Total Posts:383|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Reasons to Believe Creation Model

tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 6:15:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
DanneJeRusse and I were discussing this model very briefly in another thread and he suggested that I make a thread dedicated to the topic. I think that this is a good idea because I would like to learn more about the model myself as I am rather new to it. So please feel free to express any opinions, comments, criticisms, etc. that you may have on the model. Here is a link to the Reasons to Believe website:
http://www.reasons.org...

Here is a link to their creation model:
http://www.reasons.org...

Here is a nice video that I found very informative:
https://www.youtube.com...
Description:
In this event, held at the University of California, Santa Barbara, Hugh Ross and Fuz Rana present an overview of their model and predictions and two UCSB professors, Dr. Harry Nelson and Dr. Kevin Plaxco, present their responses. The four presentations are followed by about 45 minutes of lively discussion between the audience and the panel of four speakers. The topics covered include arguments and evidences from mathematics, physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology and anthropology.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 6:16:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Damn, that was fast. Well done.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
jonnybgood
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 6:28:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 6:15:49 PM, tstor wrote:
DanneJeRusse and I were discussing this model very briefly in another thread and he suggested that I make a thread dedicated to the topic. I think that this is a good idea because I would like to learn more about the model myself as I am rather new to it. So please feel free to express any opinions, comments, criticisms, etc. that you may have on the model. Here is a link to the Reasons to Believe website:
http://www.reasons.org...

Here is a link to their creation model:
http://www.reasons.org...

Here is a nice video that I found very informative:
https://www.youtube.com...
Description:
In this event, held at the University of California, Santa Barbara, Hugh Ross and Fuz Rana present an overview of their model and predictions and two UCSB professors, Dr. Harry Nelson and Dr. Kevin Plaxco, present their responses. The four presentations are followed by about 45 minutes of lively discussion between the audience and the panel of four speakers. The topics covered include arguments and evidences from mathematics, physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology and anthropology. : :

I found these statements in this website you referred to.

1.The Bible (including Genesis 1"11) is the error-free word of God. : :

Who claims this false statement?

2.The creation account of Genesis 1 follows a basic chronology. : :

Without dates, how do you know if the creation account is in chronological order?

3.The record of nature is also a reliable revelation from God. : :

This is a subjective thought without any evidence that God is a reliable source.

4.The message of nature will agree with what the Bible says. : :

The Bible cannot speak for itself. The reader is the one who interprets it either correctly or incorrectly.

5.The Bible contains a selective summary description of God"s creation activity (e.g., no mention of dinosaurs, bipedal primates, quantum mechanics, or the existence of other solar system planets). : :

There is no mention of a man/god person named Jesus in the OT either.

6.God gives humans the privilege to fill in the details, carefully, through patient, ongoing exploration and increased understanding of the natural realm. : :

God gives liars the privilege to falsely interpret any of the scriptures or what they observe in this world.
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 6:43:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 6:28:56 PM, jonnybgood wrote:

I found these statements in this website you referred to.

1.The Bible (including Genesis 1"11) is the error-free word of God. : :

Who claims this false statement?
You mean who claims that the statement is false? Many people do.

2.The creation account of Genesis 1 follows a basic chronology. : :

Without dates, how do you know if the creation account is in chronological order?
Because it is broken down into "days". There is an order that is described.

3.The record of nature is also a reliable revelation from God. : :

This is a subjective thought without any evidence that God is a reliable source.
Further reading is required. There is a list of relevant articles at the end of the page you were reading that I suggest checking out. As well, you can search up key phrases in the top right search bar.

I think what was meant by this statement is that the record of nature that we know today is accurately represented in the Bible.

4.The message of nature will agree with what the Bible says. : :

The Bible cannot speak for itself. The reader is the one who interprets it either correctly or incorrectly.
Well, I agree that there can be interpretation differences, assuming that is what you are referring to, but there are limits. Especially when considering the accuracy of something like the creation account.

