Great Debate on Science and the Bible: Part 1

http://www.ankerberg.com/TV/ankjasrm.html ^

[truthfinder9]

Militant young-earther Ken Ham debates Old Testament scholar Walt Kaiser and astronomer Hugh Ross on interpreting Genesis. Ken Ham and his propagandists have often accused old-earthers of not believing in the literal bible or believing in evolution (both lies). Here Ham shows his complete lack of bible knowledge against Walt Kaiser, one of the most respected OT scholars and defenders of the accuracy of the OT. Kind of hard to call him an "apostate" or "compromiser." As usual, Ham shows he knows next to nothing about science as compared to Hugh Ross. First in a series of planned broadcasts.

[newgeezer]

Not a hint of bias in that blurb. Nope, none at all.

[truthfinder9]

Well, if you heard or read the kind of things Ham and Co. say about other Christians, you would find how accurate "militant" describes them.

[silverleaf]

Should be a good lecture.
Dr Ross has written extensively on this.

[ChrisLucasForGov]

Ken Ham has it straight. Lots of holes in Hugh Ross's ideas.

Ross argues that Augustine made a mistake and took nearly everyone afterwards with him in concluding that God operates outside of space and time. Instead, Ross insists that God must operate within space and time, which necessitates the additional dimensions. Ross’s claims on this matter seems to suggest that God is somehow confined by time. Of course God can operate in or out of time as He chooses, so why would He confine Himself to operate within one of His own creations? Even a self-described Ross-supporter, the philosopher/apologist William Lane Craig, has severely criticised Ross’s teachings on this:

‘… I have been mystified by evangelicals’ apparently uncritical acquiescence to some of the positions advocated in this book [Ref. 4].

‘… I find his attempt to construe God as existing in hyperdimensions of time and space and to interpret Christian doctrines in that light to be both philosophically and theologically unacceptable.’ 30



I don't think Ross really understands as much about science as he claims to, and hardly anything at all about the Bible.


Ross also claimed that the Pacific Ocean basin is the scar left from when the moon was formed by separation from the earth. That is a very old idea that was discarded decades ago. Today, the Pacific Ocean basin is explained entirely by plate tectonics. These blunders and outdated ideas are inexcusable for a scientist. That is ironic, because Ross often dismisses his creationist critics for supposedly not having the credentials to adequately understand science.

Is this even Biblical? I see nothing in Genesis about something coliding into the earth and making a moon. I mean heck, wouldn't this maybe mess up the plants and everything God created? Heck, it couldve tossed up so much dirt and dust, it couldve blocked out the light and killed the plants. It wouldve had to have some impact on the environment. It really makes me go "huh?"

Use to, people would argue about 6 days taking too long. "Why would God take 6 days? He is God, He could do it in a day!"

Ross makes God seem CLumsy. God could simply put a moon in the sky next to the Earth. Why would God create all these plants and stuff then have an object run into the Earth AFTER GOD created all the plants, just to create a Moon?


SOme things Ross states are just ridiculous. I took physics in college. I think Ross talks over people's head and they just agree with him. Thing is HIS science disagrees with what GOD tells us through the Bible. DO you really believe there was a pre-adamic race? Where does the BIBLE say this? There are no facts even in science of a pre-adamic race. Heck, if people lived 900 years like the bible says the did, any dental student will tell you over time their face will look very different. I believe every human skeleton found has Carbon in it. If you can carbon date something, its not more than about 40000 years old. ANd even then, you have to assume the ratios of c14 to c12 are the same now as they were years ago, or it throws off you calculations of age. And what about fossils Trilobites found next to human footprints? ANd did you know scientists say Trilobites, one of the first organisms ever, had the most sophisticated eyes? Dinosaur fossils found with BLOOD still in them? COme on now. If Dinosaurs really went extinct milions of years ago,do you really expect to find BLOOD in one?

This is just insanity.

[Dog Gone]

And what about fossils Trilobites found next to human footprints?

I'd like to see that.

[MHalblaub]

"I believe every human skeleton found has Carbon in it. If you can carbon date something, its not more than about 40000 years old. ANd even then, you have to assume the ratios of c14 to c12 are the same now as they were years ago, or it throws off you calculations of age."

I think you don't know much about carbon dating or dendrochronology, do you?

[truthfinder9]

Try again.

