I was a Militant Atheist before and both of these guys, Hutchinson, WLC, and John Lennox, were the ones who really convinced me about Theism. Took 4 years to make the decision to finally become a Christian.
So you went from being a "militant atheist" to being a militant fundamentalist. Maybe you should take a deeper look at the psychological hang ups that cause you to be attracted to militant movements.
@Ναζωραῖος In the US, militant fundamentalist Evangelicalism refers to something much more specific than merely "following Christ"-- it is a highly politicized ideological movement waging a culture war against American society and law. Anti-gay, anti-abortion rights, and anti-science, it overlaps with anti-immigrant, pro-gun and the extreme capitalist wing of the Republican party. They only hide behind "Christ."
@Ναζωραῖος The Inquisition, the witch burnings, countless religious wars, the war on gay people and abortion rights and attacks on scientific facts like the orbit of the earth around the sun, evolution and the Big Bang were all done in the name of "following Christ" but they were all wrong.
@Ναζωραῖος Today[s Religious Right is like the Sanhedrin of Jesus' time-- doctrinaire fundamentalists who couldn't tolerate differences of religious opinion.
I have been a 'believer' of the bible for over 35 years, but having sold myself to an evolutionary model of life it has been a real tug of war between belief and unbelief. The findings of recent science and Hugh Ross's interpretation of it has absolutely settled it now for me. I feel really cheated by the atheistic model that had loomed over my life since my youth and the terrible emptiness that it tended toward. Now all of a sudden when I look at the world, at creation, I am absolutely stunned. I realize now, everything is a miracle. Each breath I draw, the keyboard I'm typing on, the wonders of everything about me. Suddenly I am alive, as much alive as when I was a child where the world, before I was taught otherwise, was so full of mystery and wonder.
I have to agree. I was having an intellectual tug of war with myself, because both my atheist and Christian friends and family were trying to convince me that science and religion- especially Christianity- were at odds. As it turns out neither were correct.
J M Schopf I can well understand where you are coming from, because I grew up a scientific atheist who thought that the theory of evolution had shown clearly that the Biblical Creator God is an unnecessary hypothesis. Has it ever occurred to you that the theory of evolution, and the whole idea that there is a natural explanation for everything, might be the "strong delusion" that Paul is talking about in 2 Thessalonians 2:11? And to John Mills, who commented just before me, why do you now think that science and religion are friends? My bet is that mainstream science will reject the arguments of Hugh Ross and continue to look for natural explanations for whatever it studies.
OnesionRa I suppose it is personal experience, and some things I see online. I am not saying it is univerally Christianity, but from my own experience that is that faith that has been directly called into question.
OnesionRa I understand what you are saying, and I agree. I think the faith of Christianity such power that it is hard to ignore, and because of that, if one cannot accept it, they must find a way to tear it down, either intellectually or through ridicule.
Earthweep if Christianity is the truth then it has nothing to fear from science, real science at least. So I don't believe they have any reason to be at odds. I am sure that naturalism and Christianity are at odds, but that isn't the same.
Excellent presentation ! I have following Reasons to Believe since the 1990s. Dr. Chuck Missler & Reasons to Believe are the tools that God used to make this once atheist scientist and physician to believe in the Jesus in the Bible. God Bless this channel. Thank you for your work Dr. Hugh Ross.
Fascinating lecture. I love Hugh Ross's style of communicating simply and directly things that are very complex and hard to understand. He breaks it down so that even a non-science person, if they pay close attention, can understand the concepts and ideas. I want to collect all of his work.
Wow, this is great, these guys are what scientists should be, open minded, rational and human! What a difference. When I watch Dawkins' or Krauss I wonder if they are suffering from paranoia at times. What is needed now is for the guys in this video to be given the same exposure as Dawkins and the like from the media, sadly what interests those who follow the likes of Dawkins is what my dad calls bad manners and the equivalent of racist views, this is just what our media is drawn to sadly.
+Sarah Clark I think Krauss and Dawkins just have a problem giving civil replies to stupid remarks. Who doesn't? Plus, Dawkins comes from Britain - watch how the House of Commons go at each other; there's no fake courtesy.
Judith Sanders Well, Judith you would need to put forward some evidence that they were responding to stupid replies, I look forward to commenting on your evidence, I will then send you a stupid comment that dawkins or Krauss has made. You need to be careful that these men are not appealing to your ignorance and you confuse them with appealing to your intellect. Dawkins in my opinion is someone who propagates hate not unlike the extreme muslim preachers do. Krauss he is simply someone not to be taken to seriously unless you happen to be a militant atheist, in which case bow down and worship him. I am located in Britain; I attend senior school, year 9. I am young enough not to be influenced by politicians, other than they seem obsessed fiddling with my school, and old enough to know the difference between equally matched politicians having a go at each other, as opposed to a bitter and twisted elderly man who resides in his Ivory tower, pumping out comments and insults that if they came from one of my teachers would impact negatively on their ability to continue teaching. He uses his position to propagate hate against people he doesn't even know. Your remarks would have had the ring of truth if you had said, the rich and famous in Britain can do and say what they please, the hopeful and wannabes support them and the rest have to put up with the insane ramblings of an old man. Miss Sarah Clark.
YES thanks for putting that out there lol. Was waiting for someone in the comments to have been thinking this too. I don't like "homegames" where there is a comfortable homogeneity of belief - a good belief shines brightest when the most attacked I think. Blessings sis
Excellent presentation of how the best & latest discoveries in science can be harmonized with what the Bible has to say & doing so in a manner that allows RTBs Biblical Creation Model to make predictions to be tested to see if future evidence supports or falsifies it. I know of no other testable Creation Model, although perhaps some aspects of Intelligent Design can be tested. Thumbs up! Wish all the lectures given at Purdue University over a few days by Dr. Rana, Dr. Ross & perhaps others could be put up on the internet or a link given as to where they could be purchased. Definitely, lots of information to take in over just a couple hours.