5.The Bible contains a selective summary description of God's creation activity (e.g., no mention of dinosaurs, bipedal primates, quantum mechanics, or the existence of other solar system planets). : :

There is no mention of a man/god person named Jesus in the OT either.
There are prophecies of a Messiah, who we now know is Jesus. Though I fail to see how this has relevancy to what is being stated.

6.God gives humans the privilege to fill in the details, carefully, through patient, ongoing exploration and increased understanding of the natural realm. : :

God gives liars the privilege to falsely interpret any of the scriptures or what they observe in this world.
Yes, it is called free will.

Overall I have to suggest that you look at those relevant articles, many of which have other relevant articles attached to them. As I mentioned before, you can also search key phrases in the top right search bar to find articles.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
jonnybgood
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 6:47:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 6:43:24 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/7/2015 6:28:56 PM, jonnybgood wrote:

I found these statements in this website you referred to.

1.The Bible (including Genesis 1"11) is the error-free word of God. : :

Who claims this false statement?
You mean who claims that the statement is false? Many people do.

2.The creation account of Genesis 1 follows a basic chronology. : :

Without dates, how do you know if the creation account is in chronological order?
Because it is broken down into "days". There is an order that is described.

3.The record of nature is also a reliable revelation from God. : :

This is a subjective thought without any evidence that God is a reliable source.
Further reading is required. There is a list of relevant articles at the end of the page you were reading that I suggest checking out. As well, you can search up key phrases in the top right search bar.

I think what was meant by this statement is that the record of nature that we know today is accurately represented in the Bible.

4.The message of nature will agree with what the Bible says. : :

The Bible cannot speak for itself. The reader is the one who interprets it either correctly or incorrectly.
Well, I agree that there can be interpretation differences, assuming that is what you are referring to, but there are limits. Especially when considering the accuracy of something like the creation account.

5.The Bible contains a selective summary description of God's creation activity (e.g., no mention of dinosaurs, bipedal primates, quantum mechanics, or the existence of other solar system planets). : :

There is no mention of a man/god person named Jesus in the OT either.
There are prophecies of a Messiah, who we now know is Jesus. Though I fail to see how this has relevancy to what is being stated.

6.God gives humans the privilege to fill in the details, carefully, through patient, ongoing exploration and increased understanding of the natural realm. : :

God gives liars the privilege to falsely interpret any of the scriptures or what they observe in this world.
Yes, it is called free will.

Overall I have to suggest that you look at those relevant articles, many of which have other relevant articles attached to them. As I mentioned before, you can also search key phrases in the top right search bar to find articles. : :

Why do I need to go to a created man for answers?
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 6:50:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 6:47:59 PM, jonnybgood wrote:

Why do I need to go to a created man for answers?
I believe that the page you read explains that clearly:
"God gives humans the privilege to fill in the details, carefully, through patient, ongoing exploration and increased understanding of the natural realm."
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
jonnybgood
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 6:53:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 6:50:05 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/7/2015 6:47:59 PM, jonnybgood wrote:

Why do I need to go to a created man for answers?
I believe that the page you read explains that clearly:
"God gives humans the privilege to fill in the details, carefully, through patient, ongoing exploration and increased understanding of the natural realm." : :

God put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in man's garden and told him not to eat of it but he told man to eat freely of the tree of life.

Man has been eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil ever since and that's why God hid the tree of life from man.

I don't listen to the lies of man.
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 6:54:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 6:53:06 PM, jonnybgood wrote:

God put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in man's garden and told him not to eat of it but he told man to eat freely of the tree of life.

Man has been eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil ever since and that's why God hid the tree of life from man.

I don't listen to the lies of man.
Is this Brad?
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
jonnybgood
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 6:56:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 6:54:08 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/7/2015 6:53:06 PM, jonnybgood wrote:

God put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in man's garden and told him not to eat of it but he told man to eat freely of the tree of life.

Man has been eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil ever since and that's why God hid the tree of life from man.

