–	–	Lovelock 1991 [30]
–	–	Whitemire et al. 1991 [31]

Let's take the Hart et al. 1978, 1979 reference of 0.95 AU  to 1.01 AU  for the range of the Habitable Zone. Imagine 3 concentric circles. Then inner one has a Radius of 0.95 AU, the middle has a radius of  1 AU and the outer has a radius of  1.01AU.


So what is the distance from the earth's orbit to the inner boundary of the habitable zone?

1 - 0.95 =  0.05  meaning 0.05 AU

What about from the earth to the outer boundary of the habitable zone?

1.01 - 1 = 0.01 - meaning 0.01 AU

If you want to know percentages of AU you take the differences and divide them by AU. This gives  - 0.05 and  + 0.01 .

This is well within the consensus of 0.725 AU to 3 AU. We know that any number anyone grabs from the air is an estimate and an approximation - averages. Not wrong, but nothing to assassinate a man's character over. It is obvious that Dr Ross is using Habitable Zone ranges like 0.99 AU and 1.01 AU.Again: well within the consensus range. Ryan Anderson claims to be a layman yet feels like he knows enough to criticize a professional astronomer. Anyone who knows something about Physics and published numbers know that such nitpicking is silly.

Faithful Thinkers: Audio: Major Creation/Evolution Models

Here is a very interesting interview of Dr. Hugh Ross.  He discusses how the Reason to Believe group finds its scientific models. I like Dr Ross a great deal because of his attitude towards the Bible and the fact that he is tolerant of other people, especially other Christians, who disagree with him. I like how he is willing to see that the Bible does contain science but we can't assume that there is more than there really is in the Bible than God ever intended us to think.

Faithful Thinkers: Audio: Major Creation/Evolution Models

Related articles

• Back to Genesis (raymondjclements.wordpress.com)
• Evolution is ALSO Faith (metamorphosisofthemind.wordpress.com)
• Book Review: Creation and Evolution 101 (kgmin.wordpress.com)

Faithful Thinkers: Article: Interpreting Creation: Hermeneutical Principles

Luke Nix has posted a great article in which Dr Hugh Ross explains the Hermeneutic used at Reason to Believe to come up with their science models for the origins of the Universe, Earth, and Humanity. Good stuff even if you don't completely agree with Dr Ross and his team.

Faithful Thinkers: Article: Interpreting Creation: Hermeneutical Principles

Related articles

• "In the Beginning" conference notes - raw (jkw00d.wordpress.com)
• Hermeneutics tonight (exegete77.wordpress.com)
• Orphan Family Hermeneutics (frozenclocks.wordpress.com)

Faithful Thinkers: Article: Interpreting Creation: Science-Faith Models

Here is a great post summarizing the work of Dr Hugh Ross on Biblical creation. Check it out!

Faithful Thinkers: Article: Interpreting Creation: Science-Faith Models

Related articles

• Liberal Christian rag: creationism and evolution are "competing myths" (whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com)
• In the Beginning: A Conference on the Days of Creation (foreglow.org)
• Different Perspectives on Creation (lettersfromthetop.wordpress.com)
• American Imams supporting evolutionary science (secularnewsdaily.com)

Audio: Interview with Dr. William Lane Craig « Thoughtful Christianity

Brian Auten tweeted the following link to an interview of Dr William Lane Craig.

The interview was held by RTB’s resident scholars Hugh Ross, Dave Rogstad, Jeff Zweerink, and Ken Samples and covered various topics including Craig’s article “God is Not Dead Yet” (featured in Christianity Today), Craig’s book “Reasonable Faith“, as well as Craig’s views on cosmology, the argument from reason, Molinism, naturalism, postmodernism, Einstein, and more.

Follow the link below to listen to the interview

Audio: Interview with Dr. William Lane Craig « Thoughtful Christianity

Related articles

• William Lane Craig: Richard Dawkins Made The Worst Argument Against God In The History of Western Thought (rodiagnusdei.wordpress.com)

Reasons To Believe - Did Humans and Dinosaurs Live Simultaneously

Dr Hugh Ross addresses the question did Humans and Dinosaurs live simultaneously.