Most scientists now are forced to believe in deism. So the question asked has been "Do you believe in a Personal God?" to support atheism. That is beginning to break down too as the materialist universe, the basic foundation of science is breaking down as a number of fields have had to move beyond the materialist limitations.
It is the same nauseating circular argument that has stifled discovery for over 60 years (Circa 1952). Since WE are here, there was NO (ZERO!) Oxygen; or (ZERO!) Ultra-violet light in the origins of life; because We know, if either was there, We would not be here because "either" would destroy the chemical process and there would be NO first cell and We would not be here; therefore they were not there because We are here.................DOH Now we suspect/know both WERE there.... SO, Directed Panspermia is the answer...right?!!!!.....DOH!!!!!!!!! Google Dr. James Tour. Example - th-cam.com/video/r4sP1E1Jd_Y/w-d-xo.html ~23 min. The DNA argument of common ancestry is based off the 1.5% that is commonly studied; the argument is strong and indeed compelling!!! However, the 98.5 % of "junk" is now revealing a different story. See - ENCODE My mind has been changed. There was an Alien "Creator". Who? You decide.
Dr. Ross could have used the text "The heavens shall be rolled up as a scroll" as an example of future scientific discovery. Einstein postulated "bent" and GR eventually confirmed that, but "rolled up like a scroll" is not yet in the cosmology vision / vocabulary to my knowledge. Someone please correct me if this is already postulated.
Fundamentalists like to cherry pick scriptural phrases and match them up with modern scientific phrases as a convenient way to "prove" the bible contains prescient knowledge.
Has anyone read or heard any comments from Hugh on what he thinks happens when we die? "The dead are only sleeping" like it says in one of the books in the Bible. Don't really believe it ever says "When you die you'll go to heaven, or go to hell"....maybe there is a holding place until the resurrection? Would love to know what Hugh's comments are! Thanks in advance!!!
Hugh trust : Hebrews 12 12 Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, 2 fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. 3 Consider him who endured such opposition from sinners, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart. Watching and waiting only, for now.
In Canada our constitution states we have seven specific rights “…these and no others…”. NO OTHERS. (Apologies for shouting.) And even these can be denied. Ontario Supreme Court said so in as many words with respect to Jordan Peterson’s case.
Dr Ross. I ashamed that I had recomended you to my family and friends. In previous videos You made, I thought they were really good. God created time. There was no time before the universe. Then I hear you in this video stating how old the universe is and how long creation took. You contradict yourself. You restrain God's power. You don't believe the creation story is litteral. If God can creat time, the universe and light, why can't he make that light insantainious no matter the distance. There is litteral days and prophetic days in the Bible. You belittle our Creator.
You need to read and study your Bible: Hugh is quoting the Bible: Time had a beginning (1 Cor 2:7, 2 Tim 1:9) 1 Corinthians 2:7 7 No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 9 He has saved us and called us to a holy life-not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, The Bible does not teach the earth is 6,000 years old. That is no not in the Bible, The Bible teaches the earth is old. The biblical Hebrew word yom - day: Sunrise to sunset Sunset to next sunset A long, but finite span of time. There is no evening and morning for day 7. Hebrews 4:10 clearly agrees and states that day 7 has continued to today. (there is NO morning and evening for day 7, telling you is as not ended. Day 7 is long, days 1 to 6 are long. Deuteronomy 33:15 states the earth has ancient mountains. YEC rejects the Bible's teaching. Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
No it is YEC that do that: The Bible does not teach the earth is 6,000 years old. That is no not in the Bible, The Bible teaches the earth is old. The biblical Hebrew word yom - day: Sunrise to sunset Sunset to next sunset A long, but finite span of time. There is no evening and morning for day 7. Hebrews 4:10 clearly agrees and states that day 7 has continued to today. (there is NO morning and evening for day 7, telling you is as not ended. Day 7 is long, day 1 to 6 are long. Deuteronomy 33:15 states the earth has ancient mountains. YEC rejects the Bible's teaching. Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
So start with "I'm a Christian because I believe in truth. " so the usual, assert conclusion first, make things fit, do not mention anything that contradicts and misrepresent stuff to fit.
@@faybrianhernandez2416 you mean the continual change of definitions and fallacious arguments relying on the misrepresentation of science and actual history to try and assert a claim based on no evidence to substantiate his claims on? At what points is he able to make any sound rational argument to get to bible fables let alone a god without continuing a fallacy? The line opener of I'm a Christian because I believe in truth, to start with is a lie. If you believe in truth you would not rely on faith, Faith being the acceptance of something without evidence. Those who have faith do not have the truth, they will literally dismiss everything that is contrary to their faith, or try to redefine or alter the reality of it to make it coincide with their faith. Those with evidence do not require faith as they understand what is true due to the evidence. Those who misrepresent to intentionally make the evidence allow their faith to remain are capriciously dishonest. Faith is not synonymous with Truth and it will never be. Truth must and always has been something verified through evident means. Faith is the acceptance of something without any evident means. therefor faith does not equate into truth. At no point does he make a single argument that is rational or evidence-based that allows him to assert a God let alone that the bible is true. To be fair, he honestly can't, Science and history have already shown the bible to be nothing more than fables. A collection of children's stories that pre-dates Christianity as well as having been changed immensely since through people changing the wordings and such over time to fit their own selfish needs. there is a reason a religious persons will tell you not to take the bible literally, being that it means they can redefine the meaning to fit any view they want as well as dismiss the reality of their own "sacred text", The sad truth is most religious people do not understand what is actually in their own bible let alone read the thing to start with. As long as you say something they like the sound of, most will accept that it just happens to be a thing. Even if the polar opposite is what is actually in their book. Religion will never equate to the truth if the only thing they have is faith. Especially when all actual truths contradict religion in its entirety.