I don't listen to the lies of man.
Is this Brad? : :

The only ONE who knows what the Tree of Life is has spoken. The one writing this post has witnessed the written and spoken Word of the Lord ( the ONE ).
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 6:56:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 6:56:10 PM, jonnybgood wrote:

The only ONE who knows what the Tree of Life is has spoken. The one writing this post has witnessed the written and spoken Word of the Lord ( the ONE ).
My apologies, you are David.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
jonnybgood
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 6:59:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 6:56:58 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/7/2015 6:56:10 PM, jonnybgood wrote:

The only ONE who knows what the Tree of Life is has spoken. The one writing this post has witnessed the written and spoken Word of the Lord ( the ONE ).
My apologies, you are David. : :

Yes, you are correct. My Servant David is the Word of the Lord.

Ezekiel 37
24: "My servant David shall be king over them; and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall follow my ordinances and be careful to observe my statutes.
25: They shall dwell in the land where your fathers dwelt that I gave to my servant Jacob; they and their children and their children's children shall dwell there for ever; and David my servant shall be their prince for ever.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 7:26:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 6:15:49 PM, tstor wrote:
DanneJeRusse and I were discussing this model very briefly in another thread and he suggested that I make a thread dedicated to the topic. I think that this is a good idea because I would like to learn more about the model myself as I am rather new to it. So please feel free to express any opinions, comments, criticisms, etc. that you may have on the model. Here is a link to the Reasons to Believe website:
http://www.reasons.org...

Here is a link to their creation model:
http://www.reasons.org...

First of all, I would like to address their explanation of a model, which they use for examples the Theory of Relativity and the Theory of Evolution. These theories are only used to create models, they are no longer models themselves, but were at one time before becoming theories. They also claim a model is much more than a theory, which isn't true, a model may become a theory, but a theory is a collection of facts, whereas a model is a collection of ideas and predictions based on what may represent phenomena and physical processes.

From there, I went to the first article: "Big Bang"The Bible Taught It First!"

Here, they claim that Romans 8 is the explanation for the second law of thermodynamics and supports the fine tuning argument. I can only assume this is the kind of agenda of errors Ross has been criticized and refuted.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 7:41:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 7:26:46 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

First of all, I would like to address their explanation of a model, which they use for examples the Theory of Relativity and the Theory of Evolution. These theories are only used to create models, they are no longer models themselves, but were at one time before becoming theories. They also claim a model is much more than a theory, which isn't true, a model may become a theory, but a theory is a collection of facts, whereas a model is a collection of ideas and predictions based on what may represent phenomena and physical processes.
I can only assume that you are referencing this paragraph:
"Some scientists use the term model in a mathematical sense, to refer to a set of equations, for example. Other times they use the word to refer to a series of empirical observations (such as a sequence of chemistry experiments) or physical processes (such as the formation of the Grand Canyon). Simply put, a scientific model is a conceptual framework that offers a simplified view of a large, complex reality. Models help researchers organize vast amounts of information into a conceptual structure so as to better understand and interpret the data, ask good questions, and identify anomalies. Famous scientific models include Einstein"s theory of relativity and the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution."

There are no errors in this paragraph. Let's define a "model":
A systematic description of an object or phenomenon that shares important characteristics with the object or phenomenon. Scientific models can be material, visual, mathematical, or computational and are often used in the construction of scientific theories. (dictionary.reference.com)

Therefore, both Einstein's theory of relativity and the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution are scientific models.

From there, I went to the first article: "Big Bang"The Bible Taught It First!"

