• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.

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

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by Punchy, Feb 25, 2007.

  1. Punchy

    Punchy Guest

    +0
    Has anyone read Who Was Adam? by Hugh Ross: A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man? I bought it tonight and I'd like to know what people think of it. You can read the first chapter here:
    http://www.answersincreation.org/books.htm
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. JohnR7

    JohnR7 Well-Known Member

    +191
    Pentecostal
    Married
    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?
     
  3. Punchy

    Punchy Guest

    +0
    This books looks interesting because it appears to provide a unique perspective on human origins, beyond the usual creation vs. evolution debate.
     
  4. Punchy

    Punchy Guest

    +0
    So has no one read this book?
     
  5. Upisoft

    Upisoft CEO of a waterfal

    +111
    Atheist
    Married
    Surprised?
    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.
     
  6. Punchy

    Punchy Guest

    +0
    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.
     
  7. Upisoft

    Upisoft CEO of a waterfal

    +111
    Atheist
    Married
    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?".
     
  8. JohnR7

    JohnR7 Well-Known Member

    +191
    Pentecostal
    Married
    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.
     
  9. Upisoft

    Upisoft CEO of a waterfal

    +111
    Atheist
    Married
    You maybe are speaking about confirmation of some parts of the Bible, not conformations of the Bible as a whole.

    Why not?
     
  10. Punchy

    Punchy Guest

    +0
    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.
     
  11. JohnR7

    JohnR7 Well-Known Member

    +191
    Pentecostal
    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.
     
  12. Upisoft

    Upisoft CEO of a waterfal

    +111
    Atheist
    Married
    Then the result of the book will be to change interpretation of the Bible. Still my point from post #7 stands.
     
  13. Upisoft

    Upisoft CEO of a waterfal

    +111
    Atheist
    Married
    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?
     
  14. Punchy

    Punchy Guest

    +0
    You've still missed the point. The result of this book, if successful, would be to present scientific evidence in favor of the Bible.
     
  15. Wiccan_Child

    Wiccan_Child Contributor

    +602
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    UK-Liberal-Democrats
    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?
     
  16. Valkhorn

    Valkhorn the Antifloccinaucinihilipili ficationist

    +172
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others
    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.
     
  17. Punchy

    Punchy Guest

    +0
    Can we please stay on point. Has anyone read this book or at least know what it's about?
     
  18. Wiccan_Child

    Wiccan_Child Contributor

    +602
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    UK-Liberal-Democrats
    We are simply debunking (or 'busting', as my friend dad says) John's erroneous claims. Nothing more.

    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?
     
  19. holyrokker

    holyrokker Contributor

    +1,601
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    I haven't read it yet, but I may read it at some point in the future.
     
  20. holyrokker

    holyrokker Contributor

    +1,601
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
Loading...