What are 7 days of creation? John Lennox

Here is a great discussion with John Lennox about how to square what we observe in science with what has been revealed to us by God in Genesis.

Faithful Thinkers: Cartoons, Animal Death, and Theology

What does one of the Looney Tunes episodes tell us about "the challenge of so much animal death in God's creation"? How does this affect theology regarding death before sin? Quite a bit. Just read Luke Nix'as article!





Faithful Thinkers: Cartoons, Animal Death, and Theology

Related articles

• Systematic Theology (paintrockmbc.wordpress.com)
• My Theology of Effects (nickispies.wordpress.com)
• Biblical Theology (paintrockmbc.wordpress.com)
• Without the Holy Night, there is No Theology (frstephensmuts.wordpress.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

Get Answers - Answers in Genesis

During...er....conversations with Ryan Anderson he, being an apostate atheist, doesn't like the ministry Answers in Genesis but he did mention that they had an interesting article about arguments that should not be used to oppose evolution and support creationism. I agree. Shocking!  The article is really a series. I provided a link below to a list of those articles. The funny thing is I'm not sure why he brought it up considering that I didn't make any of these arguments with him or anyone to support that God created us and that we did not evolve from lower lifeforms.Of course these arguments are very bad should be avoided like the plague.

Get Answers - Answers in Genesis

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?

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)

Dr. Jason Lisle and Dr. Hugh Ross Debate: Special Webcast - Answers in Genesis

Image via Wikipedia

So what happens when two believers who are educated in similar scientific discipline really debate old earth and young earth creationism? I always wondered. Well thanks to Mike from the Apologetic Front I have found one. A radio debate between Jason Lisle who is an AstroPhysicist and Hugh Ross who is an Astronomer. Lisle was arguing that the days of creation were six 24-hour days while Ross sees them as 6 periods of time that scientific observation gives you periods of millions of years. What struck me was how similar Lisle's arguments were to Kent Hovind's. The only difference I could find was that Kent has a thick southern accent living from Florida.

The discussion seemed to center on how the question affect how you view and have confidence in the Bible. I personally agree that the Bible is correct and we should make all effort to understand what the Bible says. In both Lisle's and Hovind's theology I see a few problems

1. They argue that plants are not alive because they don't have consciousness.
2. They ignore that the genealogies in Genesis don't list every single generation.
3. They think that nothing died but plants (but according to them plants are not alive) before Adam sinned.

In addition Ross made a major point. Many times this debate centers on Genesis 1 and 2 but ignore the fact that the Bible does discuss it in other passages: Job 38; Psalms 104; and Proverbs 8. This is an awesome point. And I did not like Lisle's response, I don't think we can say those passages are poetic.

I was real disappointed how Leslie did not try to engage Ross on the Astronomical and Physics that Hovind failed miserably to be able to do. I would have like to see how Lisle would explain how he can see that the earth is only 6000 years old from astronomical information. I find that my attitude towards the subject fits much closer to Hugh Ross' attitude.




Dr. Jason Lisle and Dr. Hugh Ross Debate: Special Webcast - Answers in Genesis

Related articles by Zemanta

• "old-earth" vs. "young-earth" creationism (schansblog.blogspot.com)

FULL: Kent Hovind vs Hugh Ross debate (disc 2 of 2)

This was a great debate on the John Ankerberg show. It's Kent Hovind defending Young Earth Creationism and Hugh Ross defending Old Earth Creationism.






There was a lot of great stuff in the debate. I learned a lot. I think Hovind was wrong to attack Ross. My own studies has led me to many of the same conclusions as Ross. The greatest proof that the days of Genesis not being literal 24 hours days is the point that on day 7 where the Bible says God rested it does not say that evening and morning were the seventh day as it was for the previous 6 verses! I never looked at it that way before. We are still in that seventh day. My friend Mariano left a comment on a previous post that points that when the Bible says God rested it does not mean He was tired only that he stopped creating. I liked Ross' point that when God brings the new heavens and the new earth God will begin creating again.

Another great point by Ross is that Genesis account does not really show any appreciable change in our natural laws. As far was we can tell there was still entropy before the fall because if there wasn't there would have been no stars. I thought Ross was far more scientific than Hovind.

FULL: Kent Hovind vs Hugh Ross debate (disc 2 of 2)

Kent Hovind v Hugh Ross (disc 1 of 2)

I found a great debate on the Internet between Astronomer Hugh Ross and Dr. Kent Hovind. Both believe the Bible. Both believe that God created the Universe. They disagree on the age of the earth and how God did it. Hovind believes that we should understand the Bible is claiming that the days of creation were six twenty-four hour days while Dr. Ross believes that the Bible, in context, was actually talking about six periods of time that could have been millions of years. I enjoyed the debate. I think Hovind lost big while Ross did a better job of arguing his points from scripture and science. The best feature of the debate is that they stepped through the days of creation (didn't make it through all of them) and talked about what happened from their different points of view.

1. I agree with Ross that you can't use the genealogy in Genesis to calculate the age of the earth because we don't know if everyone who lived is listed in that. Genealogies in the Hebrew culture don't list everyone. This is what Hovind does to find the age of the earth.
2. I'm not too sure I agree with Ross on his interpretation that Day 2 was the water cycle but I admit that there is room for further discussion.
3. I did not like the way Hovind seemed to look down his nose at Ross.
4. I've studied physics at the college level and done a considerable amount of research I found nothing wrong with anything Ross said from the astronomical point of view. I admit that I have a problem with anyone who tries to argue that the speed of light is not constant. Most our technology based on quantum mechanics rely in that fact. I've measured the speed of light myself in a lab and got the same thing the texts say it should be. Yes, it's constant everywhere and no reason to think it isn't. Not good at all, Hovind.
5. The other offputting thing about Hovind's performance was instead of really interacting with Ross he seemed to just throw out all of his evidence. In my opinion the Big Bang - all Matter & Energy - all dimensions of Space and Time - simultaneously exploding together into existence is what Genesis 1:1 says!




Watch Kent Hovind v Hugh Ross (disc 1 of 2) in Educational & How-To  |  View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com

Kent Hovind v Hugh Ross (disc 1 of 2) | Free Educational & How-To Videos - Watch Educational & How-To Videos Online | Veoh

Hugh Ross and Kent Hovind radio debate

Image via Wikipedia

I have to admit that I enjoy Kent Hovind's debates against atheists a lot more than when he debates other Christians that disagree with him. This particular debate he had against Hugh Ross on the Radio about 10 years ago illustrates this point. I think this debate displays flaws in Hovind's character and theology. Disrespecting Hugh Ross' credentials and scholarship is very regrettable. It all stems from the idea of Hovind's unwillingness to look at scripture objectively and science objectively. and to really listen to what some of his Christian brothers and sisters are really saying. Anyone who has truly studied the Bible knows that you can't just pick up the King James Version and read it and get every nugget in the text without consulting other translations and the original language as well as science and history. Hovind does not really do this unless it supports what he thinks the Bible says. I think Ross does not do this and is more fair and balance.



I've been looking for something like this debate. A full on discussion concerning does science and the Bible really conflict on the age of the earth. I would have liked to heard more science but it was still good to hear them go toe-to-toe on scripture. One thing that I think was missing was that if Noah's flood was a global flood then it could have been also local because at the time of Noah's flood all the continents were gathered in one place. This one is really worth listening to!


Hugh Ross and Kent Hovind radio debate