Hugh Ross

Dang near 4 billion years ago and 50 million is a quibble? Maybe it was 3.9 billion years ago instead of 3.85. Maybe the carbon deposits are actually 3.75 billion years old.Your argument and Ross' would carry more weight if it included the traditional 95% statistical probability error brackets that most all peer reviewed journals carry when reporting research about age.Perhaps if they are there in the research, you should make it clear to us all.Do the probability brackets overlap?

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

Why are people who say that the evidence of the universe, including its synchronicity, its fine-tunedness, its ability to create such diverse and wondrous life forms, or even just the ability of the universe to create a being that wonders-fundamentally dishonest.What an absurd lie that is. Because they disagree with you, they must be lying?You have proof for the existence of this universe, that the "liars" are denying?

I followed it. But I did garble some of what I wrote, but thought that minor enough that I did not go back to correct it. That "about 3.85 billion" leaves a lot of leeway.I read other reports that say that life seems to have begun surprising early, perhaps within 100 million years after the earth was cool enough. Ross gets 0 time, and others get 100 million years. There is enough uncertainty in the timings, that one cannot pin it down as precisely as Ross suggests. Here's a report suggesting that the earth might have already been capable of supporting life as early as 4.2 billion years ago. I am not asserting that as correct. I am saying that it illustrates the large amount of uncertainty in the timings. I am confused by what Ross calls "prebiotic life". You seem to be treating that as if only inorganic chemistry was involved. I am assuming that there could be some significant amount of organic chemistry going on, perhaps even something with many of the characteristics of biology, although not enough of them that we would consider it to be life. No webpage found at provided URL: http://scienceweek.com/2005/sw050513-1.htmIt seems to me that Ross is drawing conclusions that are far too strong, given the uncertanties involved.

Melindoor, thanks for your post...as usual, well thought out and sincere. I'll try and explain the position that I've taken over the last couple of months through study. Maybe surprisingly, and this may answer most of your questions right off the bat, I've come to my conclusions, not through the study of science, which I'm the layest of laypersons, but more so through theology. For me, I've come to (am coming to) the conclusion of a YEC based on Scripture. I know most here will take issue with this right from the start. But through reading commentaries and books over the last few months, it's strengthened my resolve that Scripture is without error. Not that some minor errors haven't crept in as far as scribing or translation goes, but I mean, errors that would change the meaning of the context. I believe Scripture validates Scripture.For example, Peter mentions the flood refers to it as a literal event. Christ loosely mentions creation and refers to it as a literal event. I feel that people who deny the literalness of the flood, but can yet accept Peter's words in the NT, have a serisous issue with Scriptural "authority". This, I must admit, is where I am at my weakest and where I'm trying to shore up my apologetics so to say. I"m no scientist that's for sure. Interesting though that you brought up Luther and Calvin. I'd have a hard time believing that they would have compromised scriptural authority based on science too. I'm no different, although not nearly as gifted as those two legends. Luther and Calvin would not have chosen #1. I don't think #2 is a viable choice, certainly not for a proclaiming Christian to distort facts for the sake of an argument. Leaving #3 for now......... I agree with what you say here and I'll explain my position. You are right when you say that if there was a fall before the creation, it doesn't destroy Christianity. I believe that Ross and Ramm are Christians and at the very least I'm in no position to judge their hearts. BUT, (I think we've talked about this before), if this is true...IF Adam and Eve are myth or allegory, if the flood is just a version of a Babylonian folk tale, then we've been lied to, not only in the OT, but also throughout the more modern NT. The flood account in Genesis 6-9 is the MOST detailed account of event in ALL OF SCRIPTURE. The detail that the author goes through in those 3 chapters is astounding. And all for a myth?? We are given less detail in things that you would consider literal in scripture! Furthermore, Peter reiterates the account (in less detail) and likens it to the end times....so, will the end times be myth, localized, a select few....or are we being lied to. I have a feeling where this part of the conversation will lead us but I'll wait for your response. I'll retract the harshness of the statement you were referring to. However, history does show quite clearly that it was NOT christian theologians who started the theory of uniformitarianism. Lyell and Hutton were atheists, Darwin used their age of the earth theories to continue his theories on evolution.Do I think there is a vast evolutionary conspiracy out there to crush Christianity?? No, but there are some who would love to see and their science will be biased based on that....this only goes back to my original statement that many christians have compromised scriptural authority to "fit in".FYI, I appreciate your conclusion Melindoor.

