Total Posts:377|Showing Posts:301-330|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Reasons to Believe Creation Model

dhardage
Posts: 4,546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2015 6:07:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/15/2015 6:04:42 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/15/2015 5:59:47 PM, dhardage wrote:

Ok, for the record no single celled organism is complex. The Genesis story never said 'an on this day God created an amoeba.' He supposedly created the biosphere just as it is today.

The Creation Model is a predictive model. Hugh Ross uses science to show how predictively correct it is.

Every "prediction" he has made has been a post hoc correction, e.g. predicting complex life and claiming it was a single celled organism that fulfilled it 3.4 billion years ago? That's not a prediction.

Ross is not the one making tbe predictions. The Creation Approach is taking the events in the bible as predictions and correlating that with known scientific theories.

aka Post Hoc correction, not predictions. It's easy to claim a prediction if you already know the outcome.

RTB:"Evolutionary origin of life models, on the other hand, require a long "percolation" time, perhaps up to 1 billion years, before life can emerge from a primordial soup. These naturalistic scenarios also predict that the first life forms should be relatively simple.2"

RTB:"In the face of this challenge, RTB's model predicts that future discoveries will strengthen the evidence for early life on Earth. Such a discovery was made recently by two scientists from Stanford University.6 These investigators recovered new fossil and geochemical evidence for early life on Earth in a 3.416 billion-year-old rock formation from South Africa. Their data indicate that anoxygenic photosynthetic bacteria produced the biological remains found in these ancient rocks. Even though such microbes are single-celled, their biochemical makeup is remarkably complex."

Your paper shows early life forms were complex and was formed by photosynthetic methods and not abiotic currents just as it was predicted.

There is nothing in this paper about the actual origin of life. It just demonstrates that the formations it studied showed no sign of any inorganic process created them. You're conflating different things.

You posted an article that supports the RTB Creation Approach.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

No, it refutes it. You're reading only the part you want to read.


Your problem is lack of understanding of scriptures and the position of creationists which Hugh Ross defends in his books and RTB site. That position being; God created things as they were/are and not through the process of evolution which are gradual and random. For any microorganism to survive it had to be complex

No, it doesn't.

and we know even the simplest of life forms are complex (irreducible complexity).

Irreducible complexity has been debunked for years. Try again.,

The two arguments presented against irreducible complexity has been the evolution of a mouse trap and a comparison between a flagellum and the T3SS allegedly a precursor. Both examples have been categorically dismissed and ridiculed.

No, they haven't. They were part of the basis for the court ruling against ID so yes, irreducible complexity is dead.

"New evidence indicates that life in its minimal form is chemically complex even if morphologically simple. The smallest bacterial genomes capable of independent survival include between 1500-1900 gene products.47-50 These bacteria are believed to be the oldest organisms on Earth and quite likely reflect the complexity of first life on Earth and the minimum complexity of independent life.51 The smallest known genome, that of Mycoplasma genitalium, is comprised of 470 gene products."


The Cambrian explosion also proves the sudden explosion/appearance of species just like the creation model predicted where the process was not gradual but spontaneous.

Demonstrated by the link provided regarding the explosion. Debunked.

RTB:"This portion of the biblical creation story bears a remarkable resemblance to an event called the Cambrian explosion. Some 543 million years ago, the number of Earth"s animal phyla (a phylum designates life-forms sharing the same basic body plan) increased dramatically. Somewhere between 50 and 80 percent of all animal phyla ever to exist appeared in what astronomers and geologists would describe as "an instant" of time. The discovery of Cambrian fossils may be considered one of the greatest breakthroughs in the history of paleontology."

You are confusing early life with the Cambrian explosion which is relatively unexplained and certainly not debunked.

And you're still denying fact and not reading the linked paper that explains the Cambrian explosion in purely natural terms.

The Cambrian explosion is used to explained the separation of early life forms and the later explosion of species to match the Bible creation events.

Again, post hoc correction.

RTB also explains specialization through convergence evolution which is an alternate scientific theory of evolution that is gaining wider acceptance.

Only among those who wish to disbelieve the facts.

It is supported by a body of scientists as a more probable explanation to natural selection.

Really? Which body and how many of them are actually qualified to make that argument?

Evolution is also the evolution of ideas in God creation and the creation models suggests several makeovers which is quite observable and are quantifiable by science.

