A fine-tuned universe

Books | Precise facts and figures at work in the cosmos permit the existence of life
by Hugh Ross
Posted 8/24/19, 12:18 pm

You may have heard that the materialist idea of everything arising from time plus chance is about as likely as a hurricane sweeping through a junkyard and assembling a Boeing 747. I like the analogies Hugh Ross provides in The Creator and the Cosmos even better. He writes that the universe’s “fine-tuning is 10 to the 43rd times more exquisite than someone blindfolded, with just one try, randomly picking out a single marked proton from all the protons existing within the entire extent of the observable universe.” Or try this: “a billion pencils all simultaneously positioned upright on their sharpened points on a smooth glass surface with no surface supports.”

Ross’ appendix below, courtesy of Reasons to Believe Press, particularly impressed me. He shows how “more than a hundred different parameters for the universe must have values falling within narrowly defined ranges for physical life of any conceivable kind to exist.” The long list includes gravitational, electromagnetic, and nuclear forces; electron to proton mass ratios; initial uniformity of cosmic radiation; and on it goes in area after area. Take a look, please.

The Creator and the Cosmos was featured in WORLD Magazine’s 2018 Books of the Year issue. —Marvin Olasky

Evidence for the Fine-Tuning of the Universe

More than a hundred different parameters for the universe must have values falling within narrowly defined ranges for physical life of any conceivable kind to exist. This table includes just a partial list. A more complete list with scientific literature citations is available at reasons.org/finetuning.

1. strong nuclear force constant

if larger: no hydrogen; nuclei essential for life would be unstable

if smaller: no elements other than hydrogen

2. weak nuclear force constant

if larger: too much hydrogen converted to helium in big bang, hence too much heavy-element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars

if smaller: too little helium produced from big bang, hence too little heavy-element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars

3. gravitational force constant

if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn up too quickly and too unevenly

if smaller: stars would remain so cool that nuclear fusion would never ignite, hence no heavy-element production

4. electromagnetic force constant

if larger: insufficient chemical bonding; elements more massive than boron would be too unstable

if smaller: insufficient chemical bonding; inadequate quantities of either carbon or oxygen

5. ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant

if larger: no stars of less than 1.4 solar masses, hence short stellar life spans and uneven stellar luminosities

if smaller: no stars of more than 0.8 solar masses, hence no heavy element production

6. ratio of electron to proton mass

if larger: insufficient chemical bonding for stable molecules to be possible

if smaller: insufficient chemical bonding for stable molecules to be possible

7. ratio of numbers of protons to electrons

if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation

if smaller: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation

8. expansion rate of the universe

if larger: no galaxy formation

if smaller: universe would collapse prior to star formation

9. entropy level of the universe

if larger: no star condensation within the proto-galaxies

if smaller: no proto-galaxy formation

10. baryon or nucleon density of the universe

if larger: too much deuterium from big bang, hence stars burn too rapidly

if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang, hence too few heavy elements forming

11. velocity of light

if faster: stars would be too luminous

if slower: stars would not be luminous enough

12. age of the universe

if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase in the right part of the galaxy

if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed

13. initial uniformity of cosmic radiation

if smoother: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed

if coarser: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space

14. fine structure constant (a number, 0.0073, used to describe the fine structure splitting of spectral lines)

if larger: DNA would be unable to function; no stars more than 0.7 solar masses

if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields

if smaller: DNA would be unable to function; no stars less than 1.8 solar masses

15. average distance between galaxies

if larger: insufficient gas would be infused into our galaxy to sustain star formation over an adequate time span

if smaller: the Sun’s orbit would be too radically disturbed

16. average distance between stars

if larger: heavy element density too thin for rocky planets to form

if smaller: planetary orbits would become destabilized

17. decay rate of the proton

if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation

if smaller: insufficient matter in the universe for life

18. 12Carbon (12C) to 16Oxygen (16O) energy level ratio

if larger: insufficient oxygen

if smaller: insufficient carbon

19. ground state energy level for 4Helium (4He)

if higher: insufficient carbon and oxygen

If lower: insufficient carbon and oxygen

20. decay rate of 8Beryllium (8Be)

if faster: no element production beyond beryllium and, hence, no life chemistry possible

if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars

21. mass excess of the neutron over the proton

if greater: neutron decay would leave too few neutrons to form the heavy elements essential for life

if smaller: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to cause all stars to collapse rapidly into neutron stars or black holes