@@thesc0tsm4n9 Woof, thats a doozie. Faith in an English dictionary today may mean something other that what it meant 2000 years ago, 2000 years ago it meant "knowing established facts and holding on to them", would that change things a little?. did you know that "let" back in the old days meant "prevent", just the opposite what it means today, (just thought I'd throw that in)
@@faybrianhernandez2416 that's such a weak argument. something is not a fact because it's accepted, it's a fact if it's evidently true. Faith does not equate to truth, due to faith is acceptance of an idea without evidence. otherwise, you would have something that would be considered actual evidence to support god and so far no religion has any. your argument would proposition that any widely accepted idea based on faith would be then true. And you wouldn't so likely say that all religions are true..let alone all pseudoscience is true.
@@thesc0tsm4n9 Once again you have it all wrong and there is a lot of evidence that proves God. There is a viable Christian creation model that is testable, falsifiable and predictive of future scientific discovery just as every scientific model must and is gaining in evidence. There is no good origins of the universe or origins of life model, the one there are are losing in strength and looking ridiculous, like the multiverse etc.
Hello there. How about theistic evolution ? Does really creation dissprove evolution ? Isn´t it possible that God create trough evolution? Have you studied ancient cultures ?- I did, Genesis is written for people that lived 3 000 years ago. Genesis looks like literature of all ancient nations- Akkad, Summer, Ebla, Ugarit (biggest influence on Genesis), Elam, Hittie... It´s God word in form of alegory and one of the greatiest books evere written. My opinion. God bless you.
Created though evolution? what do you mean, that God created chemicals in a soup and let them combine over time to form the first life? Or perhaps that God created bacteria and animals that have information within their DNA that would allow them to change over time to meet new conditions? All allegories, no divine inspiration directly from the writers? Why is that necessary, why would anyone inspired by God write "The Epic of Gilgamesh" instead of Geneses?
@@samthegreekboy6812 God pops in and out to fiddle around with a few molecules every now and then, dintcha know? Apparently, he has imposed some cockamamie limitation on himself, where he can't just create a running universe ready for human life by fiat. Nope, he has to put it through stellar life cycles, and entire phyla emerging and going extinct, until the emergence of a specific species of hominid, before he can create a slightly different hominid from dust and put a "soul" in him, so he can test him for a few millennia before he shows up and resets everything. 🤷♀️
Most of Hugh Ross' lecture is about matters that are far, far beyond my understanding, so that I really have no idea whether any of it makes any sense. However, he said something near the beginning of the lecture that is clearly nonsense. First, at about 17:12 he says that time had a beginning in the Big Bang singularity. Then, less than two minutes later at 18:50, he says there are passages in Titus and Timothy that tell us about "God's activities before time began." Well, it's obvious that it is impossible for anything to happen "before time began." Because "before" means that one event happened at an earlier time than another. If time began with the Big Bang, there is no earlier time. And because Hugh Ross makes this blunder right at the beginning of his lecture, one suspects that there may be other logical blunders in the much more complicated stuff that follows.
Earthweep God is "above" time. "Before time" would possibly represent the realm God himself is working in, such as "heaven." Also, your conclusion that if he made a "blunder" in the beginning, that all of the other stuff is nonsense, is a form of slippery slope fallacy.
Robloxman226 If Hugh Ross didn't mean for his words "before time began" and "before the beginning of time" (which he said twice) to be taken literally, he should have indicated that in some way, like by explaining that these self-contradictory words were intended only as a metaphorical way of expressing the inexpressible, or something like that. But there was not even a hesitation in his speech to suggest that he realized his word were self-contradictory, or that he didn't mean them literally, when he emphasized the idea by immediately repeating it two more times. I think the self-contradiction is completely obvious. To say that time had a beginning at t=0 is the same as saying that nothing happened or even existed at any time before that. So when you immediately say that something DID happen before that, you contradict yourself. So his words "before time began" are a self-contradition in terms, something like saying, "back when 2+2 was equal to 5." Also, you are exaggerating what I said was a justified suspicion, into a supposed definite conclusion on my part. I just said that because Hugh Ross makes this one obvious logical blunder in a matter that is so simple, we should be very suspicious that he might have also made other logical errors in the stuff that gets extremely complex. Just like if I had a calculator that gave me an answer of 5 when I added 2 + 2 on it, I should stop trusting it, and suspect that it might make errors on other calculations too. I've noticed that "before time began" seems to be an idea taken from a few verses in the Bible. But in researching the matter a little, it usually depends on the particular translation you are looking at. The NIV is one of the Bibles that uses the phrase "before time began" a lot. But the problem usually disappears in other translations. Anyway, I am much more open to taking Biblical expressions as poetry which tries to express the inexpressible. But Hugh Ross is a scientist, so we expect him to speak literally and say exactly what he means.
Earthweep Again, God can perceive things before the Universe came into existence. That could be his interpretation of the matter. God spoke "let there be light" before (and immediately preceding) time began. He uttered those words outside the concept of our universe's form of time as we know it.
Robloxman226 When someone says that event A happened "before" event B, they immediately put both these events into the context of the time dimension as we know it. If that isn't what they meant to do, they should have used some other word instead of "before." So no, if time began when the universe began, there was no time "before" that, so even God couldn't do anything "before" time began. If someone means that God did some action outside of our space-time, or possibly in a different dimension of time which applies only to God, fine. But they should say all that instead of just saying that God did it "before time began," which locates the event in our own time dimension, but at a point in time which never existed.
I sadly can't follow Dr Hugh Ross. There's a reason evolution is such a powerful tool in convincing people there is no God. Because it is TERRIBLE design. To put it as 1 atheist debater I listened to said "This is exactly the kind of mechanism I'd expect to find from a system that was making itself, just filled with bad design." I don't consider God to be a bad designer. So I believe that the answer either lies in the Intelligent Design movement over at the Discovery Institute or with the Creationists. But if they are wrong, then I'm sorry to say that I think that the answer would have to be either Deism or Atheism and not religion sadly.
Ya but how can you expect a system to become life from non life, as it is today they don"t find evidence for a pre-biotic soup, but they do find post biotic life fully formed without the soup. I don"t hear much about the soup anymore, except on Nat. Geo. reruns. Pan sperm ia didn't work, Directed Pan sperm ia doesn't work, and the muli-verse obviously doesn't work, what else is there? There are too many miracle stories for just Deism, surely this Deity has been involved in His creation, just how many design errors can there be? Physics is "good, very good" but not perfect, perfection is apparently reserved for His next creation. The Biblical creation model is a two creation model, we are living in the very good waiting for the perfect. I hope I am right.
@@samthegreekboy6812 life from non-life is a false dichotomy. you are made of chemicals that are all to your concept of what counts as life would be dead. You are literally a sack of non-living matter as it's always been who's able to function due to chemical processes that allows energy transferal to occur to provide energy for the function of the body's motor and other biological functions.
Bible Predicted Scientific Discoveries Universe had a beginning (Gen 1:1) Time had a beginning (1 Cor 2:7, 2 Tim 1:9) Laws of nature are constant (Jer 33:19-26) Universe undergoes decay (Rom 8:20) Universe is designed for life (Rom 1:20) Earth is designed for life (Is 45:18) Earth began as a waterworld (Gen 1:2) Expansion of the universe (Job 9:8, Is 40:22) There are more stars than can be seen with the eye alone. (Jer 33:22) The earth hangs in space (Job 26:7) The water cycle (Ps 135:7, Job 26:8, Is 55:10, Jer 10:13, Job 36:27-29, Amos 9:6) Circularity of the Earth (Is 40:22) Sanitary practices (Deu 14:21, Lev 13:45-46, Lev 11:29-36, Lev15:1) Biblical Hebrew has a smaller vocabulary than English. In Biblical Hebrew, there is no word for universe. Instead, the Hebrew phrase that is translated “the heavens and the earth” is used to refer to the universe-the entirety of physical reality: space, time, mass and energy. The universe was created 13.78 billion years ago. Only the God of the Bible operates outside of the time and space dimensions we live in. Therefore creation must be from the God of the Bible. Creator must be: transcendent, eternal, spirit, powerful, intelligent, caring, and personal.
@@djsarg7451 that is pretty far reaching, you can find these similarities in any religion. Extrusion and metaphor, there are no scientific formulas descriptive scientific theories in any of these religious manuscripts.
Quran put to the test. (Sura 4:82) Do they not ponder on the Qur'an? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy. But if you want Arabic then here you go, أَفَلَا يَتَدَبَّرُونَ الْقُرْآنَ وَلَوْ كَانَ مِنْ عِندِ غَيْرِ اللَّهِ لَوَجَدُوا فِيهِ اخْتِلَافًا كَثِيرًا Transliteration Afala yatadabbaroona alqur-ana walaw kana min AAindi ghayri Allahi lawajadoo feehi ikhtilafan katheeran Transliteration-2 afalā yatadabbarūna l-qur'āna walaw kāna min ʿindi ghayri l-lahi lawajadū fīhi ikh'tilāfan kathīran Literal (Word by Word)Then (do) not they ponder (on) the Quran? And if it had (been) from other than Allah, surely they (would have) found in it much contradiction. Sorry I thought I would add the rest just coz I thought I would, So going off what you posted even though it was that you did not like what I had posted re 4:82. It does not take away from anything else that I had posted in those statements, so now seeing that the Quran first states in Surah 4:82 that if there are any errors within the Quran then none of that book is from or can be from god. Now for some Questions, you claim you can answer & prove me to be wrong, (Quran 35:41, 40:64, 26:61) Humans created from a Blood Clot? (Quran 96:2, 22:5, 23:14). Next one for you, Surah 23:14 - Claims that the bones of the fetus are created before the flesh. Now I will end with just one more so as not to give you too much, Male sperm, Sura 86 6-7, Yusuf Ali He is created from a drop of emitted-Proceeding from between the BACKBONE and the RIBS: This is an error and totally wrong.
Truth Commentor Yes, and of course there are also fairies at the bottom of the garden. And unicorns, and leprechauns and... and ... because, let's face it, if you believe a virgin was impregnated by a ghost and then gave birth to a man who was really one third of a god, you'll believe ANYTHING.
EVZYL yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman The theory of Intelligent Design argues for the existence of an intelligent agent behind the existence of the universe (not necessarily in a religious context). The main argument ID proponents use is that the complexity of the universe is far beyond what pure chance could produce (see below). godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html (probabilities found in Big Bang Refined by Fire by Dr. Hugh Ross, 1998. Reasons To Believe, Pasadena, CA.)
I was a Militant Atheist before and both of these guys, Hutchinson, WLC, and John Lennox, were the ones who really convinced me about Theism. Took 4 years to make the decision to finally become a Christian.
Praise the Lord
So you went from being a "militant atheist" to being a militant fundamentalist. Maybe you should take a deeper look at the psychological hang ups that cause you to be attracted to militant movements.
@Ναζωραῖος In the US, militant fundamentalist Evangelicalism refers to something much more specific than merely "following Christ"-- it is a highly politicized ideological movement waging a culture war against American society and law. Anti-gay, anti-abortion rights, and anti-science, it overlaps with anti-immigrant, pro-gun and the extreme capitalist wing of the Republican party. They only hide behind "Christ."
@Ναζωραῖος The Inquisition, the witch burnings, countless religious wars, the war on gay people and abortion rights and attacks on scientific facts like the orbit of the earth around the sun, evolution and the Big Bang were all done in the name of "following Christ" but they were all wrong.
@Ναζωραῖος Today[s Religious Right is like the Sanhedrin of Jesus' time-- doctrinaire fundamentalists who couldn't tolerate differences of religious opinion.
I have been a 'believer' of the bible for over 35 years, but having sold myself to an evolutionary model of life it has been a real tug of war between belief and unbelief. The findings of recent science and Hugh Ross's interpretation of it has absolutely settled it now for me. I feel really cheated by the atheistic model that had loomed over my life since my youth and the terrible emptiness that it tended toward. Now all of a sudden when I look at the world, at creation, I am absolutely stunned. I realize now, everything is a miracle. Each breath I draw, the keyboard I'm typing on, the wonders of everything about me. Suddenly I am alive, as much alive as when I was a child where the world, before I was taught otherwise, was so full of mystery and wonder.
I have to agree. I was having an intellectual tug of war with myself, because both my atheist and Christian friends and family were trying to convince me that science and religion- especially Christianity- were at odds. As it turns out neither were correct.
J M Schopf I can well understand where you are coming from, because I grew up a scientific atheist who thought that the theory of evolution had shown clearly that the Biblical Creator God is an unnecessary hypothesis. Has it ever occurred to you that the theory of evolution, and the whole idea that there is a natural explanation for everything, might be the "strong delusion" that Paul is talking about in 2 Thessalonians 2:11? And to John Mills, who commented just before me, why do you now think that science and religion are friends? My bet is that mainstream science will reject the arguments of Hugh Ross and continue to look for natural explanations for whatever it studies.
OnesionRa I suppose it is personal experience, and some things I see online. I am not saying it is univerally Christianity, but from my own experience that is that faith that has been directly called into question.
OnesionRa I understand what you are saying, and I agree. I think the faith of Christianity such power that it is hard to ignore, and because of that, if one cannot accept it, they must find a way to tear it down, either intellectually or through ridicule.
Earthweep if Christianity is the truth then it has nothing to fear from science, real science at least. So I don't believe they have any reason to be at odds. I am sure that naturalism and Christianity are at odds, but that isn't the same.
Excellent presentation ! I have following Reasons to Believe since the 1990s. Dr. Chuck Missler & Reasons to Believe are the tools that God used to make this once atheist scientist and physician to believe in the Jesus in the Bible. God Bless this channel. Thank you for your work Dr. Hugh Ross.
Fascinating lecture. I love Hugh Ross's style of communicating simply and directly things that are very complex and hard to understand. He breaks it down so that even a non-science person, if they pay close attention, can understand the concepts and ideas. I want to collect all of his work.
I was in the audience for this presentation. So glad to have found it again!
Wow, this is great, these guys are what scientists should be, open minded, rational and human! What a difference. When I watch Dawkins' or Krauss I wonder if they are suffering from paranoia at times. What is needed now is for the guys in this video to be given the same exposure as Dawkins and the like from the media, sadly what interests those who follow the likes of Dawkins is what my dad calls bad manners and the equivalent of racist views, this is just what our media is drawn to sadly.
Absolutely correct
+Sarah Clark I think Krauss and Dawkins just have a problem giving civil replies to stupid remarks. Who doesn't? Plus, Dawkins comes from Britain - watch how the House of Commons go at each other; there's no fake courtesy.
Judith Sanders
Well, Judith you would need to put forward some evidence that they were responding to stupid replies, I look forward to commenting on your evidence, I will then send you a stupid comment that dawkins or Krauss has made.
You need to be careful that these men are not appealing to your ignorance and you confuse them with appealing to your intellect.
Dawkins in my opinion is someone who propagates hate not unlike the extreme muslim preachers do. Krauss he is simply someone not to be taken to seriously unless you happen to be a militant atheist, in which case bow down and worship him.
I am located in Britain; I attend senior school, year 9. I am young enough not to be influenced by politicians, other than they seem obsessed fiddling with my school, and old enough to know the difference between equally matched politicians having a go at each other, as opposed to a bitter and twisted elderly man who resides in his Ivory tower, pumping out comments and insults that if they came from one of my teachers would impact negatively on their ability to continue teaching. He uses his position to propagate hate against people he doesn't even know.
Your remarks would have had the ring of truth if you had said, the rich and famous in Britain can do and say what they please, the hopeful and wannabes support them and the rest have to put up with the insane ramblings of an old man.
Miss Sarah Clark.
+Sarah Clark Agree with your statements, 100%.
I enjoy when rtb goes to secular univerties to give lectures rather than giving lectures in church
YES thanks for putting that out there lol. Was waiting for someone in the comments to have been thinking this too. I don't like "homegames" where there is a comfortable homogeneity of belief - a good belief shines brightest when the most attacked I think. Blessings sis
Excellent presentation of how the best & latest discoveries in science can be harmonized with what the Bible has to say & doing so in a manner that allows RTBs Biblical Creation Model to make predictions to be tested to see if future evidence supports or falsifies it. I know of no other testable Creation Model, although perhaps some aspects of Intelligent Design can be tested. Thumbs up!
Wish all the lectures given at Purdue University over a few days by Dr. Rana, Dr. Ross & perhaps others could be put up on the internet or a link given as to where they could be purchased. Definitely, lots of information to take in over just a couple hours.
SIR HUGH YOU ARE GREAT
I would love the see the rest of the presentations from this symposium. Absolutely fascinating! 😊❤
Pray Ur family is doing good, this Nation has Chemist, and Genetics that will solve the Corona Crisis, I hope sooner, than later!
Very good job.
Awesome stuff
Good job Hugh! (and Fuz)
God bless Dr.Ross
Thank you
GREAT
Beautiful in MN today!
Dr. Ross starts at 12:55
Go to any university or institute, the debate is over, it has been since mid 19th century.
Most scientists now are forced to believe in deism. So the question asked has been "Do you believe in a Personal God?" to support atheism. That is beginning to break down too as the materialist universe, the basic foundation of science is breaking down as a number of fields have had to move beyond the materialist limitations.