Uh, no. There are no indications of 'makeovers' in Genesis. It says that God created all the animals just as they are today. Trying to reinterpret it to fit modern knowledge even a little is dishonest at best.

The mass extinction of species is evidence of God's makeovers. That is from the Creation Approach with scientific validation.

The only mass extinction in the bible happened with Noah. Still no correlation. And again, the bible only talked about 1 creation event, no several. It's a fool's errand to try and correlate it with the multiple mass extinctions that have occurred in our history.

Some of the greatest scientists were Christians. In fact all scientists are working to unravel the mysteries of creation .....God's creation.

Unsupported opinion, not a valid statement.

You are being intentionally obtuse or simply cannot think critically about this subject. That being the case, I have no reason to continue this discourse. Good day, sir.

Better luck next time.

Don't need luck with you. You shoot yourself in the foot so much you should by some bulletproof shoes.

With a finishing line like that you certainly need more than luck. You need an education!!!

No, I'm ok with the one I have and am continuing. You, however, could use an actual one yourself. Now trot along, poor scared child.
Harikrish
Posts: 26,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2015 7:26:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/15/2015 6:03:29 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/15/2015 5:55:11 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/15/2015 5:49:26 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/15/2015 5:41:42 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/15/2015 4:22:12 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/15/2015 4:15:55 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/15/2015 3:11:12 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/15/2015 2:14:32 PM, Harikrish wrote:
That position being; God created things as they were/are and not through the process of evolution which are gradual and random

Dinosaurs!!!

Good point. Unfortunately Dinosaurs predate the creation of humans.

RTB:"Since dinosaurs were first given a name ("terrible lizards") in 1841, they have fascinated people. Our testable creation model says God created dinosaurs to roam the Earth roughly 230 million years ago, and many different types of these creatures dominated the landscape. Their time on Earth ended when a 6 mile-wide asteroid impacted Earth 65 million years ago. Some Christians say the Leviathan and Behemoth mentioned in Job refer to dinosaurs, but we disagree. Because humanity arrived on Earth much later, no biblical author would have had contact with dinosaurs. The most popular scientific model claims dinosaurs evolved into birds, but we reject this view also. Instead we argue that both birds and dinosaurs were specially created by God to fill the livable environments available on Earth during their respective eras."

What a pathetic attempt to link "science" with mythology. The bible as they disingenuously admit doesn't mention dinosaurs and yet it allegedly describes the creation of earth and it's inhabitants.
Pathetic pseudo hacks aren't they.
But funny.

It does not name the millions species either. It is a book on Creation not an inventory of creation.

It's not even that, it's a myth told by a primitive band of semi-nomadic herders that some people want very badly to believe is somehow true despite the total lack of information and education those people had.

Hugh Ross is not a semi-normaduc herder. So you haven't read his contemporary works on the Creation Model which is predictive events found in the bible.

Predictive events are shown to have cause and effect. What Ross has done is try to shoehorn religious language into modern science and it doesn't wash. When he can produce a single study he or his organization has done, gotten peer reviewed, and unambiguously demonstrates anything he has asserted he may have a case. Right now all he's doing is using others' work and misrepresenting it to support a so-called model that is totally fallacious.

You got it backwards. What was missing in religion was a 21st century relativity. Hugh Ross a scientist by profession and a Christian by conviction bridged the divide and showed a predictive Creation Model that explains the relevance of science to Christians and the relevance of the bible to scientists. There are a lot of predictions in the bible that still need understanding. And there are gaps in science that can benefit from a predictive source like the bible.
dhardage
Posts: 4,546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2015 7:29:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/15/2015 7:26:24 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/15/2015 6:03:29 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/15/2015 5:55:11 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/15/2015 5:49:26 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/15/2015 5:41:42 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/15/2015 4:22:12 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/15/2015 4:15:55 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/15/2015 3:11:12 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/15/2015 2:14:32 PM, Harikrish wrote:
That position being; God created things as they were/are and not through the process of evolution which are gradual and random

Dinosaurs!!!

Good point. Unfortunately Dinosaurs predate the creation of humans.

RTB:"Since dinosaurs were first given a name ("terrible lizards") in 1841, they have fascinated people. Our testable creation model says God created dinosaurs to roam the Earth roughly 230 million years ago, and many different types of these creatures dominated the landscape. Their time on Earth ended when a 6 mile-wide asteroid impacted Earth 65 million years ago. Some Christians say the Leviathan and Behemoth mentioned in Job refer to dinosaurs, but we disagree. Because humanity arrived on Earth much later, no biblical author would have had contact with dinosaurs. The most popular scientific model claims dinosaurs evolved into birds, but we reject this view also. Instead we argue that both birds and dinosaurs were specially created by God to fill the livable environments available on Earth during their respective eras."

What a pathetic attempt to link "science" with mythology. The bible as they disingenuously admit doesn't mention dinosaurs and yet it allegedly describes the creation of earth and it's inhabitants.
Pathetic pseudo hacks aren't they.
But funny.

It does not name the millions species either. It is a book on Creation not an inventory of creation.

It's not even that, it's a myth told by a primitive band of semi-nomadic herders that some people want very badly to believe is somehow true despite the total lack of information and education those people had.

Hugh Ross is not a semi-normaduc herder. So you haven't read his contemporary works on the Creation Model which is predictive events found in the bible.

Predictive events are shown to have cause and effect. What Ross has done is try to shoehorn religious language into modern science and it doesn't wash. When he can produce a single study he or his organization has done, gotten peer reviewed, and unambiguously demonstrates anything he has asserted he may have a case. Right now all he's doing is using others' work and misrepresenting it to support a so-called model that is totally fallacious.

You got it backwards. What was missing in religion was a 21st century relativity. Hugh Ross a scientist by profession and a Christian by conviction bridged the divide and showed a predictive Creation Model that explains the relevance of science to Christians and the relevance of the bible to scientists. There are a lot of predictions in the bible that still need understanding. And there are gaps in science that can benefit from a predictive source like the bible.

What was missing was knowledge about how the world worked and it cannot be changed no matter how much believers want it to be. Please name one prediction in the bible that 'needs understanding' and explain how whatever gap in science you claim to understand can possibly benefit for your ancient book of myth?
Harikrish
Posts: 26,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2015 7:31:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/15/2015 6:07:41 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/15/2015 6:04:42 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/15/2015 5:59:47 PM, dhardage wrote:

Ok, for the record no single celled organism is complex. The Genesis story never said 'an on this day God created an amoeba.' He supposedly created the biosphere just as it is today.

The Creation Model is a predictive model. Hugh Ross uses science to show how predictively correct it is.

Every "prediction" he has made has been a post hoc correction, e.g. predicting complex life and claiming it was a single celled organism that fulfilled it 3.4 billion years ago? That's not a prediction.

Ross is not the one making tbe predictions. The Creation Approach is taking the events in the bible as predictions and correlating that with known scientific theories.

aka Post Hoc correction, not predictions. It's easy to claim a prediction if you already know the outcome.

RTB:"Evolutionary origin of life models, on the other hand, require a long "percolation" time, perhaps up to 1 billion years, before life can emerge from a primordial soup. These naturalistic scenarios also predict that the first life forms should be relatively simple.2"

RTB:"In the face of this challenge, RTB's model predicts that future discoveries will strengthen the evidence for early life on Earth. Such a discovery was made recently by two scientists from Stanford University.6 These investigators recovered new fossil and geochemical evidence for early life on Earth in a 3.416 billion-year-old rock formation from South Africa. Their data indicate that anoxygenic photosynthetic bacteria produced the biological remains found in these ancient rocks. Even though such microbes are single-celled, their biochemical makeup is remarkably complex."

Your paper shows early life forms were complex and was formed by photosynthetic methods and not abiotic currents just as it was predicted.

There is nothing in this paper about the actual origin of life. It just demonstrates that the formations it studied showed no sign of any inorganic process created them. You're conflating different things.

You posted an article that supports the RTB Creation Approach.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

No, it refutes it. You're reading only the part you want to read.


Your problem is lack of understanding of scriptures and the position of creationists which Hugh Ross defends in his books and RTB site. That position being; God created things as they were/are and not through the process of evolution which are gradual and random. For any microorganism to survive it had to be complex

No, it doesn't.

and we know even the simplest of life forms are complex (irreducible complexity).

Irreducible complexity has been debunked for years. Try again.,

The two arguments presented against irreducible complexity has been the evolution of a mouse trap and a comparison between a flagellum and the T3SS allegedly a precursor. Both examples have been categorically dismissed and ridiculed.

No, they haven't. They were part of the basis for the court ruling against ID so yes, irreducible complexity is dead.

"New evidence indicates that life in its minimal form is chemically complex even if morphologically simple. The smallest bacterial genomes capable of independent survival include between 1500-1900 gene products.47-50 These bacteria are believed to be the oldest organisms on Earth and quite likely reflect the complexity of first life on Earth and the minimum complexity of independent life.51 The smallest known genome, that of Mycoplasma genitalium, is comprised of 470 gene products."


The Cambrian explosion also proves the sudden explosion/appearance of species just like the creation model predicted where the process was not gradual but spontaneous.

Demonstrated by the link provided regarding the explosion. Debunked.

RTB:"This portion of the biblical creation story bears a remarkable resemblance to an event called the Cambrian explosion. Some 543 million years ago, the number of Earth"s animal phyla (a phylum designates life-forms sharing the same basic body plan) increased dramatically. Somewhere between 50 and 80 percent of all animal phyla ever to exist appeared in what astronomers and geologists would describe as "an instant" of time. The discovery of Cambrian fossils may be considered one of the greatest breakthroughs in the history of paleontology."

You are confusing early life with the Cambrian explosion which is relatively unexplained and certainly not debunked.

And you're still denying fact and not reading the linked paper that explains the Cambrian explosion in purely natural terms.

The Cambrian explosion is used to explained the separation of early life forms and the later explosion of species to match the Bible creation events.

Again, post hoc correction.

RTB also explains specialization through convergence evolution which is an alternate scientific theory of evolution that is gaining wider acceptance.

Only among those who wish to disbelieve the facts.

It is supported by a body of scientists as a more probable explanation to natural selection.

Really? Which body and how many of them are actually qualified to make that argument?

Evolution is also the evolution of ideas in God creation and the creation models suggests several makeovers which is quite observable and are quantifiable by science.

Uh, no. There are no indications of 'makeovers' in Genesis. It says that God created all the animals just as they are today. Trying to reinterpret it to fit modern knowledge even a little is dishonest at best.

The mass extinction of species is evidence of God's makeovers. That is from the Creation Approach with scientific validation.

The only mass extinction in the bible happened with Noah. Still no correlation. And again, the bible only talked about 1 creation event, no several. It's a fool's errand to try and correlate it with the multiple mass extinctions that have occurred in our history.

Some of the greatest scientists were Christians. In fact all scientists are working to unravel the mysteries of creation .....God's creation.

Unsupported opinion, not a valid statement.

You are being intentionally obtuse or simply cannot think critically about this subject. That being the case, I have no reason to continue this discourse. Good day, sir.

Better luck next time.

Don't need luck with you. You shoot yourself in the foot so much you should by some bulletproof shoes.

With a finishing line like that you certainly need more than luck. You need an education!!!

No, I'm ok with the one I have and am continuing. You, however, could use an actual one yourself. Now trot along, poor scared child.

Your profile says you are an agnostic. That is the same as saying incomplete which is a dangerous position to be at your advancing age.
dhardage
Posts: 4,546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2015 7:55:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Creation Model is a predictive model. Hugh Ross uses science to show how predictively correct it is.

Every "prediction" he has made has been a post hoc correction, e.g. predicting complex life and claiming it was a single celled organism that fulfilled it 3.4 billion years ago? That's not a prediction.

Ross is not the one making tbe predictions. The Creation Approach is taking the events in the bible as predictions and correlating that with known scientific theories.

aka Post Hoc correction, not predictions. It's easy to claim a prediction if you already know the outcome.

RTB:"Evolutionary origin of life models, on the other hand, require a long "percolation" time, perhaps up to 1 billion years, before life can emerge from a primordial soup. These naturalistic scenarios also predict that the first life forms should be relatively simple.2"

RTB:"In the face of this challenge, RTB's model predicts that future discoveries will strengthen the evidence for early life on Earth. Such a discovery was made recently by two scientists from Stanford University.6 These investigators recovered new fossil and geochemical evidence for early life on Earth in a 3.416 billion-year-old rock formation from South Africa. Their data indicate that anoxygenic photosynthetic bacteria produced the biological remains found in these ancient rocks. Even though such microbes are single-celled, their biochemical makeup is remarkably complex."

