Want Some Answers ???


Hello Brian (This article has now been withdrawn)

Noticed your article on the internet
http://primordial-blog.blogspot.com and would like to respond. You wrote,

>>Old Age Creationism. We've all heard the illogical ramblings of young earth creationists like Ken Ham... But one point of view that often gets overlooked is that of Hugh Ross at Reasons to Believe. Ross is an old age creationist, one who accepts the scientific evidence for the age of the earth and the universe, but thinks that God still independently created everything and is constantly tinkering with his creation.<<

Many don't realise the vast majority of scientific evidence for the age of the earth points to a young earth. And there's no absolute method for dating the earth's age. Yet much of the evidence suggesting an old earth/universe isn't conclusive, it's interpreted. That is, interpreted in either our old or young earth scenario.

Hugh Ross isn't a good scientist or even a good theologian. He is forever trying to fit the latest 'scientific' theory or idea into the bible. He ends up with contradictions obvious to many but not himself.

>>His standard schtick is to take some well established and widely accepted scientific theory and then turn it around with the claim that "the Bible said it first". The most famous of these is his article about the Big Bang. His basic argument is that the bible teaches a "transcendent cosmic beginning" ….there are several biblical references to God "stretching out the heavens". The best of these is Isaiah 42:5 “He who created the heavens and stretched them out. Wow! That's amazing! The Big Bang was described in the pages of the bible by a bunch of ancient illiterate goatherds over 25oo years ago, but everybody was too dumb to notice. How could I have missed that during my daily devotionals. It's so obvious!<<

The 'big-bang' theory is not a 'widely accepted scientific theory'. Far from it, many top qualified scientists reject it, www.cosmologystatement.org

And say why it's bankrupt – “Big Bang Under Fire” (in Time 1991). “Challenge to the Big Bang” (New Scientist 1993). “Down with the Big Bang” (Nature 1989). “Why Only One Big Bang?” (Scientific America 266(2):96 1992). “Big Bang not Dead but in Decline” (John Manix 1993). “Not with a Big Bang” (The Sciences 1990).

If you were consistent with what you believe, you should at least agree Isaiah is consistent in what we observe today (But not that it proves a big-bang). So why not be consistent?

>>I was introduced to the Reasons to Believe website by a concerned relative in the hopes that Ross's "pro-science" stance would convince me to stay in the church. Wrong assumption. It made me hurry away even faster. At heart, Ross is a hard core biblical literalist with the standard fundamentalist political points of view. His website is an odd hodgepodge of doctrinal statements and sermons, interspersed with news clippings of the latest scientific discoveries.<<

You are correct, Ross's website turns both scientists and young Christians away from the bible. But what made you 'run-away' wasn't Ross but an acceptance of what you think is scientifically proven. You seem to blindly accept any new idea or follow popular misconceptions. You replaced the 'Word of God' with the word of men.

But Ross is not a '
literalist' but a liberalist. He's trying to marry new theories and ideas with the bible, even theories that change and disappear over time.

Clearly you are a prime example of what often happens when young Christians assume the earth is billions of years old. They then, assume some kind of evolution occurred, so assume the bible is wrong and there's no God.

In the end they fall-away and become a fierce opponent of Christians & bible. But they don't necessarily have anything worth replacing that with. Invariable, they have no answers to the big questions of life, but a empty unbelief.

Mark Purchase