Did dinosaurs and humans live at the same time? (10:18)


Video Question and Answers | Reasons To Believe

Related articles

• Amazing animals: dinosaur quiz (holykaw.alltop.com)
• Did Some Dinosaurs Survive Their Mass Extinction? (tor.com)
• 'Thunder thighs' dinosaur had a devastating kick, say scientists (guardian.co.uk)
• Enormously Powerful Dinosaur Discovered In Utah, USA (presurfer.blogspot.com)

Apologist Interview: Hugh Ross - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten continues to conduct awesome interviews with some of the best Apologists alive today! This week is no different. I am so excited that this week is an interview with astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross. You can listen to the interview following the link below.

Apologist Interview: Hugh Ross - Apologetics 315

Did God Create the Universe? MP3 by Hugh Ross - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten has posted a lecture by Hugh Ross in which Dr Ross outlines the scientific evidence for the God of the Bible creating the universe. I have enjoyed most of the things I have read and heard from Hugh Ross. He is a great scientist and well worth listening to. Thanks, Brian.

Did God Create the Universe? MP3 by Hugh Ross - Apologetics 315

YouTube - Refuting Compromise by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati

Image via Wikipedia

I was pointed to the book Refuting Compromise by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati. I really am grateful to my brother-in-Christ Mike Felker for suggesting it. He aid that it would help me understand more about why Hugh Ross is wrong and Young Earth Creationism is the best answer way to understand scripture. I have to admit that I have not read the book yet, but I did find Dr. Sarfati lecturing on the contents of the book in a video on YouTube. I hope the book is better than the lecture because I thought that it was insulting to Dr. Ross and did not explain how Young Earth Creation explains the scientific evidence and scripture. I don't agree with how Ross reconciles the two but I can see he is trying. Sarfarti accused him of compromising scripture in order to accept science. I disagree. Hugh Ross does not start from science and then inconsistently denies scripture. I have heard Ross say many many times that if something science says is true then scripture must not contradict it. I agree. Therefore when I run across a Bible/scientific contradiction then one of two things must be true: either my understanding of scripture is wrong or the science is wrong. I'd counsel care in determining which is which.

Sarfari's greatest argument I think is the idea that death could not have existed on earth before human sin. However arguing that plants don't die seems to me like a bad argument. I admit that I don't have an answer but I don't like Ross' answer either about soul-less hominids existing before Adam. What i would really like to see is a young earth argument for explaining all the science that dates the earth far more than 6000 years. I also think that the bible does not give us enough information to find the age of the earth. If God will not tell us when this world ends why would we think we can calculate when it began? Even if the earth was created in 6 twenty-four hour days, why would that week be 6000 years ago and not 6 billion years ago? There simply isn't enough data to call anyone to the carpet about. I also think its important to recognize God could have done it in any period of time He wanted - 6 seconds or 6 trillion years or anything He wanted. The question is what did He choose to do? I don't know. But to me science is about figuring out what He did.




YouTube - Refuting Compromise by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati

What’s wrong with the progressive creation view of Hugh Ross?

I have posted a lot of posts referring to Hugh Ross' work. I went to look at Answers in Genesis to see if they had any rebuttal information. They have quite a lot. I decided to interact with one of the essays by Ken Ham, also a man I admire. He makes some great points, and does point out some things that I do not agree with. My comments are red.

By Ken Ham

The ‘progressive creation’ view of Dr Hugh Ross on how to interpret the book of Genesis has received wide publicity and endorsement from many well-known Christian leaders, churches, seminaries, and Christian colleges.
This brief summary of only some of these teachings is meant to familiarize Christians with aspects of the ‘Rossist’ position, including some that are not so well-known. We need to judge these against the absolutes of God's Word to see ‘whether these things were so.’ (Acts 17:11)
While Dr Ross is NOT an evolutionist per se, he does accept much of what evolutionists teach in astronomy and geology. We do not seek to pass judgment on his Christian character or commitment to the Lord.

I like this disclaimer.

In summary, progressive creation/Rossism teaches:

• The ‘Big Bang’ origin of the universe occurred 16-billion-years ago; death, bloodshed, and disease existed before Adam & Eve.
• The days of Creation were long periods.
• Noah’s Flood was a local event.
• Sin has only a regionally limited effect on the world.
• Man-like creatures that behaved much like us—and painted on cave walls—existed before Adam and Eve, but didn’t have a spirit and thus had no salvation.
• The record of nature is just as perfect as the Word of God.
• Over millions of years, God created new species as others kept going extinct.

Publisher: Dr. Ross’s books are published by NAVPRESS, the publishing arm of the Navigators. They stated in a press release: ‘We consider it our privilege and our calling to stand behind Hugh Ross with our support as his publisher.’

Progressive Creation/Rossism teachings

(The following quotes are all taken from lectures or publications by Dr Ross)

1. Concerning the creation of life in the universe:

‘It only works in a cosmos of a hundred-billion trillion stars that’s precisely sixteen-billion-years old. This is the narrow window of time in which life is possible.
‘Therefore it allows me to make an interesting paraphrase of John 3:16, if you’ll permit—For God so loved the human race that he went to the expense of building a hundred-billion trillion-stars and carefully shaped and crafted them for sixteen-billion years so that at this brief moment in time we could all have a nice place to live.’ (Dallas Theological Seminary Chapel Service, September 13, 1996).

Our Comment: Read John 3:16 for yourself and compare it to the above!

I doubt that Hugh Ross would disagree with Ken Ham.

Also: ‘Life is only possible when the universe is between 12 and 17 billion years.’ (Toccoa Falls College, Staley Lecture Series, March 1997)

Comment: God is omnipotent—He could make a fully functional universe ready for life right from the beginning, for with God nothing is impossible. (See Matt. 19:26; Mark 10:27)

 God could have created the universes in 6 sec, 6 days, 6 years, or 6 billion years. What ever he wanted. The point is understanding what God actually did.

2. Dr Ross defending his belief that Noah’s Flood was only local:

‘But here are some reasons why, physical reasons why, the flood cannot be global. Number one is the limited extent of sin. Given that human beings had not yet civilized and inhabited Antarctica, there’d be no need for God to flood Antarctica because there’d be no sin there in Antarctica.
‘There’d be no need for God to kill off all the penguins because those penguins had no contact with reprobate humanity. And in that case, I don’t think Noah took any penguins on board the ark. … Only bird and mammal species, according to the Levitical Law, can be impacted by sin.’ (Toccoa Falls College, Staley Lecture Series, March, 1997)

Comment: Read Genesis 6:19-20; The Bible clearly states here that all kinds of land animals—including penguins—were on the ark. By the way, most penguins live in other parts of the world, including the Galapagos Islands near the Equator!

I agree that the flood was global not local because i think that the time the earth had only one land mass.  Given the argument I give here: Pangea - Biblical Evidence

3. Dr. Ross defining what he calls the ‘sixty-seventh book of the Bible’:

‘Not everyone has been exposed to the sixty-six books of the Bible, but everyone on planet Earth has been exposed to the sixty-seventh book - the book that God has written upon the heavens for everyone to read.
‘And the Bible tells us it’s impossible for God to lie, so the record of nature must be just as perfect, and reliable and truthful as the sixty-six books of the Bible that is part of the Word of God … And so when astronomers tell us [Ross uses the example of scientists attempting to measure distances in space and goes on to say that] it’s part of the truth that God has revealed to us. It actually encompasses part of the Word of God.’ (Toccoa Falls College, Staley Lecture Series March, 1997).

Comment: Indeed God cannot lie, so when He tells us in Romans 8:22 that ‘the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain’ because of sin, then how can sinful fallible human beings in a sin-cursed universe say that their interpretation of the evidence is as perfect as God’s written revelation? Scientific assertions must use fallible assumptions and fallen reasoning—how can this be the Word of God?

I don't think that Ross is saying that we should use believe "science" over scripture. But I believe that because God is rational and has left enough "bread crumbs" that we can follow the Bread crumbs and find truth about the reality of what God created.