Your paper shows early life forms were complex and was formed by photosynthetic methods and not abiotic currents just as it was predicted.

There is nothing in this paper about the actual origin of life. It just demonstrates that the formations it studied showed no sign of any inorganic process created them. You're conflating different things.

You posted an article that supports the RTB Creation Approach.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

No, it refutes it. You're reading only the part you want to read.


Your problem is lack of understanding of scriptures and the position of creationists which Hugh Ross defends in his books and RTB site. That position being; God created things as they were/are and not through the process of evolution which are gradual and random. For any microorganism to survive it had to be complex

No, it doesn't.

and we know even the simplest of life forms are complex (irreducible complexity).

Irreducible complexity has been debunked for years. Try again.,

The two arguments presented against irreducible complexity has been the evolution of a mouse trap and a comparison between a flagellum and the T3SS allegedly a precursor. Both examples have been categorically dismissed and ridiculed.

No, they haven't. They were part of the basis for the court ruling against ID so yes, irreducible complexity is dead.

"New evidence indicates that life in its minimal form is chemically complex even if morphologically simple. The smallest bacterial genomes capable of independent survival include between 1500-1900 gene products.47-50 These bacteria are believed to be the oldest organisms on Earth and quite likely reflect the complexity of first life on Earth and the minimum complexity of independent life.51 The smallest known genome, that of Mycoplasma genitalium, is comprised of 470 gene products."


The Cambrian explosion also proves the sudden explosion/appearance of species just like the creation model predicted where the process was not gradual but spontaneous.

Demonstrated by the link provided regarding the explosion. Debunked.

RTB:"This portion of the biblical creation story bears a remarkable resemblance to an event called the Cambrian explosion. Some 543 million years ago, the number of Earth"s animal phyla (a phylum designates life-forms sharing the same basic body plan) increased dramatically. Somewhere between 50 and 80 percent of all animal phyla ever to exist appeared in what astronomers and geologists would describe as "an instant" of time. The discovery of Cambrian fossils may be considered one of the greatest breakthroughs in the history of paleontology."

You are confusing early life with the Cambrian explosion which is relatively unexplained and certainly not debunked.

And you're still denying fact and not reading the linked paper that explains the Cambrian explosion in purely natural terms.

The Cambrian explosion is used to explained the separation of early life forms and the later explosion of species to match the Bible creation events.

Again, post hoc correction.

RTB also explains specialization through convergence evolution which is an alternate scientific theory of evolution that is gaining wider acceptance.

Only among those who wish to disbelieve the facts.

It is supported by a body of scientists as a more probable explanation to natural selection.

Really? Which body and how many of them are actually qualified to make that argument?

Evolution is also the evolution of ideas in God creation and the creation models suggests several makeovers which is quite observable and are quantifiable by science.

Uh, no. There are no indications of 'makeovers' in Genesis. It says that God created all the animals just as they are today. Trying to reinterpret it to fit modern knowledge even a little is dishonest at best.

The mass extinction of species is evidence of God's makeovers. That is from the Creation Approach with scientific validation.

The only mass extinction in the bible happened with Noah. Still no correlation. And again, the bible only talked about 1 creation event, no several. It's a fool's errand to try and correlate it with the multiple mass extinctions that have occurred in our history.

Some of the greatest scientists were Christians. In fact all scientists are working to unravel the mysteries of creation .....God's creation.

Unsupported opinion, not a valid statement.

You are being intentionally obtuse or simply cannot think critically about this subject. That being the case, I have no reason to continue this discourse. Good day, sir.

Better luck next time.

Don't need luck with you. You shoot yourself in the foot so much you should by some bulletproof shoes.

With a finishing line like that you certainly need more than luck. You need an education!!!

No, I'm ok with the one I have and am continuing. You, however, could use an actual one yourself. Now trot along, poor scared child.

Your profile says you are an agnostic. That is the same as saying incomplete which is a dangerous posi

Thanks for the laugh, Hari. Your childish personal attacks never cease to amuse me. Ignorance in children is kind of cute. Well, you're an exception. In you it's just pathetic.
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2015 8:22:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/15/2015 5:41:42 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/15/2015 4:22:12 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/15/2015 4:15:55 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/15/2015 3:11:12 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/15/2015 2:14:32 PM, Harikrish wrote:
That position being; God created things as they were/are and not through the process of evolution which are gradual and random

Dinosaurs!!!