Here, they claim that Romans 8 is the explanation for the second law of thermodynamics and supports the fine tuning argument. I can only assume this is the kind of agenda of errors Ross has been criticized and refuted.
I assume you are referring to the final paragraph here:
"Finally, the Bible indirectly argues for a big bang universe by stating that the laws of thermodynamics, gravity, and electromagnetism have universally operated throughout the universe since the cosmic creation event itself. In Romans 8 we are told that the entire creation has been subjected to the law of decay (the second law of thermodynamics). This law in the context of an expanding universe establishes that the cosmos was much hotter in the past. In Genesis 1 and in many places throughout Job, Psalms, and Proverbs we are informed that stars have existed since the early times of creation. As explained in two Reasons To Believe books,10 even the slightest changes in either the laws of gravity or electromagnetism would make stars impossible. As already noted in the accompanying article, gravity, electromagnetism, and thermodynamics yield stable orbits of planets around stars and of electrons around the nuclei of atoms only if they operate in a universe described by three very large rapidly expanding dimensions of space."
So what exactly is the criticism you have?
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 8:05:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 7:41:37 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/7/2015 7:26:46 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

First of all, I would like to address their explanation of a model, which they use for examples the Theory of Relativity and the Theory of Evolution. These theories are only used to create models, they are no longer models themselves, but were at one time before becoming theories. They also claim a model is much more than a theory, which isn't true, a model may become a theory, but a theory is a collection of facts, whereas a model is a collection of ideas and predictions based on what may represent phenomena and physical processes.
I can only assume that you are referencing this paragraph:
"Some scientists use the term model in a mathematical sense, to refer to a set of equations, for example. Other times they use the word to refer to a series of empirical observations (such as a sequence of chemistry experiments) or physical processes (such as the formation of the Grand Canyon). Simply put, a scientific model is a conceptual framework that offers a simplified view of a large, complex reality. Models help researchers organize vast amounts of information into a conceptual structure so as to better understand and interpret the data, ask good questions, and identify anomalies. Famous scientific models include Einstein"s theory of relativity and the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution."

There are no errors in this paragraph. Let's define a "model":
A systematic description of an object or phenomenon that shares important characteristics with the object or phenomenon. Scientific models can be material, visual, mathematical, or computational and are often used in the construction of scientific theories. (dictionary.reference.com)

Therefore, both Einstein's theory of relativity and the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution are scientific models.

Look closely at that definition, it does not make equivalency of a model and a theory nor does it resemble the definition of a theory ,and then goes on to confirm what I said: " are often used in the construction of scientific theories."

From there, I went to the first article: "Big Bang"The Bible Taught It First!"

Here, they claim that Romans 8 is the explanation for the second law of thermodynamics and supports the fine tuning argument. I can only assume this is the kind of agenda of errors Ross has been criticized and refuted.
I assume you are referring to the final paragraph here:
"Finally, the Bible indirectly argues for a big bang universe by stating that the laws of thermodynamics, gravity, and electromagnetism have universally operated throughout the universe since the cosmic creation event itself. In Romans 8 we are told that the entire creation has been subjected to the law of decay (the second law of thermodynamics). This law in the context of an expanding universe establishes that the cosmos was much hotter in the past. In Genesis 1 and in many places throughout Job, Psalms, and Proverbs we are informed that stars have existed since the early times of creation. As explained in two Reasons To Believe books,10 even the slightest changes in either the laws of gravity or electromagnetism would make stars impossible. As already noted in the accompanying article, gravity, electromagnetism, and thermodynamics yield stable orbits of planets around stars and of electrons around the nuclei of atoms only if they operate in a universe described by three very large rapidly expanding dimensions of space."
So what exactly is the criticism you have?

It's really quite simple, nowhere in Romans 8 do we see anything even vaguely referring to entropy or the fine tuning assertion.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 8:12:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 8:05:01 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

A systematic description of an object or phenomenon that shares important characteristics with the object or phenomenon. Scientific models can be material, visual, mathematical, or computational and are often used in the construction of scientific theories. (dictionary.reference.com)

Therefore, both Einstein's theory of relativity and the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution are scientific models.

Look closely at that definition, it does not make equivalency of a model and a theory nor does it resemble the definition of a theory ,and then goes on to confirm what I said: " are often used in the construction of scientific theories."
I do not think that we are in disagreement. There are models of both theories, which is what the website is saying.