4. Dr Ross’s Creation story for children states:

‘Starting about 2 to 4 million years ago, God began creating man-like mammals or ‘hominids.’ These creatures stood on two feet, had large brains, and used tools. Some even buried their dead and painted on cave walls.
‘However, they were different from us. They did not worship God or establish religious practices. In time, all these man-like creatures went extinct. Then, about 10 to 25 thousand years ago, God replaced them with Adam and Eve.’ (Reasons To Believe Web Site, updated July 8, 1997)

Comment: Dr Ross accepts and defends the evolutionist radiometric dating methods, so all evidence of humans, descendants of Noah, if given evolutionary dates of more than 25,000 years (eg., The Neanderthal cave sites) must be redefined as related to spirit-less ‘hominoids’ which the Bible doesn’t mention. However, the same methods have been used to ‘date’ the Australian aborigines back at least 40,000 years (some have claimed much older). By Ross’s reasoning, the Australian aborigines could NOT be descendants of Adam and Eve. However, read Acts 17:26. Interestingly, some scientists now date the American Indians’ ancestors at earlier than 40,000 years.

I have never heard Ross try to defend this view in a debate, but if Ham is correct I completely disagree with the thought of souless hominids before Adam and Eve. I don't see how scripture bears this out.

5. Dr Ross commenting on God’s knowledge and wisdom:

‘The Creator of the universe must be a Being that’s a minimum of a hundred-trillion times better educated, more intelligent, therefore more powerful, more creative, and even more caring and loving than we human beings.’ (Focus on the Family, radio broadcast, August 7, 1997)

Comment: Our Creator is NOT a minimum of a hundred-trillion times better educated! He is INFINITELY more knowledgeable. (See Col. 2:3; Job 21:22, 42:1–6)

Ross would not disagree with Ham on this point. He is not saying something different. They agree. And so do I.

6. Dr Ross defending death, bloodshed, disease, and suffering before Adam’s sin:

‘The spilling of blood before Adam’s sin in no way affects or detracts from the doctrine of atonement. Upholding that central doctrine in no way demands a Creation scenario in which none of God’s creatures received a scratch or other blood-letting wound before Adam and Eve sinned … Even in an ideal natural environment animals would be constantly scratched, pricked, bruised, and even killed by accidental events and each other … Could it be that God’s purposes are somehow fulfilled through our experiencing the ‘random, wasteful, inefficiencies’ of the natural realm He created?’ (Creation and Time, Chapters 6 & 8)

Comment: Read Genesis 1:29,30; Genesis 9:3; Genesis 1:31; Genesis 2:17; Genesis 3:17-19; Genesis 3:21; Hebrews 9:22; Romans 5; Romans 8:20-22; 1 Corinthians 15; Acts 3:21; Isaiah 11:6-9; Revelation 21:4; Revelation 22:3.
God created a perfect world at the beginning—all the animals and man were vegetarians (Gen. 1:29). Plants were given for food—they do not have a ‘nephesh’ [life spirit] as man and animals do.
God killed the first animal in the Garden and shed blood because of sin—if there was death, bloodshed, disease and suffering before sin, then the basis for the atonement is destroyed. Christ suffered death, for death was the penalty for sin. There will be no death or suffering in the perfect ‘restoration’—so why can’t we accept the same in a perfect (‘very good’) Creation before sin?

Does "very good" mean "perfect"?  I'm not sure.. Also asserting that plants don't have life spirit and don't die like men and animals I think may be a stretch.

7. Dr Ross on Revelation:

‘We’re also told in Revelation 6:9 that Christians who died ahead of us are watching what we’re doing. It’s like they go to heaven and they’re given the equivalent of some kind of TV monitor with a bunch of channels that they can select and they can watch.’ (Focus on the Family, broadcast August 8, 1997)

Comment: Look up Revelation 6:9 for yourself!

Ham has a point. i think Ross missed it there.