Good point. Unfortunately Dinosaurs predate the creation of humans.

RTB:"Since dinosaurs were first given a name ("terrible lizards") in 1841, they have fascinated people. Our testable creation model says God created dinosaurs to roam the Earth roughly 230 million years ago, and many different types of these creatures dominated the landscape. Their time on Earth ended when a 6 mile-wide asteroid impacted Earth 65 million years ago. Some Christians say the Leviathan and Behemoth mentioned in Job refer to dinosaurs, but we disagree. Because humanity arrived on Earth much later, no biblical author would have had contact with dinosaurs. The most popular scientific model claims dinosaurs evolved into birds, but we reject this view also. Instead we argue that both birds and dinosaurs were specially created by God to fill the livable environments available on Earth during their respective eras."

What a pathetic attempt to link "science" with mythology. The bible as they disingenuously admit doesn't mention dinosaurs and yet it allegedly describes the creation of earth and it's inhabitants.
Pathetic pseudo hacks aren't they.
But funny.

It does not name the millions species either. It is a book on Creation not an inventory of creation.

That's funny, he allegedly mentions creating BIRDS, the descendants of dinosaurs.
Go figure, oh and bats are birds according to this god dude.
Or was it ignorant bronze age goatherds who claimed that?
Harikrish
Posts: 26,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2015 9:47:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/15/2015 8:22:12 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/15/2015 5:41:42 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/15/2015 4:22:12 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/15/2015 4:15:55 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/15/2015 3:11:12 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/15/2015 2:14:32 PM, Harikrish wrote:
That position being; God created things as they were/are and not through the process of evolution which are gradual and random

Dinosaurs!!!

Good point. Unfortunately Dinosaurs predate the creation of humans.

RTB:"Since dinosaurs were first given a name ("terrible lizards") in 1841, they have fascinated people. Our testable creation model says God created dinosaurs to roam the Earth roughly 230 million years ago, and many different types of these creatures dominated the landscape. Their time on Earth ended when a 6 mile-wide asteroid impacted Earth 65 million years ago. Some Christians say the Leviathan and Behemoth mentioned in Job refer to dinosaurs, but we disagree. Because humanity arrived on Earth much later, no biblical author would have had contact with dinosaurs. The most popular scientific model claims dinosaurs evolved into birds, but we reject this view also. Instead we argue that both birds and dinosaurs were specially created by God to fill the livable environments available on Earth during their respective eras."

What a pathetic attempt to link "science" with mythology. The bible as they disingenuously admit doesn't mention dinosaurs and yet it allegedly describes the creation of earth and it's inhabitants.
Pathetic pseudo hacks aren't they.
But funny.

It does not name the millions species either. It is a book on Creation not an inventory of creation.

That's funny, he allegedly mentions creating BIRDS, the descendants of dinosaurs.
Go figure, oh and bats are birds according to this god dude.
Or was it ignorant bronze age goatherds who claimed that?

RTB rejects the scientific view that birds evolved from dinosaurs. It appears they were right.
As for bats being birds. That is less of a stretch than Gotham city believing the crime fighting bat was a man as in Batman!!!
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 3:15:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/15/2015 9:47:09 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/15/2015 8:22:12 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/15/2015 5:41:42 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/15/2015 4:22:12 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/15/2015 4:15:55 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/15/2015 3:11:12 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/15/2015 2:14:32 PM, Harikrish wrote:
That position being; God created things as they were/are and not through the process of evolution which are gradual and random

Dinosaurs!!!

Good point. Unfortunately Dinosaurs predate the creation of humans.

RTB:"Since dinosaurs were first given a name ("terrible lizards") in 1841, they have fascinated people. Our testable creation model says God created dinosaurs to roam the Earth roughly 230 million years ago, and many different types of these creatures dominated the landscape. Their time on Earth ended when a 6 mile-wide asteroid impacted Earth 65 million years ago. Some Christians say the Leviathan and Behemoth mentioned in Job refer to dinosaurs, but we disagree. Because humanity arrived on Earth much later, no biblical author would have had contact with dinosaurs. The most popular scientific model claims dinosaurs evolved into birds, but we reject this view also. Instead we argue that both birds and dinosaurs were specially created by God to fill the livable environments available on Earth during their respective eras."