It is the same nauseating circular argument that has stifled discovery for over 60 years (Circa 1952). Since WE are here, there was NO (ZERO!) Oxygen; or (ZERO!) Ultra-violet light in the origins of life; because We know, if either was there, We would not be here because "either" would destroy the chemical process and there would be NO first cell and We would not be here; therefore they were not there because We are here.................DOH Now we suspect/know both WERE there.... SO, Directed Panspermia is the answer...right?!!!!.....DOH!!!!!!!!!
Google Dr. James Tour. Example - th-cam.com/video/r4sP1E1Jd_Y/w-d-xo.html ~23 min.
The DNA argument of common ancestry is based off the 1.5% that is commonly studied; the argument is strong and indeed compelling!!! However, the 98.5 % of "junk" is now revealing a different story. See - ENCODE
My mind has been changed. There was an Alien "Creator". Who? You decide.
The debate is over, they all see design on all scales, perhaps denial has taken over among some.
Dr. Ross could have used the text "The heavens shall be rolled up as a scroll" as an example of future scientific discovery. Einstein postulated "bent" and GR eventually confirmed that, but "rolled up like a scroll" is not yet in the cosmology vision / vocabulary to my knowledge. Someone please correct me if this is already postulated.
357MagnumBob I have heard Hugh speak of this prediction in another talk on TH-cam.
Fundamentalists like to cherry pick scriptural phrases and match them up with modern scientific phrases as a convenient way to "prove" the bible contains prescient knowledge.
How did Ross and Rana get to Purdue without Grace Baptist snagging them for at least one session?
Professor of Library Science?? Wow, never heard of it...
My computer has no sound , the mute button has been corrected it does not stop the streaming like it did before !
,
These guys got to talk to Tim Mackie
Has anyone read or heard any comments from Hugh on what he thinks happens when we die? "The dead are only sleeping" like it says in one of the books in the Bible. Don't really believe it ever says "When you die you'll go to heaven, or go to hell"....maybe there is a holding place until the resurrection? Would love to know what Hugh's comments are! Thanks in advance!!!
Bruce Towell on this day you will be with me, in paradise. luke 23:43
Hugh trust :
Hebrews 12
12 Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, 2 fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. 3 Consider him who endured such opposition from sinners, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.
Watching and waiting only, for now.
They kept saying "we will talk about it tomorrow." Where can I find those?
In Canada our constitution states we have seven specific rights “…these and no others…”. NO OTHERS. (Apologies for shouting.) And even these can be denied. Ontario Supreme Court said so in as many words with respect to Jordan Peterson’s case.
Oops. Wrong board-apologies.
Wow,
Dr Ross. I ashamed that I had recomended you to my family and friends. In previous videos You made, I thought they were really good. God created time. There was no time before the universe. Then I hear you in this video stating how old the universe is and how long creation took. You contradict yourself. You restrain God's power. You don't believe the creation story is litteral. If God can creat time, the universe and light, why can't he make that light insantainious no matter the distance. There is litteral days and prophetic days in the Bible. You belittle our Creator.
You need to read and study your Bible: Hugh is quoting the Bible:
Time had a beginning (1 Cor 2:7, 2 Tim 1:9)
1 Corinthians 2:7
7 No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.
9 He has saved us and called us to a holy life-not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time,
The Bible does not teach the earth is 6,000 years old. That is no not in the Bible, The Bible teaches the earth is old.
The biblical Hebrew word yom - day:
Sunrise to sunset Sunset to next sunset A long, but finite span of time.
There is no evening and morning for day 7.
Hebrews 4:10 clearly agrees and states that day 7 has continued to today. (there is NO morning and evening for day 7, telling you is as not ended.
Day 7 is long, days 1 to 6 are long.
Deuteronomy 33:15 states the earth has ancient mountains.
YEC rejects the Bible's teaching.
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
0:22:47, well. And 0:57:37, so there. Buy four now✝️
Both of these gentlemen are trying to change the meaning of the Bible to fit science, which is truly wicked.
No it is YEC that do that:
The Bible does not teach the earth is 6,000 years old. That is no not in the Bible, The Bible teaches the earth is old.
The biblical Hebrew word yom - day:
Sunrise to sunset Sunset to next sunset A long, but finite span of time.
There is no evening and morning for day 7.
Hebrews 4:10 clearly agrees and states that day 7 has continued to today. (there is NO morning and evening for day 7, telling you is as not ended.
Day 7 is long, day 1 to 6 are long.
Deuteronomy 33:15 states the earth has ancient mountains.
YEC rejects the Bible's teaching.
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
0:01:11_ Eye majored in bathroom; 7th/11th grades & half a G.E.D.! God is cool. Oct.1/2023✝️
So start with "I'm a Christian because I believe in truth. "
so the usual, assert conclusion first, make things fit, do not mention anything that contradicts and misrepresent stuff to fit.
Did you find anything that contradicts and misrepresented stuff made to fit?
@@faybrianhernandez2416 you mean the continual change of definitions and fallacious arguments relying on the misrepresentation of science and actual history to try and assert a claim based on no evidence to substantiate his claims on?
At what points is he able to make any sound rational argument to get to bible fables let alone a god without continuing a fallacy?
The line opener of I'm a Christian because I believe in truth, to start with is a lie. If you believe in truth you would not rely on faith, Faith being the acceptance of something without evidence. Those who have faith do not have the truth, they will literally dismiss everything that is contrary to their faith, or try to redefine or alter the reality of it to make it coincide with their faith. Those with evidence do not require faith as they understand what is true due to the evidence. Those who misrepresent to intentionally make the evidence allow their faith to remain are capriciously dishonest.
Faith is not synonymous with Truth and it will never be. Truth must and always has been something verified through evident means. Faith is the acceptance of something without any evident means. therefor faith does not equate into truth.