8. Dr Ross on space-time dimensions:

‘What follows, then, from string theory and from all these recent findings in particle physics and astrophysics is that God must be operating in a minimum of eleven dimensions of space and time, or their practical equivalent.’ (Beyond The Cosmos, Chapter 8)

Comment: Dr Ross bases much of what he says on ‘string theory,’ which is NOT universally accepted, and is just one of many arcane speculations being discussed by theorists. It is so vague and speculative, and without experimental support, that to use it to apply to defining attributes of God is foolish.
In the same book Dr Ross declares: ‘We are the only people ever to see (or need) direct scientific proof not only for God’s existence, but also for His transcendent capacity to create space and time dimensions, as well as to operate in dimensions independent of our own four.’ (Beyond The Cosmos, chapter 3)
Comment: What about Hebrews 11:3,6? Whatever happened to faith? String theory is NOT proof for God’s existence. Remember Romans 10:17: ‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.’ The Spirit of God uses the Word of God to bring people to Christ.
A detailed critique of many more ‘Rossist’ teachings is available in book form: Creation and Time—A Report on the Progressive Creationist Book by Hugh Ross.

Proof does not equal evidence. The Big Bang is saying that matter, energy, space, and time came into existence together out of nothing. This is what Genesis 1:1 says. completely consistent. I think Ham is right about faith. It is by faith that we know for sure that God created everything out of nothing. But what harm is it to look at the evidence and notice that the creation has God's "fingerprints".


What’s wrong with the progressive creation view of Hugh Ross?

Interview with Robert Price and John Loftus

I found six videos on YouTube in which Robert M. Price and John W. Loftus are interviewed. It was very interesting. I like looking at people's testimonies. How did they get to the point of thinking the way they do? They are apostates. People who claim to have been believers and now disavow Christianity. Why? What made them change their minds? These interviews begin to answer these questions. I have to say that neither of these men are unlikeable. It's nice to see Loftus in a relaxed public appearance in which he is not trying to win an argument.

According to Loftus, he lost his faith because he could not reconcile the Genesis account with what he understood from science. As far as Price, he just seemed to say that he looked at the evidence and was no longer persuaded that they were true.

I find that I disagree. Not because I'm a Christian but because I know that you can come to many different conclusions based on what you expect to find. I'd like to see if Loftus ever talked to Hugh Ross or Jay Richards. Did he ever discuss it with William Lane Craig? I don't know. But there seems to be an arrogance that says "I don't understand it therefore it must be wrong."

As for Price. The man is likable. And I admire the fact that he is willing to say publicly that he knows that the majority of his peers disagree with him but sticks to his conclusions. I disagree with him, but at least he is consistent with himself.

Frank Pastore Show - Wed5pmHr_03-31-2010.mp3 (audio/mpeg Object)

This was an awesome radio debate on old earth and young earth creationism. I liked it enough. There was some interaction on the question that I have not posted before. I like Hugh Ross' approach best. The Bible and natural science must agree. If they don't then our understanding of one of them or both of them has to be flawed!

FrankPastoreShow-Wed5pmHr_03-31-2010.mp3 (audio/mpeg Object)

"God the Failed Hypothesis" Part 2 - August 17, 2008

Dr Hugh Ross  debated Dr. Victor Stenger about God's existence and the creation of the universe on the radio program called The Things That Matter Most. I think Ross went too far in granting that the Bible allows for multiple universes.  I don't see it that way. Besides that Ross was on point. I hate that Stenger just resorted to the many-worlds defense and poor design to argue against Intelligent Design. I mean it seems that this is all the other side has to use. They also discussed what "nothing" really is.

"God the Failed Hypothesis" Part 2 - August 17, 2008

An Open Letter to Dr. Hugh Ross

I came across a great letter to Hugh Ross from a fellow Christian and Scientist named Lambert Dolphin. He agrees with Ross on some points and disagrees on others. I myself find myself agreeing and disagreeing with both of them. What I like about the letter is that respect for Ross is evident although he disagrees with him on some points. I wouild love to see a dialogue between these two (pictured Lambert Dolphin). You can checkout Dr  Lambert Dolphin's website also.

An Open Letter to Dr. Hugh Ross