"Finally, the Bible indirectly argues for a big bang universe by stating that the laws of thermodynamics, gravity, and electromagnetism have universally operated throughout the universe since the cosmic creation event itself. In Romans 8 we are told that the entire creation has been subjected to the law of decay (the second law of thermodynamics). This law in the context of an expanding universe establishes that the cosmos was much hotter in the past. In Genesis 1 and in many places throughout Job, Psalms, and Proverbs we are informed that stars have existed since the early times of creation. As explained in two Reasons To Believe books,10 even the slightest changes in either the laws of gravity or electromagnetism would make stars impossible. As already noted in the accompanying article, gravity, electromagnetism, and thermodynamics yield stable orbits of planets around stars and of electrons around the nuclei of atoms only if they operate in a universe described by three very large rapidly expanding dimensions of space."
So what exactly is the criticism you have?

It's really quite simple, nowhere in Romans 8 do we see anything even vaguely referring to entropy or the fine tuning assertion.
Romans 8:18-21:
"I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that[a] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God." (NIV)
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 8:25:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 8:12:35 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/7/2015 8:05:01 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

A systematic description of an object or phenomenon that shares important characteristics with the object or phenomenon. Scientific models can be material, visual, mathematical, or computational and are often used in the construction of scientific theories. (dictionary.reference.com)

Therefore, both Einstein's theory of relativity and the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution are scientific models.

Look closely at that definition, it does not make equivalency of a model and a theory nor does it resemble the definition of a theory ,and then goes on to confirm what I said: " are often used in the construction of scientific theories."
I do not think that we are in disagreement. There are models of both theories, which is what the website is saying.

But, there is a distinct difference, one is aimed at generalized statements (theory) while the other is aimed as a helpful tool to understand specific phenomena (modeling).

"Finally, the Bible indirectly argues for a big bang universe by stating that the laws of thermodynamics, gravity, and electromagnetism have universally operated throughout the universe since the cosmic creation event itself. In Romans 8 we are told that the entire creation has been subjected to the law of decay (the second law of thermodynamics). This law in the context of an expanding universe establishes that the cosmos was much hotter in the past. In Genesis 1 and in many places throughout Job, Psalms, and Proverbs we are informed that stars have existed since the early times of creation. As explained in two Reasons To Believe books,10 even the slightest changes in either the laws of gravity or electromagnetism would make stars impossible. As already noted in the accompanying article, gravity, electromagnetism, and thermodynamics yield stable orbits of planets around stars and of electrons around the nuclei of atoms only if they operate in a universe described by three very large rapidly expanding dimensions of space."
So what exactly is the criticism you have?

It's really quite simple, nowhere in Romans 8 do we see anything even vaguely referring to entropy or the fine tuning assertion.
Romans 8:18-21:
"I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that[a] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God." (NIV)

See what I mean, nothing even vaguely concerning entropy or fine tuning. Henry Morris attempted to align the term, "bondage to decay" to creationism as well, but was refuted.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 8:34:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 8:25:27 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

But, there is a distinct difference, one is aimed at generalized statements (theory) while the other is aimed as a helpful tool to understand specific phenomena (modeling).
I agree that there is a difference, otherwise they would be used interchangeably. However, as the definition of a model suggests, it is "often used in the construction of scientific theories."

It's really quite simple, nowhere in Romans 8 do we see anything even vaguely referring to entropy or the fine tuning assertion.
Romans 8:18-21:
"I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that[a] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God." (NIV)

See what I mean, nothing even vaguely concerning entropy or fine tuning. Henry Morris attempted to align the term, "bondage to decay" to creationism as well, but was refuted.
From the Reasons website, it is said that the verses I presented represent "a pervasive law of decay". Going back to what is said in Romans 8, "the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay".

There is an article specifically about the decaying universe here:
http://www.reasons.org...

As well, there are two articles that discuss thermodynamics and evolution. Unfortunately they are both in audio format:
http://www.reasons.org...
http://www.reasons.org...
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 9:33:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 8:34:10 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/7/2015 8:25:27 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

But, there is a distinct difference, one is aimed at generalized statements (theory) while the other is aimed as a helpful tool to understand specific phenomena (modeling).
I agree that there is a difference, otherwise they would be used interchangeably. However, as the definition of a model suggests, it is "often used in the construction of scientific theories."