What a pathetic attempt to link "science" with mythology. The bible as they disingenuously admit doesn't mention dinosaurs and yet it allegedly describes the creation of earth and it's inhabitants.
Pathetic pseudo hacks aren't they.
But funny.

It does not name the millions species either. It is a book on Creation not an inventory of creation.

That's funny, he allegedly mentions creating BIRDS, the descendants of dinosaurs.
Go figure, oh and bats are birds according to this god dude.
Or was it ignorant bronze age goatherds who claimed that?

RTB rejects the scientific view that birds evolved from dinosaurs. It appears they were right.
As for bats being birds. That is less of a stretch than Gotham city believing the crime fighting bat was a man as in Batman!!!
RTB can reject the fact that the earth is an oblate spheroid, so fekking what.
The bible is a book of fables, folk tales and ignorance.
Supporting your position with another fictional character is just so precious.
Harikrish
Posts: 26,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 9:59:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/16/2015 3:15:08 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/15/2015 9:47:09 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/15/2015 8:22:12 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/15/2015 5:41:42 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/15/2015 4:22:12 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/15/2015 4:15:55 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/15/2015 3:11:12 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/15/2015 2:14:32 PM, Harikrish wrote:
That position being; God created things as they were/are and not through the process of evolution which are gradual and random

Dinosaurs!!!

Good point. Unfortunately Dinosaurs predate the creation of humans.

RTB:"Since dinosaurs were first given a name ("terrible lizards") in 1841, they have fascinated people. Our testable creation model says God created dinosaurs to roam the Earth roughly 230 million years ago, and many different types of these creatures dominated the landscape. Their time on Earth ended when a 6 mile-wide asteroid impacted Earth 65 million years ago. Some Christians say the Leviathan and Behemoth mentioned in Job refer to dinosaurs, but we disagree. Because humanity arrived on Earth much later, no biblical author would have had contact with dinosaurs. The most popular scientific model claims dinosaurs evolved into birds, but we reject this view also. Instead we argue that both birds and dinosaurs were specially created by God to fill the livable environments available on Earth during their respective eras."

What a pathetic attempt to link "science" with mythology. The bible as they disingenuously admit doesn't mention dinosaurs and yet it allegedly describes the creation of earth and it's inhabitants.
Pathetic pseudo hacks aren't they.
But funny.

It does not name the millions species either. It is a book on Creation not an inventory of creation.

That's funny, he allegedly mentions creating BIRDS, the descendants of dinosaurs.
Go figure, oh and bats are birds according to this god dude.
Or was it ignorant bronze age goatherds who claimed that?

RTB rejects the scientific view that birds evolved from dinosaurs. It appears they were right.
As for bats being birds. That is less of a stretch than Gotham city believing the crime fighting bat was a man as in Batman!!!
RTB can reject the fact that the earth is an oblate spheroid, so fekking what.
The bible is a book of fables, folk tales and ignorance.
The bible is not just a book of fables, folk tales and ignorance. It is the greatest story every told and the best selling book of non-fiction of all times.(Guinness ).
It will soon be the most read book by scientists now that Hugh Ross has highlighted its predictive significance to scientists as a Creation Model.
Supporting your position with another fictional character is just so precious.
tejretics
Posts: 6,865
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 10:33:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The model seems to advocate for some form of "theistic panspermia," but I don't buy it simply because thermodynamic dissipation theory seems the best one regarding the origin of life.
Just because you're magic doesn't mean you aren't real.
Harikrish
Posts: 26,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 10:58:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/16/2015 10:33:00 AM, tejretics wrote:
The model seems to advocate for some form of "theistic panspermia," but I don't buy it simply because thermodynamic dissipation theory seems the best one regarding the origin of life.

It appears Hugh Ross has identified in the predictive Creation Model the application of the second law of thermodynamics and a possible reversal of entropy in the future.

"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."
http://www.reasons.org...
tejretics
Posts: 6,865
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 11:00:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/16/2015 10:58:22 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/16/2015 10:33:00 AM, tejretics wrote:
The model seems to advocate for some form of "theistic panspermia," but I don't buy it simply because thermodynamic dissipation theory seems the best one regarding the origin of life.