22. initial excess of nucleons over antinucleons

if greater: too much radiation for planets to form

if smaller: not enough matter for galaxies or stars to form

23. polarity of the water molecule

if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too great for life to exist

if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too small for life’s existence; liquid water would become too inferior a solvent for life chemistry to proceed; ice would not float, leading to a runaway freeze-up

24. supernova explosions

if too far away: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets

if too close: radiation would exterminate life on the planet; planet formation would be disrupted

if too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated

if too infrequent: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets

if too soon: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets

if too late: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation

25. white dwarf binaries

if too many: disruption of planetary orbits from stellar density; life on the planet would be exterminated

if too few: insufficient fluorine produced for life chemistry to proceed

if too soon: not enough heavy elements made for efficient fluorine production

if too late: fluorine made too late for incorporation in proto-planet

26. ratio of exotic to ordinary matter

if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form

if smaller: galaxies would not form

27. galaxy clusters

if too dense: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt star and planet orbits; too much radiation

if too sparse: insufficient infusion of gas into galaxies to sustain star formation for a long enough time

28. number of effective dimensions in the early universe

if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist and life would be impossible

if smaller: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist and life would be impossible

29. number of effective dimensions in the present universe

if larger: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable

if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable

30. mass values for the active neutrinos

if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense

if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form

31. big bang ripples

if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe expands too rapidly

if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense; black holes would dominate; universe collapses too quickly

32. total mass density

if larger: universe would expand too slowly, resulting in unstable orbits and too much radiation; random velocities between galaxies and galaxy clusters would be too large

if smaller: universe would expand too quickly for solar-type stars to form

33. dark energy density

if larger: universe would expand too quickly for solar-type stars to form

if smaller: universe would expand too slowly, resulting in unstable orbits and too much radiation

34. size of the relativistic dilation factor

if larger: certain life-essential chemical reactions would not function properly

if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions would not function properly

35. uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle

if larger: certain life-essential elements would be unstable; certain life-essential chemical reactions would not function properly

if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be inadequate; certain life-essential elements would be unstable; certain life-essential chemical reactions would not function properly

36. density of neutrinos

if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense; supernova eruptions would be too violent

if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form; inadequate supernova eruptions resulting in too few heavy elements dispersed into the interstellar medium

37. ratio of proton to electron charge

if larger: inadequate chemical bonding

if smaller: inadequate chemical bonding

38. ratio of cosmic mass density to dark energy density

if larger: galaxies, stars, and planets needed for life would form at the wrong time or the wrong location or both

if smaller: galaxies, stars, and planets needed for life would form at the wrong time or the wrong location or both

39. initial homogeneity of the universe

if greater: no galaxies or stars form

if lesser: black holes form before any stars form; no nuclear-burning stars

40. number of neutrino species

if less than 3: big bang fuses insufficient helium from hydrogen, resulting in inadequate life-essential elements

if more than 4: big bang fuses too much helium from hydrogen, resulting in inadequate life-essential elements

41. ratio of ordinary matter to exotic matter

if larger: rotation curves of spiral galaxies would not be flat enough; galaxy clusters would not be in virial equilibrium

if smaller: insufficient star formation

42. density of giant galaxies during early cosmic history

if larger: galaxy cluster suitable for advanced life will never form

if smaller: galaxy cluster suitable for advanced life will never form

43. epoch for peak of hypernova eruptions events

if earlier: density of heavy elements will be too high at best epoch for life

if later: density of heavy elements will be too low at best epoch for life

44. epoch for peak of supernova eruptions events

if earlier: density of heavy elements will be too high at best epoch for life

if later: density of heavy elements will be too low at best epoch for life

45. number of different kinds of supernovae

if lower: some of the elements essential for life will be missing

46. number of supernova eruption events

if too many: too much heavy element production for life to exist

if too few: inadequate production of heavy elements for life to exist

47. decay rate of an isolated neutron

if faster: big bang would fuse too little hydrogen into helium, resulting in inadequate life-essential elements

if slower: big bang would fuse too much hydrogen into helium, resulting in inadequate life-essential elements

48. density of metal-free population III stars in early universe

if higher: cosmic metallicity at optimal time for life will be too high; too much gas will be blown out of primordial galaxies

if lower: cosmic metallicity at optimal time for life will be too low; too little gas will be blown out of primordial galaxies

49. average mass of metal-free population III stars

if larger: these stars will not scatter any of their heavy elements into interstellar space

if smaller: these stars will scatter an insufficient quantity of heavy elements into interstellar space

50. water’s heat of vaporization

if larger: liquid water would evaporate too slowly

if smaller: liquid water would evaporate too rapidly

51. hypernova eruptions

if too many: relative abundances of heavy elements on rocky planets would be inappropriate for life; too many collision events in planetary systems

if too few: not enough heavy element ashes present for the formation of rocky planets

if too soon: leads to a galaxy evolution history that would disturb the possibility of advanced life; not enough heavy element ashes present for the formation of rocky planets

if too late: leads to a galaxy evolution history that would disturb the possibility of advanced life; relative abundances of heavy elements on rocky planets would be inappropriate for life; too many collision events in planetary systems

52. H3+ production amount

if too large: planets will form at wrong time and place for life

if too small: simple molecules essential to planet formation and life chemistry will not form

53. density of quasars

if larger: too much cosmic dust forms; too many stars form too late, disrupting the formation of a solar-type star at right time and right conditions for life

if smaller: insufficient production and ejection of cosmic dust into the intergalactic medium; ongoing star formation impeded; deadly radiation unblocked

54. density of giant galaxies in the early universe

if larger: too large a quantity of metals ejected into the intergalactic medium, providing future stars with too high of a metallicity for a life-support planet at the right time in cosmic history

if smaller: insufficient metals ejected into the intergalactic medium, depriving future generations of stars of the metal abundances necessary for a life-support planet at the right time in cosmic history

55. masses of stars that become hypernovae

if too massive: all the metals produced by the hypernova eruptions collapse into black holes resulting from the eruptions, leaving none of the metals available for future generations of stars

if not massive enough: insufficient metals are ejected into the interstellar medium for future star generations to make stars and planets suitable for the support of life

56. density of gamma-ray burst events

if larger: frequency and intensity of mass extinction events will be too high

if smaller: not enough production of copper, scandium, titanium, and zinc

57. intensity of primordial cosmic superwinds

if too low: inadequate star formation late in cosmic history

if too great: inadequate star formation early in cosmic history

58. smoking quasars

if too many: early star formation will be too vigorous, resulting in too few stars and planets being able to form late in cosmic history

if too few: inadequate primordial dust production for stimulating future star formation

59. level of supersonic turbulence in the infant universe

if too low: first stars will be the wrong type and quantity to produce the necessary mix of elements, gas, and dust so that a future star and planetary system capable of supporting life will appear at the right time in cosmic history

if too high: first stars will be the wrong type and quantity to produce the necessary mix of elements, gas, and dust so that a future star and planetary system capable of supporting life will appear at the right time in cosmic history

60. rate at which the triple-alpha process (combining of three helium nuclei to make one carbon nucleus) runs inside the nuclear furnaces of stars

if too high: stars would manufacture too much carbon and other heavy elements; stars may be too bright

if too low: stars would not manufacture enough carbon and other heavy elements to make advanced life possible before cosmic conditions would rule out the possibility of advanced life; stars may be too dim

From The Creator and the Cosmos: How the Latest Scientific Discoveries Reveal God by Hugh Ross, Ph.D. © 2018 by Reasons to Believe, fourth edition. All rights reserved. Reproduced with permission of Reasons to Believe, reasons.org.

Hugh Ross

Hugh is the president and founder of Reasons to Believe.

Read more from this writer

Comments

  • news2me
    Posted: Mon, 08/26/2019 08:12 pm

    Buy a Hugh Ross book? Not even at a used book store. I would also NOT accept it as a gift.

    He has always been a Science first, God second, person.

    He needs to hold on to his Scientist place in the Science community.

  •  William Peck 1958's picture
    William Peck 1958
    Posted: Sat, 08/24/2019 07:54 pm

    totally agree.

  • Bob R
    Posted: Tue, 08/27/2019 05:02 pm

    God's Word is absolute truth.  Our personal understanding of it, however is NOT, and should therefore always be open to correction.  God did not call us to a blind faith, but one that's based on reason, facts, and seeking to understand.  Proverbs admonishes us to seek for wisdom as we seek for silver and gold.  Romans 1 assures us that what is observable from the creation itself reveals much to us about God. 

    If we are truly secure in our faith in Christ, we should be able consider that some passages are debatable and open to be discussed, reasonably and rationally.  By “debatable”, I mean those about which godly people can disagree.  Be careful of assuming that all those who question the time periods related to the creation event are evil unbelievers.  Satan wants nothing better than to cause division among brothers.

  •  William Peck 1958's picture
    William Peck 1958
    Posted: Tue, 08/27/2019 06:23 pm

    Bob R - they're not evil unbelievers, but Hugh Ross acts like he knows EVERYTHING, and anyone else is deluded. Ken Ham disagrees.

  • SamIamHis
    Posted: Sat, 08/24/2019 02:06 pm

    Hugh Ross is brilliant but the foundation for his facts doesn't hold up to scripture.  I too would agree that he is a scientist first and believer second.  He always appears to create God in his image of scientific understanding.  With all that science has discovered, to not believe in a miraculous creator, capable of creating everything by speaking it into existence, in the short space of 6 days, each being 24 hours, its a sorry statement to how shallow those discoveries are.

  •  William Peck 1958's picture
    William Peck 1958
    Posted: Sat, 08/24/2019 07:54 pm

    totally agree.

  • Kitanian
    Posted: Sat, 08/24/2019 04:42 pm

    Hugh Ross is not only a brilliant scientist, but also a devoted pastor and evangelist, equipping the saints to engage the STEM community. I realize there is a significant contingent of Christians who subscribe to a 24-hour interpretation of Genesis 1, and I would never belittle them or their faith on such a non-essential belief -- but I wish they could respond thoughtfully to Dr. Ross's assertions instead of dismissing his ministry.

  •  William Peck 1958's picture
    William Peck 1958
    Posted: Sat, 08/24/2019 07:56 pm

    as Ken Ham says, if you get off the rails in Genesis 1, then you can dismiss anything you want. Besides, the usage of "day" means "day", not eons.

  • Bob R
    Posted: Mon, 08/26/2019 12:35 pm

    Kitanian, thank you for being a voice of reason!  I must say, I’m a bit disappointed (though not surprised) by those brothers and sisters who mock scientific findings because they don't understand the definitions.  The fact that you don't understand something doesn't make it wrong!  God doesn’t call us to a “blind faith”; He’s given us minds and senses to understand what He’s created.  Our faith should be strong enough that we can consider the possibility that our interpretation of God’s Word might not be absolute.  It’s interesting that He used space itself as a metaphor to describe just how much smarter He is than US!

     Here's what Hugh Ross and other (godly believers who happen to be scientists), are revealing:

    Scientific findings (“facts”) used to lead to the conclusion that the universe was static and eternal.  What this book makes clear is that the latest findings, accepted by both believing and non-believing scientists, indicate that everything, including time and space itself were CREATED in an instant, from an infinitesimal point of nothingness, in the form of light (pure energy).  Does THAT sound familiar?  

     The parameters defined in this article are so finely balanced, they could not have possibly happened without an intelligence controlling them.   This fact alone has prompted some in the scientific community to hypothesize "multiple universes" (MU), where billions of other "bubble universes" were spawned at the time of the Big Bang along with ours; we just happen to live on the one where all the parameters line up!  So, we don't really need to worry about these pesky "facts" because we can now explain them away by referring to MU theory!  

      Notice how this concept has caught on in the culture, particularly in education and movies!  The need to justify anything with hard, solid evidence is no longer needed, since the most outlandish, illogical "theories" can now be explained away by MU!

      Let's be patient; the Bible and Science were once 180 degrees apart; now they are only say, 90 degrees.  And by the way, the Bible hasn't moved!  The big issue appears to be the time factor.  If time (which we now understand to be relative) was created along with everything else, it's reasonable to assume that evidences of "time factors" could just be a bit tricky to nail down.  Let's see what "science facts" reveal about it as we continue to study and learn of God's amazing power and wisdom!

  •  William Peck 1958's picture
    William Peck 1958
    Posted: Tue, 08/27/2019 06:31 pm

    Bob R  - 

    >>I must say, I’m a bit disappointed (though not surprised) by those brothers and sisters who mock scientific findings because they don't understand the definitions. 
    - YET - you mock me for believing in a young earth

    >>The parameters defined in this article are so finely balanced, they could not have possibly happened without an intelligence controlling them.
    - Um, 4.5 BILLION Years is not eactly "fine tuned". or is it 4.3 BILLION years, a difference of a mere 200 MILLION YEARS.

    Also, why is Ken Ham, ICR, Creation.com, and Creation Research Society wrong?
    - Hugh and Ken have the same FACTS, yet Hugh twists the Bible to fit his beliefs.

    You, btw, have a blind faith to the scientist who goes to church.

  • EZ818
    Posted: Sat, 08/24/2019 07:39 pm

    I know Hugh and Kathy Ross personally. Hugh is a conservative theologian and a Godly man, as well as  a brilliant scientist. He makes a compelling case for long creation “days”. 

  •  William Peck 1958's picture
    William Peck 1958
    Posted: Sat, 08/24/2019 07:57 pm

    Ken Ham makes an even more compelling case for a "day" being a "day".

  •  William Peck 1958's picture
    William Peck 1958
    Posted: Sat, 08/24/2019 08:32 pm

    I don't see God mentioned in this article, although I do see the book ascribes the discoveries as revealing God.

    I don't get how the long earth creation argument works ... how old exactly does he say the earth is?

    ===========

    What does this even mean??? ===> 

    43. epoch for peak of hypernova eruptions events

    if earlier: density of heavy elements will be too high at best epoch for life

    if later: density of heavy elements will be too low at best epoch for life

  •  William Peck 1958's picture
    William Peck 1958
    Posted: Sat, 08/24/2019 09:16 pm

    most of this is way above my pay grade, mainly it serves to show how smart Hugh Ross is. I remember listening to Hugh Ross on Dr. Dobson's show in the late 80's or early 90's, and Hugh said something like "I figured out God", which sound unbelievably arrogant to me.

    Hugh Ross believes in "Progress Day Age Creation", which means the six days of Genesis are not six 24 hour periods, but he believes in "billions and billions of years" (ala Carl Sagan).

    Ross says there is "overwhelming evidence that the universe is 13-15 BILLION years old and that the earth is ancient as well".
    - Um, how would you know the age??? 

    He believes that the Creation event "is a testable idea that can fall within the domain of science"
    - like, how would you actually test this???

    To bolster his theory of long "days", Ross believes the seventh day (of rest) HAS NOT ENDED. Since it has not ended, this gives credence to the theory that the six days of creation were long too. 

    Ross believes that death and decay have been always been part of God's creation. 

    You can find the citations here: https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/old-earth/critical-analysis-hugh-ross-progressive-day-age-creationism/

     

     

     

  •  William Peck 1958's picture
    William Peck 1958
    Posted: Sat, 08/24/2019 09:22 pm

    from the article:

    12. age of the universe - well, a range of 2 BILLION years in his earth age of 13-15 BILLION years is not exactly "fine-tuning"

    25. white dwarf binaries - goodness, what in the world is this???

    31. big bang ripples - now we're advocating the Big Bang???

    59. level of supersonic turbulence in the infant universe - um, how do you measure something that's supposedly 13+ BILLION years ago.

    Am I to assume Marvin Olasky believes in the old earth "theory" as proposed by Hugh Ross? If so - weird.

     

     

  • HW
    Posted: Sat, 08/24/2019 11:32 pm

    William,

    I am not sure what article you are referring to.  As a geochemist, I am aware of the data collected that was used to calculate the age of the earth i.e. the time when God formed the earth.  It is calculated from the amount of uranium-238 in the earth, and the amount of lead-206.  Uranium-238 undergoes radioactive decay through multiple steps of decay that include kicking 8 alpha particles out of the nuclues, and it ends up as lead-206, which is stable.  So over the time period since God created the earth, uranium-238 has been decreasing by radioactive decay, and the resulting lead-206 has been increasing.  Once the data measurements were collected, the calculation resulted in the earth's age of 4.5 billion years.  This age was reported in 1955, and in the intervening 64 years, the 4.5 has been adjusted a little closer to 4.6 billion years.

    Ken Wolgemuth
     

  •  William Peck 1958's picture
    William Peck 1958
    Posted: Sun, 08/25/2019 02:14 pm

    HW,

    >>"I am not sure waht article you are referring to"
    - I posted the link one comment above, but here it is again: https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/old-earth/critical-analysis-hugh-ross-progressive-day-age-creationism/

    >>"I am aware of the data collected to calculate the age of the earth"
    - I think you mean to "theorize" the age of the earth. You CANNOT calculate it with any precision, it has to be TESTABLE, Science 101.
    - any "calculation" is based on a lot of ASSUMPTIONS

    >>"Uranium 238 ... lead-206 ... 8 Alpha particles ... 4.5 BILLION YEARS
    - so the process of convincing people that Hugh Ross is right is essentially, "I'm smarter than you, therefore you must believe me". And you perpetuate this mumbo-jumbo scientific jargon that can only be understand by esteemed PhD's.

    >>The earth's age was calculated a 4.5 BILLION years, and then refined to 4.6 BILLION YEARS.
    - So it was "adjusted" by 100 MILLION years. Do you realize how long that is

    Regarding Ken Ham, ICR, Creation.org and Creation Research Society - are all of these young earth organizations deluded?

  • HW
    Posted: Sun, 08/25/2019 06:46 pm

    William,

    Once I opened and examined the article from Answers Research Journal, I had read it about 2 months ago.  Yes, Hugh Ross acknowledges the evidence in nature that the universe is 13 - 14 billion years old.  His view of the age of the earth was not mentioned in the article that I could find.  I acknowledge the geochemical evidence in nature in its ministerial role of scientific discoveries that points to 4.5 billion years for the age of the earth, reported in the geoscience literature in 1955.  This is consistent with the age of meteorites, understood by astronomers to come from within our solar system.  

    This location for comments within WORLD magazine is not suitable for a longer exchange.  If you want to email me to continue, that is okay.  wolgemuth2@aol.com

    Ken Wolgemuth

  • HW
    Posted: Sat, 08/24/2019 11:12 pm

    My wife and I also know Dr. Ross and his wife Kathy, and they are dedicated followers of Jesus Christ.  As a young adult he discovered that the Truth in Genesis 1 was the best description of what he understood the history of the universe to be from his knowledge of astronomy. He is the only Christian whom I know who came to believe in God from reading Genesis. He became the very best scientific apologist to lead people to the trancendant God of the Bible, and as a Pastor, seeks to draw them to a personal faith in Jesus Christ.  What he writes about the fine-tuning of the universe is scientifically credible.

    I am so thankful that Dr. Ross is a Christian, who demonstrates that God's Word and His works reveal the Creator. 

    I encourage all of you to listen to a talk about understanding Genesis 1 on whether science and Biblical Christianity are in conflict.  Dr Michael G. Strauss describes the evidence that the origins of the universe point to a transcendent Creator—God. He tells the story of Genesis from the creation of the heavens and earth, formation of continents, through to the creation of man.

     http://owl.li/8kS730kUJmU

    Soli Deo gloria,
    Ken Wolgemuth, PhD,
    Founder, Solid Rock Lectures

  • news2me
    Posted: Mon, 08/26/2019 08:05 pm

    I hope you give Answers in Genesis as much read as you do your friend, Ross. 

    Just because you know someone personally doesn't mean the Earth is billions of years, or whatever the current measurement is.

     

     

  •  William Peck 1958's picture
    William Peck 1958
    Posted: Tue, 08/27/2019 06:32 pm

    news2me - totally agree.

  • HW
    Posted: Wed, 08/28/2019 03:56 pm

    news2me,

    I have been reading young-earth creationism material since 1970, and reading Answers in Genesis books, watching their videos, and attending their lectures for 15 years. I have probably heard more lectures from AiG speakers than from Hugh Ross.  It is not that I consider Hugh Ross a friend that I am persuaded the earth is 4.6 billion years old.  I have been a believer in God as the Creator since childhood, and He triggered my desire to study His Creation through chemistry and geochemistry.  So I have known the evidence for a 4.6 billion year old earth before I ever heard of Hugh Ross.  He is an astronomer, and I am a geochemist.  Geochemists published the age of the earth as 4.55 billion years in 1956, five years before Henry Morris even published The Genesis Flood and before Ken Ham came to America.  This answer is derived from following Scripture in Job 12:8, Psalm 104:32b, Jeremiah 33:25-26a, and Romans 1:20 to study creation though the lense of science, which came directly out of a Christian worldview.

    Rob R made a very significant comment about the age of the earth questions in the church. "Satan wants nothing better that to cause division among brothers."  Rob is so right on this one, and satan is winnning for now.  I have a dream that all churches and parachurch organizations present God's creation truthfully, for all of the sciences.  Christians will rejoice.  Remember, the truth will set you free.

    Soli Deo gloria,

    Ken Wolgemuth

  • Orvin Bontrager
    Posted: Sun, 08/25/2019 07:28 am

    Thank you for featuring this book.  Reasons to Believe is a tremendous ministry.  

  • Rich277
    Posted: Sun, 08/25/2019 09:18 am

    What won me over to Hugh Ross’s side in this debate was—more than his ideas—his Christlike character and his unwillingness to bear false witness against his opponents.  This is a lesson they could learn.  

  •  William Peck 1958's picture
    William Peck 1958
    Posted: Sun, 08/25/2019 01:58 pm

    So you think the world was created 13 BILLION YEARS ago? Then you must believe Ken Ham, ICR, and Creation.org are all deluded.

  • Rich277
    Posted: Sun, 08/25/2019 06:03 pm

    I merely disagree with them.  But thanks for thinking the best of me.

  • MTJanet
    Posted: Mon, 08/26/2019 10:46 am

    I wish I knew what we are concerned about - is God the Creator?  Yes.  Did He create the earth in 6 days?  Yes.  Can He have manipulated those 24 hour days to have incorporated billions of years of time for His own purposes?  Yes.  Did He do so?  I don't know or care.   Does He work out of time?  Oh yes.  I'm not sure why mankind wants to figure out the age of the earth - unless it is to prove or disprove God's existence...but since that is a matter of faith, it becomes nearly irrelevant to me.  The scientists in my family have not come to faith through observance of the physical world but through seeing their need for a Saviour.  If an unbeliever can utilize this information to come to Christ, good and well.  It is hard to be opposed to those who are reaching out to win more to His kingdom.  

  • news2me
    Posted: Mon, 08/26/2019 08:16 pm

    I'm sure, if I knew him personally I would probably believe everything he says. Because the science community thinks he is brilliant. The science community also listens to Bill Nye the science guy.  He got to fly with Obama.  

    Christians should base their faith on the WORD of GOD, not on articles accepted by the science community.  

     

  •  William Peck 1958's picture
    William Peck 1958
    Posted: Tue, 08/27/2019 06:35 pm

    news2me - totally agree. Hugh Ross is like the cool science guy on CNN who explains away God, because Hugh is so smart.

ADVERTISEMENT