Ross' books clearly detail the God is not confined by time, but he obviously often operates in time because man is bound by time. Physics has proven there are dimensions beyond our own. Craig's critisims were based on misunderstandings and were answered in the second edition of Ross' book "Beyond the Cosmos." But of course the folks at Ken Ham Inc never told you that.

"Ross also claimed that the Pacific Ocean basin is the scar left from when the moon was formed by separation from the earth. That is a very old idea that was discarded decades ago. Today, the Pacific Ocean basin is explained entirely by plate tectonics."

Try again. Many still believe the Moon was seperated from the Earth and that plate movements don't explain it all. Talk about blunders, where have you been? YECs like Ken Ham denied plate tectonics until a few years ago. He still pretends that the plates moved in a few years. Talk about idiocy.

Try reading the Bible again. It doesn't say anything about black holes, supernova, atoms and about a thousand other scientific things. Furthermore, Moon creation is dated before life. So much for "huh?"

No, YECS make God seem stupid, and YECS don't read their bible. God is independent of time so "days" is meaningless to him. But he created the universe over time to give man ample evidence that God did it. How would he do that if it were only a few days? Make the world seem old and lie to people?

Yes, science says there were preAdam races. Where've you been? Obviously reading the substandard, pseudoscience that Ken Ham & Co put out. Sorry, but their "science" is up there with Darwinian Fundamentalism and Flat Earthism.

"If Dinosaurs really went extinct milions of years ago,do you really expect to find BLOOD in one?"

Actually, yes, it can happen. See http://www.evidence.info/youngearth/dinoblood.html
But obviously the YEC HQ didn't fill you in on that part of the story.

I'm not sure why the "Christians" over there at Ken Ham Inc feel the need to decieve, supress evidence,etc. If you actually study science or read what Hugh Ross writes, you wonder how Ken Ham & Co. can sleep at night with all that trash they put out. That is insanity.

[curiosity]

I was rather dissapointed in the old earthers' arguments. If understood them correctly, they seem to be conceding that days 4-7 were 24 hour periods, but that days 1-3 could be longer periods of time because God hadn't created the sun and moon yet. Even if this agument follows (and I don't think it does), you've still got the problem of a literal reading of days 4-7 conflicting with modern geology and paleantology. For instance, land animals appeared millions of years after sea creatures, not merely 24 hours.

Frankly, arguing whether Yom is a literal 24 day is rather silly. Even if you allow days 4-7 to be indeterminate periods of time, you've got lots of other aspects of the Genesis creation storeis that conflict with science. For instance, the order in which creatures appear contradicts the fossil record. Land animals preceded birds, not the other way around. Plants could not live without the sun. Etc, etc, etc.

The only rational interpretation of Genesis 1-2 is that they allegories designed to convey certain historical truths important to salvation. The details are unimportant and not meant to be taken seriously, but are either filler, to keep the story interesting, or symbols. The fact that some details contradict each other in places ought to clue the reader into this obvious fact.

[curiosity]

Faith and Science Ping.

I don't think this debate is all that interesting. As my earlier post indicates, the old earthers don't make a good case. The debate is useful, however, to illustrate how rational believes should not argue against YECS.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Varda]

"The details are unimportant and not meant to be taken seriously, but are either filler, to keep the story interesting, or symbols."

Another way of looking at the text is given by Origen, (cut & paste from class notes, errors mine)

Origen of Alexandria (ca. 185-254), held that one often came across what he called “impossibilities” in the text, impossibilities of various sorts: mythological creatures, historical impossibilities, lapses of logic, etc. His theory was that the sacred authors, inspired by the Holy Spirit, placed these intentionally into the text so that the “spiritual” character or “inner meaning” of the text could show through. He comments:

Divine Wisdom has arranged for there to be certain stumbling blocks or interruptions of the narrative meaning, by inserting in its midst certain impossibilities and contradictions, so that the very interpretation of the narrative might oppose the reader, as it were, with certain obstacles thrown in the way. By them Wisdom denies a way and an access to the common understanding, and when we are shut out and hurled back, it calls us back to the beginning of another way, so that by gaining a higher and loftier road through entering a narrow footpath it may open for us the immense breadth of divine knowledge.

Or again, Origen comments that by means of the impossibilities sprinkled into the narrative, the Holy Spirit acts to “turn and call back the mind of the reader to the examination of the inner meaning” of the narrative (On First Principles 4.2.9)."

[curiosity]

Thanks for posting that quote. Very insightful. The wisdom of the Fathers is never out date.