Which is what I said, but that isn't what Ross is saying.

It's really quite simple, nowhere in Romans 8 do we see anything even vaguely referring to entropy or the fine tuning assertion.
Romans 8:18-21:
"I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that[a] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God." (NIV)

See what I mean, nothing even vaguely concerning entropy or fine tuning. Henry Morris attempted to align the term, "bondage to decay" to creationism as well, but was refuted.
From the Reasons website, it is said that the verses I presented represent "a pervasive law of decay". Going back to what is said in Romans 8, "the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay".

There is an article specifically about the decaying universe here:
http://www.reasons.org...

As well, there are two articles that discuss thermodynamics and evolution. Unfortunately they are both in audio format:
http://www.reasons.org...
http://www.reasons.org...

I understand entropy, but the case that Romans 8 is supposed to be an explanation aligned with it is ridiculous. Why then is there no mention in Roman 8 of the other 2 laws of thermodynamics?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 9:41:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 9:33:41 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

I agree that there is a difference, otherwise they would be used interchangeably. However, as the definition of a model suggests, it is "often used in the construction of scientific theories."

Which is what I said, but that isn't what Ross is saying.
That is exactly what Ross is saying.

I understand entropy, but the case that Romans 8 is supposed to be an explanation aligned with it is ridiculous. Why then is there no mention in Roman 8 of the other 2 laws of thermodynamics?
I am wondering how you find it ridiculous. Romans 8 states that all of creation is subject to law of decay. That is in alignment with the second law of thermodynamics. This idea is not dependent on the other two laws being mentioned.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 10:14:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 6:15:49 PM, tstor wrote:
Here is a link to their creation model:
http://www.reasons.org...

What's the model, Tstor?

A model needs transparent mechanisms, significant, specific, time-bounded predictions, relevance to existing models, accountability to all evidence observed to date, and independent validation and falsification criteria.

I browsed some tabs, but all I saw was a tedious face-ache of Biblical apologetics.

Where's the model?
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 10:29:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 10:14:08 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

What's the model, Tstor?

A model needs transparent mechanisms, significant, specific, time-bounded predictions, relevance to existing models, accountability to all evidence observed to date, and independent validation and falsification criteria.

I browsed some tabs, but all I saw was a tedious face-ache of Biblical apologetics.

Where's the model?
You are correct in that the website does not provide the entire model, but rather brief information about it. The model is actually detailed in a few of their books and presentations at universities. My suspicion is that it is not entirely complete, which they have stated.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
Harikrish
Posts: 11,011
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 10:35:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
A bad example of a scientist trying to play preacher which is no worse than a preacher trying to play scientist. The mix always ends badly.
A single word "decay" in Romans 8 is connected to the second law of thermodynamics. And a single word "beginning" in Genesis turns out to be the "Big Bang".
What happened to the talking serpent, the smart and eternal life sustaining trees, the chronological disorder of creation and the missing rib of Adam?

Hugh Ross is Canadian living and working in the US. No one in Canada bought his ridiculous theological claptrap. His scientific credentials should be revoked. He was always an aspiring preacher in search of some scientific respectability for his religious beliefs.

Other criticism of Hugh Ross.

"Hugh Ross has been criticized by CSUF professor emeritus Mark Perakh for misunderstanding basic concepts of thermodynamics together with misinterpretations of Hebrew words.[15][16]

Ross is criticized by YECs for, among other things, his acceptance of uniformitarian geology and astronomy over what they see as a plain reading of the English translation of Genesis. YECs claim that speciation explains how present biodiversity could have arisen from the small number of "kinds" after Noah's Flood.[17] Ross holds that Noah's Flood was local (universal to all mankind, but not to the whole planet), and believes it killed all humans except for those on the ark, whereas YECs generally hold that Noah's Flood was global (all land mass, even those with no humans).[18]

