1. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    30 May '12 21:19
    Fellow Christians be careful not to be deceived by the false teachings of Hugh Ross.

    Ross believes in progressive creationism, which posits that while the earth is billions of years old, life did not appear by natural forces alone but that a supernatural agent formed different lifeforms in incremental (progressive) stages, and day-age creationism which is an effort to reconcile a literal Genesis account of Creation with modern scientific theories on the age of the Universe, the Earth, life, and humans. He rejects the Young Earth Creationist (YEC) position that the earth is younger than 10,000 years, or that the creation "days" of Genesis 1 represent literal 24-hour periods. Ross instead asserts that these days (translated from the Hebrew word yom) are historic, distinct, and sequential, but not 24 hours in length nor equal in length. Ross and his team agree with the scientific community at large that the vast majority of YEC arguments are pseudoscience and that any version of intelligent design is inadequate if it doesn't provide a testable hypothesis which can make verifiable and falsifiable predictions, and if not, it should not be taught in the classroom as science.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Ross_(creationist)

    Hugh Ross has been unable to break the strong hold that evolutionary science has on him. The following link gives some problems with the speculations of Hugh Ross.

    http://www.trueorigin.org/hughross02.asp
  2. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    30 May '12 22:031 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Fellow Christians be careful not to be deceived by the false teachings of Hugh Ross.

    Ross believes in progressive creationism, which posits that while the earth is billions of years old, life did not appear by natural forces alone but that a supernatural agent formed different lifeforms in incremental (progressive) stages, and day-age creationism which is some problems with the speculations of Hugh Ross.

    http://www.trueorigin.org/hughross02.asp
    IF your definition of a false teacher is a teacher who includes some possibly wrong ideas, then why don't you accuse Ken Hovind as a false teacher too ?

    Do you think 100% of things taught by Ken Hovind are true ? I seriously doubt it.

    We can take some things into serious consideration from Hugh Ross, if not all of his ideas. At any rate, in the area of science you hardly have the qualifications to argue with this doctored degreed expert in Astronomy.

    Have you seen some of the debates between Hovind and Ross? For one thing Ross comes off as entirely more civil and reasonable than your Ken Hovind does.

    Don't just swallow hook, line, and sinker, what opponents of Hugh Ross put up there. Think a bit for yourself.
  3. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    30 May '12 22:14
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Fellow Christians be careful not to be deceived by the false teachings of Hugh Ross.

    Ross believes in progressive creationism, which posits that while the earth is billions of years old, life did not appear by natural forces alone but that a supernatural agent formed different lifeforms in incremental (progressive) stages, and day-age creationism which is ...[text shortened]... some problems with the speculations of Hugh Ross.

    http://www.trueorigin.org/hughross02.asp
    Ross and Hovind debate Science and the Bible.

    YouTube

    Oh, I am a fan of the Gap Theory and not Ross's Day Age Theory.
  4. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    30 May '12 22:191 edit
    Originally posted by jaywill
    IF your definition of a false teacher is a teacher who includes some possibly wrong ideas, then why don't you accuse Ken Hovind as a false teacher too ?

    Do you think 100% of things taught by Ken Hovind are true ? I seriously doubt it.

    We can take some things into serious consideration from Hugh Ross, if not all of his ideas. At any rate, in the are ow hook, line, and sinker, what opponents of Hugh Ross put up there. Think a bit for yourself.
    Regardless if Ross is civil and reasonable, he is still wrong. I am not familiar with the Ross - Hovind debates. But I would not doubt that some things they both say may be wrong. However, I am not concerned with minor errors that do not effect the reliability of the Holy Bible. What I am against is obvious false teachings, like that of Hugh Ross, that undermine sound doctrine taught in the Holy Bible. Did you read my second link?
  5. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    30 May '12 22:42
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Regardless if Ross is civil and reasonable, he is still wrong. I am not familiar with the Ross - Hovind debates. But I would not doubt that some things they both say may be wrong. However, I am not concerned with minor errors that do not effect the reliability of the Holy Bible. What I am against is obvious false teachings, like that of Hugh Ross, that undermine sound doctrine taught in the Holy Bible. Did you read my second link?
    I didn't follow either link yet. I got to know years ago that Hugh Ross has his opponents from the more vocal YEC Christians. That is old old news. I know they denigrade him, hoot at him.

    I think there are some good things to be considered there. I agree with Hovind perhaps that the writer of Genesis wanted us to understand typical solar days. But I do not agree with YEC that James Ussher could pinpoint the date, hour, or even year of the creation of the universe.

    I asked you about the pitch in Genesis sealing the ark. You gave an answer. Thanks. It was not slam dunk. And Genesis may indeed indicate from that pitch tar used by Noah that ancient compressed vegetation was already in the earth.