[truthfinder9]

Actually, I don't see how anyone could support YECism after doing an honest study of the sides. YECism has so many blatant contradictions, frauds, poorly interpretated scripture, blatant ignoring of context and Hebrew, fabricated science, outlandish claims, etc., that it's a major embarssment to Christianty. That's why most in the design movement have abandoned it. Ken Ham & co. don't like to mention that, but they have been left behind. It's also why they vilify anyone who opposes them, so you'll be afraid to check it out for yourself. You'd be amazed at the emotional, militant, unChristian attacks that old-earthers have experienced from Ken Ham & Co.

Why Young-Earthism is NOT the Literal Interpretation and Why It's Blatantly Wrong

[truthfinder9]

That's not correct. Kaiser was aluding to different possibilities, but Ross maintains that the days were long periods of time. See his book "A Matter of Days."

In the young-earth view you have plants appearing before the Sun, but the OE view recognizes that in the early Earth that the Sun was hidden by the clouded atmosphere. This matchs percisely with Genesis, especially when the Hebrew is properly rendered.

The sequence of animals is also correct when one correctly considers the Hebrew meaning(s). Most people don't realize that ancient Hebrew had limited vocabulary and that most words had multiple meanings. Many translaters translated the words to what fit their view. Newer translations are closer to the mark. These issues also make the YEC "literal" view laughable, because it's not literal at all.

So there's no need to resort to allegories to explain away Genesis. As Ross explains in his book "The Genesis Question," Genesis matches precisely with science. Hence Genesis becomes a powerful evidence for the Bible's authenticity.

[truthfinder9]

Let's not forget the "Fathers" were wrong about many things. Luther thought Corpernicus and Galileo were wrong about helicentrism. Why do people think the fathers, who knew virtually nothing about science (or the biblical languages) compared to us, have some kind of special insight to science? That doesn't make sense. Many people just go through history picking people who support their view. That doesn't prove their view, it only shows someone else had the same view. It's like the Darwin Fundies who make a list of people who support Darwinism then use that as proof for Darwinsim.

[Varda]

The church fathers needed no scientific insight when looking at the Creation narrative because it is so obviously not science. Genesis chapter 1 consistently throws scientific impossibilities at the reader not the least of which is that the very possibility of observation doesn't occur until after creation has taken place.

The fathers wisdom has stood the test of time. The best of their teaching is part of the body of work that informs the magisterium of the Catholic Church. That's not cherry picking who I prefer. Their views are authoritative because the Church says they are.

[spunkets]

"I took physics in college. ...Dinosaur fossils found with BLOOD still in them? Come on now. If Dinosaurs really went extinct milions of years ago,do you really expect to find BLOOD in one?
This is just insanity.

Troll.

[curiosity]

Let's not forget the "Fathers" were wrong about many things. Luther thought Corpernicus and Galileo were wrong about helicentrism.

Most people wouldn't consider those two characters to be fathers. When I mean fathers, I mean bishops, priests, or monks writing between approximately A.D. 50 and 600.

Why do people think the fathers, who knew virtually nothing about science (or the biblical languages) compared to us, have some kind of special insight to science?

They don't have special insight into science, but they do have special insight into theology and Biblical exegesis because they lived closer to apostolic times. And yes, some Fathers did have special insight into the Biblical languages. Many of the early Fathers, like Origin, lived in societies wherein the Biblical languages were still in everyday usage. Others had access to ancient texts in these languages that have since been lost.

Many people just go through history picking people who support their view. That doesn't prove their view, it only shows someone else had the same view.

Well, that's not how patristic research is typically done. What you should do is study the Fathers as a group and make note of issues upon which there is broad agreement. When you see that, it is significant.

[curiosity]

Actually, I don't see how anyone could support YECism after doing an honest study of the sides. YECism has so many blatant contradictions, frauds, poorly interpretated scripture, blatant ignoring of context and Hebrew, fabricated science, outlandish claims, etc., that it's a major embarssment to Christianty.

I've got no argument with you here. I'd only add that the same thing is true, albeit to a lesser degree, for Old Earth creationism.

That's why most in the design movement have abandoned it. Ken Ham & co. don't like to mention that, but they have been left behind.

I don't think that's true. As far as I know, the polls all indicate that the most evolution skeptics are YECS.

You'd be amazed at the emotional, militant, unChristian attacks that old-earthers have experienced from Ken Ham & Co.

That doesn't amaze me at all. What does amaze me are the militant, emotional, and unChristian attacks I see Old Earth creationists level against theistic evolutionists.