As a Christian that fully accepts the old earth, Big Bang, Evolution, that there has never been a world-wide flood like that described in the Noah Fable, that there was no Fall, that death existed even before Adam was placed in the garden in the story, that Adam & Eve were not real people and the story in Genesis 2 & 3 is simply a "Just so story", that there was no Conquest of Canaan as described in Joshuah or an Exodus as described in the Bible; I can tell you for a fact that my position was not based on wanting to fit in but rather that the evidence I have seen has been so overwhelmingly convincing that the only honest conclusion I could reach was that the Bible was factually wrong on those points.My position is NOT taken to just fit in, it is the only way I could continue to be a Christian and maintain any honest belief.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Citation, please? A bit more definitive than one from Answers in Genesis?

anglagard and nwr:
Here are a few references that I found in the book "Origins of Life" by Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross, but I don't have access to them at the moment:*Craig E. Manning et al, "Geology and the age of supracrustal rocks, Akilia Island, Greenland: New evidence for a >3.83 Ga origin of life", Astrobiology 1 (2001) 402-403.
*Minik T. Rosing, "13C-depleted carbon microparticles in >3700-Ma sea-floor sedimentary rocks from West Greenland", Science 283 (1999) 674-676.
*John M. Hayes, "The earliest memories of life on earth", Nature 384 (1996) p. 21.I'm sure there are many better, more recent references.

The ones who continue to deny the evidence after it's been shown to them are liars. At best, they're lying to themselves. The ones who don't bother to look at the evidence at all but just blather denial on the internet are willfuly ignorant.Hugh Ross appears to be the former. We're not talking about the existence of the universe. We're talking about evolution. And we're not talking about "proof". We're talking about evidence.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can\'t find it.

Hi Flyer, Even if true, that doesn't mean he was right. A man of his time can be forgiven for not getting his science right; there was, after all, no real science and widespread ignorance of natural processes. This isn't any kind of judgement on the people of that era, it's simply a fact. That doesn't mean that he considered every last detail of the creation account to be literal and true. Personally, I don't think that the authors of Genesis 1&2/3 considered that they were writing an exacting historical and literal account of real events. I am convinced that they believed God created the world though. The two are not really the same. It's quite possible that the authors believed that God created the world but, lacking the precise details, chose to describe this in the form of foundational myths. Yes! You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that myths are less important than real history. they're not! they are very important. They may not tell us what happened exactly, but they help us understand it nonetheless. Take the myth of George Washington and the cherry tree. It never happened, but does that really matter? The story tells us what we want to hear; that Washington was an honest man. It elucidates a view of Washington, tells us what people thought about him, how he fits into American culture. All this is just as important as any historical fact about him.I agree that if the original sin is a myth it rather undermines the atonement of Christ, but as far as I'm concerned, that story was fatally flawed from the get-go. Jesus cannot take my sins upon himself. My sins are my own responsibility and cannot be taken from me any more than Jesus can take the credit for my achievements. There does, of course, exist a fourth possibility; that the interpretation was correct, but the author was simply wrong. If that is the case, your presupposition that all scripture must be correct will be guaranteed to lead you astray. As I understand it, Lyell may have been an agnostic or atheist, but Hutton was a deist.Mutate and Survive

According to Wikiepdia

quote:

---

Lyell, a devout Christian, had great difficulty reconciling his beliefs with natural selection.

---

And Hutton has a memorial plaque in Christchurch Cathedral. {ABE}: It was brought to my attention that you probably meant another Hutton. As you can see in the article, this guy was a Deist. so the point I made still stands. {/ABE}The site where you read they were both atheists lied to you, Flyer.Edited by Huntard, : Added {ABE} bit

Jar, I don't believe that you are one who has embraced science over scripture for a need to fit in....nor do I think the Lyell, Hutton, certainly not Darwin, ect did so either. I should have clarified that I believe the church did so in general. "Evangelicals" is what I'm referring to....As far as searching for Lyell and Hutton, I'll once again stand corrected. Hutton was at best a deist (probably in the vein of Jefferson) and everything I could find on Lyell was pretty sketchy. Huntard, you produced the only conclusive line I could find anywhere including form AiG.....which only stated that Lyell's beliefs led some to believe he was an atheist. So I correct my statement on that guys.....Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.

How did the church do so? How did "Evangelicals" embrace science over scripture to fit in?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

You have exempted jar from your "fitting in" charge. However, I think that charge rarely fits at all.Christians who are scientists, are studying their science to find out more about what God has created. They have a very real sense that the natural world is the work of God. It qualifies for the expression "the word of God" far more than could mere scriptures. If God chose to use evolution to generate the biological diversity that we see, it is not up to them to question God about doing it the way that he did.I think you will find that, rather than "fitting in," is what motivates them.

quote:

---

That "about 3.85 billion" leaves a lot of leeway.
I read other reports that say that life seems to have begun surprising early, perhaps within 100 million years after the earth was cool enough. Ross gets 0 time, and others get 100 million years. There is enough uncertainty in the timings, that one cannot pin it down as precisely as Ross suggests. Here's a report suggesting that the earth might have already been capable of supporting life as early as 4.2 billion years ago. I am not asserting that as correct. I am saying that it illustrates the large amount of uncertainty in the timings.

---

Yes, there is apparently some scholarly disagreement and debate about the timing. Some researchers claim evidence for life at more than 3.8 billion years ago, and others a bit less. Ross is going with about 3.8 billion, which is not quite the oldest and not the youngest. Ross' position on this may turn out to be slightly incorrect, but to accuse him of "lying for Jesus" on this point is ridiculous!Here is a more recent reference:

quote:

---

I am confused by what Ross calls "prebiotic life". You seem to be treating that as if only inorganic chemistry was involved. I am assuming that there could be some significant amount of organic chemistry going on, perhaps even something with many of the characteristics of biology, although not enough of them that we would consider it to be life.

---

I believe most isotopic fractionation is due to photosynthesis. C3 photosynthesis (trees and most plants) gives a delta-13 of about -25 to -30 per mil (consistent with the 3.83 Ga deposits above), while C4 photosynthesis (e.g. maize) gives a delta-13 of about -10 to -15 per mil.

quote:

---

"Science week" writes:

Owing to the difficulties in distinguishing between life and nonlife, no one signature of life -- for example, the fractionated isotopic ratio, the molecular carbon composition, or an isolated microfossil -- should be considered unequivocal evidence for traces of past life.

​

http://scienceweek.com/2005/sw050513-1.htm

---

It's not clear to me what the Science week author is claiming, and why. Is he claiming that abiotic chemical processes can produce a fractionation as large as the -29 per mil that is seen? If so, I am very skeptical. What is his evidence for this, other than hand-waving? What specific chemical processes is he invoking, and where is the evidence that they can fractionate so much? Or is he claiming that early (non-photosynthetic?) biotic processes could have produced a low fractionation? I would find this more plausible.

quote:

---

It seems to me that Ross is drawing conclusions that are far too strong, given the uncertanties involved.

---

Ross is simply following the claims of researchers in the field. I don't think these claims are too strong at all, in light of the large isotopic fractionation seen in the early Greenland rocks. If you disagree, please provide some experimental evidence of abiotic processes that can produce such large fractionations.

quote:

---

The ones who continue to deny the evidence after it's been shown to them are liars. At best, they're lying to themselves. The ones who don't bother to look at the evidence at all but just blather denial on the internet are willfuly ignorant.
Hugh Ross appears to be the former.
...
We're not talking about the existence of the universe. We're talking about evolution. And we're not talking about "proof". We're talking about evidence.

---

No, we are not talking about evolution, but about the origin of life. The main topics of the OP (and nwr's accusations of "lying") are the origin of life. Perhaps Ross could be accused of oversimplifying things too much as he summarizes the mainstream research in this field (what do you expect in a 10 min video?). But where, specifically, is he "lying" about origin of life research?