jump to navigation

KKLA Creation Dialogue with Drs. Jason Lisle and Hugh Ross, Part IV April 7, 2010

Posted by Dave Landis in Christian, science.

Elisha recovers the floating axe head.

Another point that Dr. Ross made in the debate was that “the laws of physics are fixed and constant”.    Yes, I would tend to agree with that.  I also realize that the one hour radio dialogue with Dr. Lisle and Frank Pastore would not allow him to go into all the minutiae  of his views.

If I drop a ball, I expect it to move towards the earth, because the earth has more mass than the ball.    If I place water in a large jar, I expect to find see water the next time I look at it. However, an axe head has been reported to float in water.  And water had been recorded changing into an alcohol.    Matter was spoken into existence.

Perhaps I’m being too nit-picky.  I assume that as a Christian, Dr. Ross believes in miracles.   However, a qualifier “except in the case of miracles…”  would have been nice to hear.  After all, the Creator is Sovereign over the laws of physics which He ordained.



1. James I. Nienhuis - April 7, 2010

And as Humphrey’s theorizes, those distant stars need be not billions of years old, due to the physics to which Ross ostensibly adheres, if only Ross would admit that the big bang universe cannot have a center beginning point but no boundary after the rapid expansion outward and coelescence of matter during the days of creation.

2. Kirk Bertsche - April 8, 2010

FYI, I think Hugh Ross’ views on miracles are fairly orthodox, and fairly similar to my own. Here’s how I see it: Miracles do not “break” any laws of nature, they are simply outside the laws of nature and not describable by them. The laws of nature remain fixed and constant. God is sovereign and continually upholding and running His universe. The laws of nature are simply our description of how God NORMALLY runs His universe. Miracles are simply God running His universe in an abnormal, unusual way; the purpose is generally to get man’s attention.

3. James I. Nienhuis - April 12, 2010

Ross puts nature and the laws which govern it outside the Bible with his thesis that the laws of science and nature are “the 67th book of the Bible.” So Ross is saying that Genesis does not reflect the template for what he sees as real science, even ‘though he has tried to turn Genesis into a science book with his torturous interpetation of it, but having pretty much failed at that, he’s resorted to the 67th book routine, which really must make the skeptics giggle.

Kirk Bertsche - April 12, 2010

Can you please provide a quote, from Hugh Ross himself (i.e. not filtered through Sarfati or some other biased critic), to establish this supposed “thesis that the laws of science and nature are ‘the 67th book of the Bible'”‘?

4. dancingfromgenesis - April 15, 2010

No time, you never heard about it?

5. dancingfromgenesis - April 15, 2010

I found time, took a whole five seconds:

H. N. Ross, Creation and Time, Navpress, 1994, p. 56

Kirk Bertsche - April 15, 2010

Here is what Hugh Ross actually said on this page: “The FACTS of nature MAY BE LIKENED TO a sixty-seventh book of the Bible.” (emphasis mine) This is a simile, similar to the claim in the Belgic confession, “since that universe is before our eyes like a beautiful book.” Hugh Ross did not say here that “the LAWS of science and nature ARE “the 67th book of the Bible,'” as you claimed. And I don’t believe he has repeated this sixty-seventh book simile in any recent books or talks, due to its being widely misunderstood by his critics.

6. James I. Nienhuis - April 15, 2010

He sure dug himself a deep one with that, didn’t he?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: