Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [RTB Discussion Group] Why did Hugh Ross agree to have Kent Hovind to debate? Ankerberg Converts to OEC

Expand Messages
  • kurt_streutker
    We have long pointed out the blatantly partisan way in which John Ankerberg moderated the Ross-Hovind debate. Frequently he made gratuitous points for Ross,
    Message 1 of 18 , May 30, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      We have long pointed out the blatantly partisan way in which John
      Ankerberg 'moderated' the Ross-Hovind debate. Frequently he made
      gratuitous points for Ross, even admitted that he kept on butting
      into Hovind. He also knocked down straw men about what YECs believe,
      e.g. claiming that it was news to YECs that yom CAN mean other than
      an ordinary day (we have ALWAYS pointed out that the CONTEXT of
      Genesis 1 NARROWS the semantic range of yom to an ordinary day).
      Also, as pointed out, the selection of a lone-wolf YEC who hasn't any
      science qualification further stacked the deck in the OEC favor, as
      if 2 against 1 wasn't bad enough! All this is plain in this
      transcript and analysis (which also takes Fuz to task about some
      errant statements)
      <http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/ross_hovind_analysis.asp>.

      Despite this, Fuz claimed that Ankerberg was YEC. So I wrote and
      obtained a letter from one of his own staffers admitting that he was
      an OEC, as if that wasn't obvious from the debate. But Fuz then
      asserts that he converted to OEC at some time in the past (without
      giving any reasons why anyone should). His main 'evidence' was:

      ""Unfortunately, it would seem that at least for its critics, the big
      bang theory is not credible either. Despite the latest advances in
      our knowledge of this theory, the words of Hoyle will, in all
      probability, remain true or at least suggestive: "Although the highly
      complicated theoretical investigations of the past fifteen years have
      drawn heavily on powerful new knowledge in basic physics, results of
      worthwhile significance seem to be elusive...I have little hesitation
      in saying that as a result a sickly pall now hangs over the big bang
      theory.""

      Wow, if questioning the BB makes one a YEC, then Hoyle must have been
      one too!!



      --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@y..., "Fazale Rana" <frana@r...> wrote:
      > Kurt,
      >
      > Thank you for finding this out.
      >
      > It seems that John Ankerberg has converted to OEC from YEC. Hugh
      Ross felt
      > that he was moving in that direction after the debate with
      Hovind. When
      > Ankerberg approached Hugh, he was squarely in the YE camp. It is
      well known
      > that prior to this debate Ankerberg was a YEC.
      >
      > Since it is common practice for you and others on this discussion
      group to
      > question our integrity at RTB, I have taken the following quote
      from the
      > appendix to the book, The Creation Hypothesis, edited by J.P.
      Moreland. The
      > appendix, entitled "Rational Inquiry & the Force of Scientific
      Data: Are New
      > Horizons Emerging?", was written by John Ankerberg and John Weldon.
      >
      > The quote:
      >
      > "Unfortunately, it would seem that at least for its critics, the
      big bang
      > theory is not credible either. Despite the latest advances in our
      knowledge
      > of this theory, the words of Hoyle will, in all probability, remain
      true or
      > at least suggestive: "Although the highly complicated theoretical
      > investigations of the past fifteen years have drawn heavily on
      powerful new
      > knowledge in basic physics, results of worthwhile significance seem
      to be
      > elusive...I have little hesitation in saying that as a result a
      sickly pall
      > now hangs over the big bang theory.""
      >
      > This was written prior to 1994 (the publication date of this
      book). This
      > quote clearly demonstrates that at one time Ankerberg's position
      did not
      > "generally agree" with Hugh Ross'. Ankerberg, in print, has in the
      past
      > questioned big bang cosmology.
      >
      > It seems that he has converted to an OEC from a view more that was
      more in
      > line with YEC. I guess when presented with the facts an open
      minded person
      > will recognize the truth. If the evidence, both biblical and
      scientific, is
      > so compelling for a YE interpretation, why would someone of
      Ankerberg's
      > caliber (he has an M.A., M.Div and a D.Min.) abandoned this view
      and embrace
      > OEC?
      >
      > The email you posted doesn't reflect lack of credibility on my
      part, but
      > Ankerberg's movement toward the OE camp.
      >
      >
      > Fuz
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: kurt_streutker [mailto:kurt_streutker@y...]
      > Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 12:25 PM
      > To: RTB_Discussion_Group@y...
      > Subject: Re: [RTB Discussion Group] Why did Hugh Ross agree to have
      Kent
      > Hovind to debate?
      >
      >
      > Fuz claimed: "Ankerberg is a YEC."
      >
      > I thought I would ask Dr. Ankerberg if he really is a YEC.
      > Here is the reply from one of his staffers:
      > "Concerning Dr. Ankerberg's position, he would be in general
      > agreement with the views expressed by Dr. Ross in his writings.
      >
      > Here is the complete email:
      > _________________________________________________________
      >
      > Dear Kurt,
      >
      > Several months ago, Dr. Ankerberg hosted a debate between Dr. Hugh
      > Ross ("old earth" advocate) and Kent Hovind ("young earth"
      > advocate). They discussed the topic: "Are the Universe and the
      Earth
      > Billions of Years Old or Thousands of Years Old?" The subject
      > of "death before sin" was also discussed during the course of the
      > debate.
      >
      > If you would be interested in obtaining the series, just go to our
      > website at www.johnankerberg.org or call 1-800-805-3030 for
      ordering
      > information.
      >
      > Concerning Dr. Ankerberg's position, he would be in general
      agreement
      > with the views expressed by Dr. Ross in his writings.
      >
      > Thanks for writing.
      >
      > Lynda, ATRI Staff
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@y..., "Fazale Rana" <frana@r...>
      wrote:
      > > Just some general comments and then I am through with this
      topic.
      > >
      > > 1) Ankerberg is a YEC. Read his article in J.P. Moreland's
      Creation
      > > Hypothesis if you doubt me. He writes against the Big Bang.
      > >
      > > 2) You need to contact Ankerberg regarding his reluctance to
      > involve AiG in
      > > the debate with Hugh. I can't or won't attempt to defend his
      > actions.
      > >
      > > 3) All I read are excuses as to why AiG and Ken Ham would not
      > interact with
      > > Hugh and RTB. The opportunities have been there and it is
      always
      > Ken Ham
      > > and AiG that back out. We have attempted to initiate
      interactions
      > to no
      > > avail. I am unaware of an invitation from AiG to Hugh or RTB.
      If
      > Ken Ham
      > > extends an invitation to RTB, someone from RTB will meet with
      him.
      > If not
      > > Hugh, than I will.
      > >
      > > 4) Hugh and RTB do critique the Young Earth view, but seldom, if
      > ever, do we
      > > mention individuals by name, nor do we rarely, if ever, impune
      > another's
      > > character or motives.
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      > ADVERTISEMENT
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Question the Assumptions of Naturalism which are foundational
      > to OEC at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
      >
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
      Service.
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.