Feedback archiveFeedback 2005

Refuting criticism

26 September 2005

From a Hugh Ross supporter called S.J. Stock. This illustrates the hyper-sensitivity and double standards that Ross encourages in his followers, and their unwillingness to read what we actually say before criticizing us.

Your personal attacks of Dr Hugh Ross are unwarranted, unnecessary and offensive.

I have no idea what you mean. What have you construed as a personal attack, and in what way is it offensive? You might find that your points are answered in the Introductory Chapter of Refuting Compromise.

If you folks are science based then use science to disprove what Ross has stated.

Amen to this week’s newsletter! We hear people proclaiming “revival” all the time, but I believe we are living in a dark, dark day similar to the days before the Reformation. Where the people of that time did not have the Word in their own languages, the people of our day are filling up churches but the Word is not being preached or studied. Even seasoned Christians do not seem to know what the Word says about issues. They are going by pop psychology or what their leaders are telling them, which is often far off from the Truth. We’ve become a generation of followers, not Bereans. Thank you so much for your ministry and its emphasis on Biblical truth and roots. You have been a huge help as we have raised our four children, going to your seminars and reading your materials, to realize the vast mystery and wonder of Genesis. It has changed the way I look at everything. God bless you.

Rosemarie Norton

Please read Refuting Compromise where this has been done, then tell me if you have found any mistakes (by the way, I receive no royalties from this book). Another article documenting many scientific errors on Ross’s part is Trilobites on the Ark? It would also be worth considering the problems his view holds for the origin of death and suffering (see The Fall: a cosmic catastrophe: Hugh Ross’s blunders on plant death in the Bible).

Go count ice rings, tree rings or something positive.

You mean ice layers? As in Cold comfort for long-agers: Hugh Ross’s superficial interpretation of ice core data? Also see the papers under Ice Age Q&A. As for tree rings, see Tree ring dating (dendrochronology) and Much-inflated carbon-14 dates from subfossil trees: a new mechanism. It is not enough to count them—assumptions must be made to their rate of formation. In fact, most of the alleged ice layers are not even counted but extrapolated.

But since you’re so keen on counting, how about counting 14C atoms in samples allegedly millions of years old? If the millions of years were true, there should be none to count, but there they are—including in diamonds, which are far too hard to have been contaminated. Or you could resort to special pleading to explain away the problem.

I tend to agree with Dr Ross. However, evidence not opinion, would change my mind. Your personal attacks of Dr Ross do nothing to enhance your position. Does Dr Ross attack you personally, or just your young earth position?

Both, as documented in Critique of the introductory chapter of Hugh Ross’ new book A Matter of Days: Resolving a Creation Controversy. Please ask Dr. Ross to apologize. Please be so good as to send us copies of your letter to him and any response, just to show your good faith.

You folks need to class up your act.

S.J. Stock

You need to present evidence to back up your accusations if you want us to take your criticisms seriously.

Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.
Brisbane, Australia

Published: 3 February 2006