Ross has drawn criticism for his views on God existing in hyperdimensions of time and space and interpreting Christian doctrines in that light from, among others, J.P. Moreland, Thomas C. Oden, and William Lane Craig.[19][20] J.W. Browning of the Rocky Mountain Creation Fellowship, who agrees by and large with the YEC stance and with William Lane Craig to the extent of his critique on Ross, also disputed additional statements Ross had made on primary Trinitarian doctrine.[21]" wiki.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 10:51:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 9:41:11 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/7/2015 9:33:41 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

I agree that there is a difference, otherwise they would be used interchangeably. However, as the definition of a model suggests, it is "often used in the construction of scientific theories."

Which is what I said, but that isn't what Ross is saying.
That is exactly what Ross is saying.

No, he is saying a model is stronger than a theory, which is wrong. He does that because he knows only to well he can't offer a hypothesis, thus leading to a theory. His hypothesis cannot be tested and has no capacity to be falsifiable. He's forced to use a model and then trumps it up as if models are going to support his assertions. Doesn't work that way.


I understand entropy, but the case that Romans 8 is supposed to be an explanation aligned with it is ridiculous. Why then is there no mention in Roman 8 of the other 2 laws of thermodynamics?
I am wondering how you find it ridiculous. Romans 8 states that all of creation is subject to law of decay. That is in alignment with the second law of thermodynamics. This idea is not dependent on the other two laws being mentioned.

Sorry, you better read Romans 8 again, you'll not find the word "law" in there that refers to a law of decay. And if it did, where is the formula? A law requires one.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 10:58:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 10:29:37 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/7/2015 10:14:08 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

What's the model, Tstor?

A model needs transparent mechanisms, significant, specific, time-bounded predictions, relevance to existing models, accountability to all evidence observed to date, and independent validation and falsification criteria.

I browsed some tabs, but all I saw was a tedious face-ache of Biblical apologetics.

Where's the model?
My suspicion is that it is not entirely complete, which they have stated.

An incomplete model would be (for example) the Big Bang Theory, which says specifically how suns and galactic structures appeared, and what elements in what proportions, and where the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation came from, but nevertheless acknowledges there's more work to be done on Dark Matter -- a specific quantity of matter whose properties haven't been identified; and more work to do on how initial energy might arise in the universe.

The BBT, though incomplete, remains a model because it's specific, predictive, transparent, falsifiable, relevant to previous models, and accounts for all the evidence, including that predicted by previous models.

So again I ask, even if the model is incomplete: where is it?

I don't think they have one, Tstor. I think they have made a rhetorical attempt to try and legitimise Genesis: an opaque, unpredictive, factually incorrect and physically irrelevant account plagiarised from Enuma Elish anyway.

Such an attempt is either ignorant (because it doesn't correctly identify the necessary characteristics of an acceptable cosmogenic model), or cynical (because they assume readers won't know the difference), or both.
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 11:15:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 10:58:43 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

An incomplete model would be (for example) the Big Bang Theory, which says specifically how suns and galactic structures appeared, and what elements in what proportions, and where the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation came from, but nevertheless acknowledges there's more work to be done on Dark Matter -- a specific quantity of matter whose properties haven't been identified; and more work to do on how initial energy might arise in the universe.

The BBT, though incomplete, remains a model because it's specific, predictive, transparent, falsifiable, relevant to previous models, and accounts for all the evidence, including that predicted by previous models.

So again I ask, even if the model is incomplete: where is it?
So again I say, it is in their website, books, and presentations. You have partially explored the website, but are willing to ignore the rest of their works. While it sucks that some of their work is only found in books, it is reasonable given that they lack a lot of funding. So let me provide you with some good sources other than the website and the video I gave in the OP:
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
http://www.amazon.com...
http://www.reasons.org...

Like I stated in the OP, you can search key phrases/words in the top right search box. I am fairly new to the model myself, so I can only answer so much about it.

I don't think they have one, Tstor. I think they have made a rhetorical attempt to try and legitimise Genesis: an opaque, unpredictive, factually incorrect and physically irrelevant account plagiarised from Enuma Elish anyway.

Such an attempt is either ignorant (because it doesn't correctly identify the necessary characteristics of an acceptable cosmogenic model), or cynical (because they assume readers won't know the difference), or both.
I think that you will revoke what you said after further studying. You can criticize some of their theology, but their science is accurate. This is not Ken Ham and Kent Hovind manipulating findings, these are people with real credentials from real universities that are giving real information. This should become evident to you as you continue to read and also look at that first video where they are talking at a secular school and getting responses from secular professors. As well, the Q&A at the end is fairly refreshing.

And please, you can call me Ty.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 11:15:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 10:51:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

No, he is saying a model is stronger than a theory, which is wrong. He does that because he knows only to well he can't offer a hypothesis, thus leading to a theory. His hypothesis cannot be tested and has no capacity to be falsifiable. He's forced to use a model and then trumps it up as if models are going to support his assertions. Doesn't work that way.
Please read here:
https://en.wikipedia.org...

I am wondering how you find it ridiculous. Romans 8 states that all of creation is subject to law of decay. That is in alignment with the second law of thermodynamics. This idea is not dependent on the other two laws being mentioned.

Sorry, you better read Romans 8 again, you'll not find the word "law" in there that refers to a law of decay. And if it did, where is the formula? A law requires one.
I think that you have realized that it is in there, but not worded the way you would like it to be. Which is fine, but I do not see the point of continuing back and forth. The words in Romans 8 are not going to change.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 11:22:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 11:15:23 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/7/2015 10:58:43 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

An incomplete model would be (for example) the Big Bang Theory, which says specifically how suns and galactic structures appeared, and what elements in what proportions, and where the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation came from, but nevertheless acknowledges there's more work to be done on Dark Matter -- a specific quantity of matter whose properties haven't been identified; and more work to do on how initial energy might arise in the universe.

The BBT, though incomplete, remains a model because it's specific, predictive, transparent, falsifiable, relevant to previous models, and accounts for all the evidence, including that predicted by previous models.

So again I ask, even if the model is incomplete: where is it?
So again I say, it is in their website, books, and presentations.

Is there no one-page text summary? I don't want the advertising. Where's the outline?

If this is supposed to be serious science, it should be presented in abstract, outlining the key new observations underpinning the model, how it supersedes any other cosmogenic account, and what specific features it can predict that other candidate models can't.

Advertising doesn't do that, but science does. So... where is it?
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 11:26:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 11:22:10 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

Is there no one-page text summary? I don't want the advertising. Where's the outline?
Yes, I already gave it to you:
http://www.reasons.org...
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 11:35:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 11:15:34 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/7/2015 10:51:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

No, he is saying a model is stronger than a theory, which is wrong. He does that because he knows only to well he can't offer a hypothesis, thus leading to a theory. His hypothesis cannot be tested and has no capacity to be falsifiable. He's forced to use a model and then trumps it up as if models are going to support his assertions. Doesn't work that way.
Please read here:
https://en.wikipedia.org...

Uhuh.

I am wondering how you find it ridiculous. Romans 8 states that all of creation is subject to law of decay. That is in alignment with the second law of thermodynamics. This idea is not dependent on the other two laws being mentioned.

Sorry, you better read Romans 8 again, you'll not find the word "law" in there that refers to a law of decay. And if it did, where is the formula? A law requires one.
I think that you have realized that it is in there, but not worded the way you would like it to be. Which is fine, but I do not see the point of continuing back and forth. The words in Romans 8 are not going to change.

No, it isn't there, that is a fact. There is no Law of Decay in Scriptures.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 11:38:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 11:35:34 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

I think that you have realized that it is in there, but not worded the way you would like it to be. Which is fine, but I do not see the point of continuing back and forth. The words in Romans 8 are not going to change.

No, it isn't there, that is a fact. There is no Law of Decay in Scriptures.
"Uhuh."
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)