At no point does he make a single argument that is rational or evidence-based that allows him to assert a God let alone that the bible is true. To be fair, he honestly can't, Science and history have already shown the bible to be nothing more than fables. A collection of children's stories that pre-dates Christianity as well as having been changed immensely since through people changing the wordings and such over time to fit their own selfish needs.
there is a reason a religious persons will tell you not to take the bible literally, being that it means they can redefine the meaning to fit any view they want as well as dismiss the reality of their own "sacred text", The sad truth is most religious people do not understand what is actually in their own bible let alone read the thing to start with. As long as you say something they like the sound of, most will accept that it just happens to be a thing. Even if the polar opposite is what is actually in their book.
Religion will never equate to the truth if the only thing they have is faith. Especially when all actual truths contradict religion in its entirety.
@@thesc0tsm4n9 Woof, thats a doozie. Faith in an English dictionary today may mean something other that what it meant 2000 years ago, 2000 years ago it meant "knowing established facts and holding on to them", would that change things a little?. did you know that "let" back in the old days meant "prevent", just the opposite what it means today, (just thought I'd throw that in)
@@faybrianhernandez2416 that's such a weak argument.
something is not a fact because it's accepted, it's a fact if it's evidently true.
Faith does not equate to truth, due to faith is acceptance of an idea without evidence.
otherwise, you would have something that would be considered actual evidence to support god and so far no religion has any.
your argument would proposition that any widely accepted idea based on faith would be then true.
And you wouldn't so likely say that all religions are true..let alone all pseudoscience is true.
@@thesc0tsm4n9 Once again you have it all wrong and there is a lot of evidence that proves God. There is a viable Christian creation model that is testable, falsifiable and predictive of future scientific discovery just as every scientific model must and is gaining in evidence. There is no good origins of the universe or origins of life model, the one there are are losing in strength and looking ridiculous, like the multiverse etc.
Hello there. How about theistic evolution ? Does really creation dissprove evolution ? Isn´t it possible that God create trough evolution? Have you studied ancient cultures ?- I did, Genesis is written for people that lived 3 000 years ago. Genesis looks like literature of all ancient nations- Akkad, Summer, Ebla, Ugarit (biggest influence on Genesis), Elam, Hittie... It´s God word in form of alegory and one of the greatiest books evere written. My opinion. God bless you.
Created though evolution? what do you mean, that God created chemicals in a soup and let them combine over time to form the first life? Or perhaps that God created bacteria and animals that have information within their DNA that would allow them to change over time to meet new conditions? All allegories, no divine inspiration directly from the writers? Why is that necessary, why would anyone inspired by God write "The Epic of Gilgamesh" instead of Geneses?
@@samthegreekboy6812 God pops in and out to fiddle around with a few molecules every now and then, dintcha know? Apparently, he has imposed some cockamamie limitation on himself, where he can't just create a running universe ready for human life by fiat. Nope, he has to put it through stellar life cycles, and entire phyla emerging and going extinct, until the emergence of a specific species of hominid, before he can create a slightly different hominid from dust and put a "soul" in him, so he can test him for a few millennia before he shows up and resets everything. 🤷♀️
Most of Hugh Ross' lecture is about matters that are far, far beyond my understanding, so that I really have no idea whether any of it makes any sense. However, he said something near the beginning of the lecture that is clearly nonsense. First, at about 17:12 he says that time had a beginning in the Big Bang singularity. Then, less than two minutes later at 18:50, he says there are passages in Titus and Timothy that tell us about "God's activities before time began." Well, it's obvious that it is impossible for anything to happen "before time began." Because "before" means that one event happened at an earlier time than another. If time began with the Big Bang, there is no earlier time. And because Hugh Ross makes this blunder right at the beginning of his lecture, one suspects that there may be other logical blunders in the much more complicated stuff that follows.
Earthweep God is "above" time. "Before time" would possibly represent the realm God himself is working in, such as "heaven."
Also, your conclusion that if he made a "blunder" in the beginning, that all of the other stuff is nonsense, is a form of slippery slope fallacy.
Robloxman226 If Hugh Ross didn't mean for his words "before time began" and "before the beginning of time" (which he said twice) to be taken literally, he should have indicated that in some way, like by explaining that these self-contradictory words were intended only as a metaphorical way of expressing the inexpressible, or something like that. But there was not even a hesitation in his speech to suggest that he realized his word were self-contradictory, or that he didn't mean them literally, when he emphasized the idea by immediately repeating it two more times.
I think the self-contradiction is completely obvious. To say that time had a beginning at t=0 is the same as saying that nothing happened or even existed at any time before that. So when you immediately say that something DID happen before that, you contradict yourself. So his words "before time began" are a self-contradition in terms, something like saying, "back when 2+2 was equal to 5."
Also, you are exaggerating what I said was a justified suspicion, into a supposed definite conclusion on my part. I just said that because Hugh Ross makes this one obvious logical blunder in a matter that is so simple, we should be very suspicious that he might have also made other logical errors in the stuff that gets extremely complex. Just like if I had a calculator that gave me an answer of 5 when I added 2 + 2 on it, I should stop trusting it, and suspect that it might make errors on other calculations too.
I've noticed that "before time began" seems to be an idea taken from a few verses in the Bible. But in researching the matter a little, it usually depends on the particular translation you are looking at. The NIV is one of the Bibles that uses the phrase "before time began" a lot. But the problem usually disappears in other translations. Anyway, I am much more open to taking Biblical expressions as poetry which tries to express the inexpressible. But Hugh Ross is a scientist, so we expect him to speak literally and say exactly what he means.
Earthweep Again, God can perceive things before the Universe came into existence. That could be his interpretation of the matter. God spoke "let there be light" before (and immediately preceding) time began. He uttered those words outside the concept of our universe's form of time as we know it.
Robloxman226 When someone says that event A happened "before" event B, they immediately put both these events into the context of the time dimension as we know it. If that isn't what they meant to do, they should have used some other word instead of "before." So no, if time began when the universe began, there was no time "before" that, so even God couldn't do anything "before" time began.
If someone means that God did some action outside of our space-time, or possibly in a different dimension of time which applies only to God, fine. But they should say all that instead of just saying that God did it "before time began," which locates the event in our own time dimension, but at a point in time which never existed.
Earthweep For the sake of clarity, yes, I agree.
I sadly can't follow Dr Hugh Ross. There's a reason evolution is such a powerful tool in convincing people there is no God. Because it is TERRIBLE design. To put it as 1 atheist debater I listened to said "This is exactly the kind of mechanism I'd expect to find from a system that was making itself, just filled with bad design." I don't consider God to be a bad designer. So I believe that the answer either lies in the Intelligent Design movement over at the Discovery Institute or with the Creationists. But if they are wrong, then I'm sorry to say that I think that the answer would have to be either Deism or Atheism and not religion sadly.
Ya but how can you expect a system to become life from non life, as it is today they don"t find evidence for a pre-biotic soup, but they do find post biotic life fully formed without the soup. I don"t hear much about the soup anymore, except on Nat. Geo. reruns. Pan sperm ia didn't work, Directed Pan sperm ia doesn't work, and the muli-verse obviously doesn't work, what else is there? There are too many miracle stories for just Deism, surely this Deity has been involved in His creation, just how many design errors can there be? Physics is "good, very good" but not perfect, perfection is apparently reserved for His next creation. The Biblical creation model is a two creation model, we are living in the very good waiting for the perfect. I hope I am right.
@@samthegreekboy6812 life from non-life is a false dichotomy. you are made of chemicals that are all to your concept of what counts as life would be dead.
You are literally a sack of non-living matter as it's always been who's able to function due to chemical processes that allows energy transferal to occur to provide energy for the function of the body's motor and other biological functions.
Putting Noah's ark, Samson's magical hair, talking snakes to the test.
Bible Predicted
Scientific Discoveries
Universe had a beginning (Gen 1:1)
Time had a beginning (1 Cor 2:7, 2 Tim 1:9)
Laws of nature are constant (Jer 33:19-26)
Universe undergoes decay (Rom 8:20)
Universe is designed for life (Rom 1:20)
Earth is designed for life (Is 45:18)
Earth began as a waterworld (Gen 1:2)
Expansion of the universe (Job 9:8, Is 40:22)
There are more stars than can be seen with the eye alone. (Jer 33:22)
The earth hangs in space (Job 26:7)
The water cycle (Ps 135:7, Job 26:8,
Is 55:10, Jer 10:13, Job 36:27-29,
Amos 9:6)
Circularity of the Earth (Is 40:22)
Sanitary practices (Deu 14:21,
Lev 13:45-46, Lev 11:29-36, Lev15:1)
Biblical Hebrew has a smaller vocabulary than English. In Biblical Hebrew, there is no word for universe. Instead, the Hebrew phrase that is translated “the heavens and the earth” is used to refer to the universe-the entirety of physical reality: space, time, mass and energy.
The universe was created 13.78 billion years ago.
Only the God of the Bible operates outside of the time and space dimensions we live in.
Therefore creation must be from the God of the Bible.
Creator must be: transcendent, eternal, spirit, powerful, intelligent, caring, and personal.
@@djsarg7451 that is pretty far reaching, you can find these similarities in any religion. Extrusion and metaphor, there are no scientific formulas descriptive scientific theories in any of these religious manuscripts.
Quran put to the test.
(Sura 4:82) Do they not ponder on the Qur'an? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy.
But if you want Arabic then here you go, أَفَلَا يَتَدَبَّرُونَ الْقُرْآنَ وَلَوْ كَانَ مِنْ عِندِ غَيْرِ اللَّهِ لَوَجَدُوا فِيهِ اخْتِلَافًا كَثِيرًا
Transliteration Afala yatadabbaroona alqur-ana walaw kana min AAindi ghayri Allahi lawajadoo feehi ikhtilafan katheeran
Transliteration-2 afalā yatadabbarūna l-qur'āna walaw kāna min ʿindi ghayri l-lahi lawajadū fīhi ikh'tilāfan kathīran
Literal
(Word by Word)Then (do) not they ponder (on) the Quran? And if it had (been) from other than Allah, surely they (would have) found in it much contradiction. Sorry I thought I would add the rest just coz I thought I would, So going off what you posted even though it was that you did not like what I had posted re 4:82. It does not take away from anything else that I had posted in those statements, so now seeing that the Quran first states in Surah 4:82 that if there are any errors within the Quran then none of that book is from or can be from god. Now for some Questions, you claim you can answer & prove me to be wrong, (Quran 35:41, 40:64, 26:61) Humans created from a Blood Clot? (Quran 96:2, 22:5, 23:14). Next one for you, Surah 23:14 - Claims that the bones of the fetus are created before the flesh. Now I will end with just one more so as not to give you too much, Male sperm, Sura 86 6-7, Yusuf Ali He is created from a drop of emitted-Proceeding from between the BACKBONE and the RIBS: This is an error and totally wrong.
Come up and smell the roses. Sorry folks, there ain't no god
Only a fool would observe our complex universe and then conclude such a thing.
Truth Commentor Yes, and of course there are also fairies at the bottom of the garden. And unicorns, and leprechauns and... and ... because, let's face it, if you believe a virgin was impregnated by a ghost and then gave birth to a man who was really one third of a god, you'll believe ANYTHING.
EVZYL yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
The theory of Intelligent Design argues for the existence of an intelligent agent behind the existence of the universe (not necessarily in a religious context). The main argument ID proponents use is that the complexity of the universe is far beyond what pure chance could produce (see below).
godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html
(probabilities found in Big Bang Refined by Fire by Dr. Hugh Ross, 1998. Reasons To Believe, Pasadena, CA.)
The Ethannator
Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. All they have is a philosophical argument.
***** The fine-tuning of the Universe is a rather scientific argument for ID. The multiverse theory stems from this same point.
Excellent Job