Who Was Adam? A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man by Hugh Ross

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Has anyone read Who Was Adam? by Hugh Ross:
I have some of Hugh Ross books. He is one of the better creationists. The introduction and first chapter of the book is available to read. So we could have a discussion about that if people are interested. For example, in the intro they say: "Personal attacks destroy the possibility for dialogue. They erect barriers".

One thing you see on here is a lot of personal attackes. Are they designed to "erect barriers" and to put a end to the dialogue or discussion? When people do not have any empirical scientific evidence to back up their wild claims, do they then resort to personal attacks?
 
Upvote 0

Upisoft

CEO of a waterfal
Feb 11, 2006
4,885
131
Orbiting the Sun
✟20,777.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
So has no one read this book?
Surprised?
[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Respected physicist and professor Dr. David Snoke argues that the Bible does tell us about the scientific history of our world, but it does not teach that the world was created recently[/FONT].
We have a book about interpretation of the Bible. And you're asking people reading and posting in a scientific forum. Don't expect many will answer. And, by the way, Christians have so many theories YEC, OEC, whatever, that even you can't tell which one has to be true. I am not surprised however, because these theories are not scientific, i.e. they cannot be tested objectively. Without test there's no control. Everything is being printed. Why should we read it? There are better fantasy books.
 
Upvote 0

Upisoft

CEO of a waterfal
Feb 11, 2006
4,885
131
Orbiting the Sun
✟20,777.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The book Who Was Adam? was written by a biochemist and an astrophysicist. It at least attempts to provide a testable scientific explanation of human origins.
Not every book written by a scientist is necessary science book, so who is the guy who wrote it doesn't matter. The purpose of the book is to provide new interpretation of Genesis. If you're still unable to interpret only one book of the Bible and need new interpretations, what about the other books?
I know that the majority of Christians have no problem to accept the science. They read the Bible as spiritual guide, not as scientific textbook. So, ask yourself a question: "Does God sent us scientific information to help us to save our soul?".
 
Upvote 0

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Not every book written by a scientist is necessary science book
There is plenty of empirical scientific evidence that shows the Bible is accurate and true.
You can not produce ANY empirical scientific evidence to show the Bible is not accurate and a true account of historical people, places and events.
 
Upvote 0

Upisoft

CEO of a waterfal
Feb 11, 2006
4,885
131
Orbiting the Sun
✟20,777.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
There is plenty of empirical scientific evidence that shows the Bible is accurate and true.
You maybe are speaking about confirmation of some parts of the Bible, not conformations of the Bible as a whole.

You can not produce ANY empirical scientific evidence to show the Bible is not accurate and a true account of historical people, places and events.
Why not?
 
Upvote 0
P

Punchy

Guest
They read the Bible as spiritual guide, not as scientific textbook. So, ask yourself a question: "Does God sent us scientific information to help us to save our soul?".

The desire of Hugh Ross is to demonstrate the compatability of Scripture and scientific fact, and to show that the veracity of Scripture is actually helped rather than harmed by scientific discovery.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
You maybe are speaking about confirmation of some parts of the Bible, not conformations of the Bible as a whole.
There are things we still accept on faith. But our generation has more scientific evidence for the Bible then any generation before us. So we have more reason today to believe the Bible is accurate and true.
 
Upvote 0

Upisoft

CEO of a waterfal
Feb 11, 2006
4,885
131
Orbiting the Sun
✟20,777.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The desire of Hugh Ross is to demonstrate the compatability of Scripture and scientific fact, and to show that the veracity of Scripture is actually helped rather than harmed by scientific discovery.
Then the result of the book will be to change interpretation of the Bible. Still my point from post #7 stands.
 
Upvote 0

Upisoft

CEO of a waterfal
Feb 11, 2006
4,885
131
Orbiting the Sun
✟20,777.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
There are things we still accept on faith. But our generation has more scientific evidence for the Bible then any generation before us. So we have more reason today to believe the Bible is accurate and true.
Yeah, I knew we'll reach the "argument of faith" at some point. And, by the way, if you truly belive that the Bible is accurate and true, then no matter how much evidence you have, you can't possibly start to believe more. Do you really truly believe in the Bible or, as I suspect from your words, you're searching form more evidence to expel your doubts?
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟31,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
You've still missed the point. The result of this book, if successful, would be to present scientific evidence in favor of the Bible.
A theory can have nigh-on all the supporting evidence in the world, but just one instance of contradictory evidence, and the theory is disproved. Never proved, but potentially disproved. The same happens with the Bible: you can support it all you want, but just one count of contradiction, and the Bible cannot be entirely true (as John and, I assume, you advoke). So, onto the contradictions with science:

Gen 3:14 says serpents will henceforth eat dust. Except, they don't .

Gen 8:8-11 implies that olive trees germinate and bear leaves within a week. Except, they don't.

Gen 11:1,6 says that there ones but one language on Earth, and Gen 11:9 says that the multitude of languages were instantaneously created. Except, there wasn't (there were many hundreds of languages by 2400 BCE), and they weren't (languages gradually evolved).

Ex 1:5,7, 12:37, 38:26, all say or imply that the Israelite population grew from 70 to several million within a few hundred years. I don't think I need to point out what's wrong with that scenario.

Lev 11:13-19 clearly states that the bat is a fowl. Except, it's not, it's a mammal.

QED.

Also, not so much a contradiction to science as a baffling unknown:
In Gen 1:16, a 'lesser light to rule the night' is made. But this can't refer to the moon, since it is neither a light (lesser or otherwise) nor does it 'rule the night' (it spends half it's time in the daytime!). What, then, is this lesser light?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Valkhorn

the Antifloccinaucinihilipili ficationist
Jun 15, 2004
3,009
198
42
Knoxville, TN
Visit site
✟11,624.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
You can not produce ANY empirical scientific evidence to show the Bible is not accurate and a true account of historical people, places and events.

Deuteronomy 14:6-7​
You may eat any animal that has a split hoof divided in two and that chews the cud. However, of those that chew the cud or that have a split hoof completely divided you may not eat the camel, the rabbit, or the coney.

Rabbits don't chew cud!!!!

Leviticus 11:20-22​
All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper.

Insects aren't four-legged!!!

Matthew 4:8​
Again the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.

The world is not flat!!!

1 Kings 7:23​
He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim . . . It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.

Pi does not equal 3!!!

Psalms 104:5​
He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.

Earth is in motion!!!!

And this is just the beginning, John.
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟31,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Can we please stay on point.
We are simply debunking (or 'busting', as my friend dad says) John's erroneous claims. Nothing more.

Has anyone read this book or at least know what it's about?
I haven't read it, but I when I went on the site you linked in the OP (here), I couldn't find the book. Am I having a blonde moment, dispite my brown hair?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums