Dr. Hugh Ross
vs. Ken Ham
et.al.
ie. Long Days vs. Short Days
Discussion
taken from Dr. Ross' book "Creation and
Time":
Dr.
Ross' basic premise:
The
earth is 17 billion years old.
The
creation days were long periods of time.
A
day to the Lord is like a thousand days to us, God's days are not our days,
God's
creation days were figurative models as was morning/evening [using a word study
on the Hebrew of day, morning, evening etc.]
Long
days is verified in nature through distant starlight measurements
God
doesn't create with a misleading appearance of age
God
took his time and enjoyed the creation process
Adam
and God had a lot of things to do on day 6
Fossils,
geology, starlight, and universe measurements verify the time span
God
created the big bang and all of it's attendant physics
A
man-like race of people (hominids) inhabited the earth and were a precursor to
Man
The
order of creation was: p. 153
entire physical galaxy including stars,
planets, physics, etc. [debris is preventing the light of the moon-sun-stars from
reaching the earth]
partial transformation of the earth's
atmosphere so that earth could see the stars
formation of water vapor establishing water
cycle
formation of land masses
production of plants on land masses
transformation of the atmosphere from a translucent
condition to occasionally transparent
production of small sea mammals (not fish) and
birds
creation of "land mammals capable of
interacting with the future human race"
ie. Homonids
creation of the human species.
Long
days vs. Short days should not be a divisive point among believers. Believers
arguing will do more to prevent non-believers from recognizing God as creator.
Short
day'ers are asking too much of non-believers and scientists to believe,
especially when science has measured light and portions of the universe, and
have studied geology and fossils.
The
universe is so precisely held together that it demands recognition that it was
designed by God.
The
7th day is not done. God is still creating.
The
fossil record verifies the 'explosion' of new life forms during creation along
with extinction's; and after the creation 'week' the fossil record only shows
extinction's.
The
expansion and cooling of the universe provides a measurement that can enable us
to back into the age of the universe.
Great
points made by Dr. Ross:
Bottom
line is, we don't really know how long the days were.
We shouldn't get hung up on how long they were. The issue is not how long the
day was, but that God created everything.
The
universe is absolutely too precise to have been created by random chance.
By
allowing the possibility of a 17 billion year old universe, we will draw more
people into faith then by insisting it was 7 twenty four hour periods.
By
allowing the possibility that the scientific measurements of starlight,
universe size, age of rocks and fossils, we will draw more people into faith.
Dr.
Ross' critique's of the 'short day'ers' measurements
of the age of the earth are seemingly just as valid as the 'short day'ers'
critique of the present 'scientific' measurements.
Questions
of his teachings:
How
does one explain how Dr. Ross' order of creation appears to be different than
the Bible's teachings? Specifically:
The
stars, sun, moon, are clearly stated to have been created on Day 4. Dr. Ross maintains that they only became visible on day 4 but were created
first on day 1. Part of his conclusion is drawn from justifying that the Bible
says in the first sentence that God created the heavens and the earth. However,
further reading shows that on Day 4, God placed the stars IN the heavens.
Therefore, the term 'heavens' by itself wouldn't need
to mean the space of heavens and all the things within the heavens.
The
introduction of a pre-man species called Hominids having lived and went extinct
prior to
There
were many extinction's prior to Man being created.
A
major question arises about plants and vegetation. How did they live without
sunlight? Vegetation needs sunlight to survive through the process of
photosynthesis.
Dr.
Ross seems to vacillate between believing in the supernatural abilities of God
and back to stating that a particular fact or measurement must be so because
otherwise it would violate physical laws that we can demonstrate. Eg. Characteristics of light beams, fossil record, universe
expansion and cooling, 'appearance of age', etc.
How
does Dr. Ross reconcile that today's measurements of the 'expansion/cooling of
the universe' and the 'distance the stars are away demonstrating the age of the
universe' all depend on the mathematical assumption that the present rates and
distances are the same today as they always have been? [ ie. To derive age
based on the present speed of light and present distance of the stars dictates
that both were always uniformly the same. To derive age based on the present
rate of expansion and cooling of the universe dictates that both were always
uniformly the same. Neither can be proven. All we know is how they are behaving
today. We are assuming that one can rewind the expansion down to zero and come
up with an 'age date'. We are assuming that we can rewind the light beam to its
present source location and come up with an 'age date'. We are also excluding
the possibility that the speeds and distances could have been different until
they got to their present equilibrium.]
Challenges:
While
acknowledging that a creation day is not necessarily a 24 hour day one has to
ask what does day mean? How is a day defined? How would we explain to a foreigner what a
day is? We would say simply, that it is the time period that it takes the earth
to make one rotation. Is it required that this rotation be exactly 24 hours? It
would seem so. Dr. Ross makes this point by showing how precisely designed all
elements of the universe are. Would a rotation take longer than 24 hours during
the creation week? It wouldn't seem so. If it did, wouldn't that make the force
of gravity different? Wouldn't that change all of the attendant physics that
are directly affected by the precise force of gravity we have?
What
does the Bible mean when God say's He 'stretched the heavens' to their place?
Why
does God specifically say that He created Man and then go on to describe what
the Man did ? Shouldn't this be labeled as deceptive
by Dr. Ross and thereby not the true story? [instead
of saying He created a baby who grew into a man ,walked the garden, named the
animals, got lonely, etc.?]
Drawing
on the same issue of #3 above, why couldn't God create stars on Day 4 that
could be seen that day? If He can create a star, can't He create a fully made
light beam? [assuming that was needed]