    I heard you, that it can take less time then we think to make oil, etc. Maybe. Possibly. No definite rebuttal of the fact that oil was already in the earth in Noah's day.

    Of course the skeptics would LOVE to see two Christians go at it on interpretations of Genesis. But with some commentators I prove all things and hold fast to what is good. And I think both Hovind and Ross have some good things to say.

    If you want to jump on the trash Dr. Ross bandwagon, you go ahead. Reasons To Believe is a pretty neat organization for Christians to get some scientific questions addressed which might aid their trust in the Bible's revelation.

    That's my opinion.
  6. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    30 May '12 23:28
    Originally posted by jaywill
    I didn't follow either link yet. I got to know years ago that Hugh Ross has his opponents from the more vocal YEC Christians. That is old old news. I know they denigrade him, hoot at him.

    I think there are some good things to be considered there. I agree with Hovind perhaps that the writer of Genesis wanted us to understand typical solar days. But I do n ...[text shortened]... ons addressed which might aid their trust in the Bible's revelation.

    That's my opinion.
    "Of course the skeptics would LOVE to see two Christians go at it on interpretations of Genesis."

    I guess I'm not a skeptic because I would LOVE to see what the Christians here are unanimous about.
  7. Joined
    10 Jun '11
    Moves
    3829
    31 May '12 02:27
    Originally posted by jaywill
    Don't just swallow hook, line, and sinker, what opponents of Hugh Ross put up there. Think a bit for yourself.
    your asking too much of the old man. if it's not at a YEC website, it doesn't exist in his world.
  8. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    31 May '12 02:55
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Fellow Christians be careful not to be deceived by the false teachings of Hugh Ross.

    Ross believes in progressive creationism, which posits that while the earth is billions of years old, life did not appear by natural forces alone but that a supernatural agent formed different lifeforms in incremental (progressive) stages, and day-age creationism which is ...[text shortened]... some problems with the speculations of Hugh Ross.

    http://www.trueorigin.org/hughross02.asp
    Will Ross be damned along with the rest of his followers RJ?
  9. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    31 May '12 03:35
    Originally posted by whodey
    Will Ross be damned along with the rest of his followers RJ?
    I have yet to be given the gift of prophecy.
  10. Standard memberSwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    2014.05.01
    Joined
    11 Apr '07
    Moves
    92274
    31 May '12 04:09
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Hugh Ross has been unable to break the strong hold that evolutionary science has on him.
    I don't know if he's changed his mind, but back in '99 vs. Hovind, Ross did not think biological evolution was true.
  11. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    31 May '12 04:151 edit
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    I don't know if he's changed his mind, but back in '99 vs. Hovind, Ross did not think biological evolution was true.
    That's probably right but he still believes everything from the Big Bang on down to that point was due to evolution.
  12. Standard memberSwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    2014.05.01
    Joined
    11 Apr '07
    Moves
    92274
    31 May '12 04:19
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    That's right but he still believes everything from the Big Bang on down to that point was due to evolution.
    So? Take away the biological Theory of Evolution and the word 'evolution' just means
    1. any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.
    2. a product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.
  13. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    31 May '12 04:32
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    So? Take away the biological Theory of Evolution and the word 'evolution' just means
    1. any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.
    2. a product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.
    Man calls any of that evolution today, as long is God is not included in the beginning.
  14. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    31 May '12 07:511 edit
    Originally posted by JS357
    "Of course the skeptics would LOVE to see two Christians go at it on interpretations of Genesis."

    I guess I'm not a skeptic because I would LOVE to see what the Christians here are unanimous about.
    I guess I'm not a skeptic because I would LOVE to see what the Christians here are unanimous about.


    The most important thing we are unanimous about is that Jesus Christ is Lord. And that is not a small matter by any means.
  15. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    31 May '12 08:02
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I have yet to be given the gift of prophecy.
    You do not have the gift of prophecy. Okay. Do you have the gift that tells you the date of the creation of the world ?

    What is that date ?
    How do you know that the creation of the universe could not be more than 6,000 years ago ?

    Is that by divine gift you know that ? Or is there a place in the Scripture informing you of the year or century of the creation of the universe ?

    Do you trust one of the chronologies developed by Bible readers in the past ?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology

    Ussher's proposed date of 4004 BC differed little from other Biblically based estimates, such as those of Jose ben Halafta (3761 BC), Bede (3952 BC), Ussher's near-contemporary Scaliger (3949 BC), Johannes Kepler (3992 BC) or Sir Isaac Newton (c. 4000 BC).[citation needed] Ussher's specific choice of starting year may have been influenced by the then-widely-held belief that the Earth's potential duration was 6,000 years (4,000 before the birth of Christ and 2,000 after), corresponding to the six days of Creation, on the grounds that "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Peter 3:8). This view remains to be held as recently as 2000 AD,[1][2] six thousand years after 4004 BC.
Back to Top