It appears Hugh Ross has identified in the predictive Creation Model the application of the second law of thermodynamics and a possible reversal of entropy in the future.

That doesn't make the theory compatible with thermodynamic dissipation, since some natural, non-intelligent process likely caused the origin of life to relieve thermodynamic stress. I don't see how Ross' identification of the second law links to the dissipation model.
Just because you're magic doesn't mean you aren't real.
Harikrish
Posts: 26,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 11:29:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/16/2015 11:00:40 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/16/2015 10:58:22 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/16/2015 10:33:00 AM, tejretics wrote:
The model seems to advocate for some form of "theistic panspermia," but I don't buy it simply because thermodynamic dissipation theory seems the best one regarding the origin of life.

It appears Hugh Ross has identified in the predictive Creation Model the application of the second law of thermodynamics and a possible reversal of entropy in the future.

That doesn't make the theory compatible with thermodynamic dissipation, since some natural, non-intelligent process likely caused the origin of life to relieve thermodynamic stress. I don't see how Ross' identification of the second law links to the dissipation model.

Hugh Ross does not endorse the abiotic primordial soup theory of abiogenesis and was leaning towards an alternate cause. The dissipation model fits nicely in his predictive creation model and recognition of thermodynamics which further aligns the Bible creation with modern scientific understanding of the origin of life.
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 12:20:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/16/2015 11:29:07 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/16/2015 11:00:40 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/16/2015 10:58:22 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/16/2015 10:33:00 AM, tejretics wrote:
The model seems to advocate for some form of "theistic panspermia," but I don't buy it simply because thermodynamic dissipation theory seems the best one regarding the origin of life.

It appears Hugh Ross has identified in the predictive Creation Model the application of the second law of thermodynamics and a possible reversal of entropy in the future.

That doesn't make the theory compatible with thermodynamic dissipation, since some natural, non-intelligent process likely caused the origin of life to relieve thermodynamic stress. I don't see how Ross' identification of the second law links to the dissipation model.

Hugh Ross does not endorse the abiotic primordial soup theory of abiogenesis and was leaning towards an alternate cause. The dissipation model fits nicely in his predictive creation model and recognition of thermodynamics which further aligns the Bible creation with modern scientific understanding of the origin of life.

Where is Adam and Eve?
Harikrish
Posts: 26,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 12:52:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/16/2015 12:20:06 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/16/2015 11:29:07 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/16/2015 11:00:40 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/16/2015 10:58:22 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/16/2015 10:33:00 AM, tejretics wrote:
The model seems to advocate for some form of "theistic panspermia," but I don't buy it simply because thermodynamic dissipation theory seems the best one regarding the origin of life.

It appears Hugh Ross has identified in the predictive Creation Model the application of the second law of thermodynamics and a possible reversal of entropy in the future.

That doesn't make the theory compatible with thermodynamic dissipation, since some natural, non-intelligent process likely caused the origin of life to relieve thermodynamic stress. I don't see how Ross' identification of the second law links to the dissipation model.

Hugh Ross does not endorse the abiotic primordial soup theory of abiogenesis and was leaning towards an alternate cause. The dissipation model fits nicely in his predictive creation model and recognition of thermodynamics which further aligns the Bible creation with modern scientific understanding of the origin of life.

Where is Adam and Eve?

Were They Real? The Scientific Case for Adam and Eve
October 1, 2010 By Dr. Fazale Rana
http://www.reasons.org...
dhardage
Posts: 4,546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 5:59:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/16/2015 12:52:57 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/16/2015 12:20:06 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/16/2015 11:29:07 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/16/2015 11:00:40 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/16/2015 10:58:22 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/16/2015 10:33:00 AM, tejretics wrote:
The model seems to advocate for some form of "theistic panspermia," but I don't buy it simply because thermodynamic dissipation theory seems the best one regarding the origin of life.

It appears Hugh Ross has identified in the predictive Creation Model the application of the second law of thermodynamics and a possible reversal of entropy in the future.

That doesn't make the theory compatible with thermodynamic dissipation, since some natural, non-intelligent process likely caused the origin of life to relieve thermodynamic stress. I don't see how Ross' identification of the second law links to the dissipation model.

Hugh Ross does not endorse the abiotic primordial soup theory of abiogenesis and was leaning towards an alternate cause. The dissipation model fits nicely in his predictive creation model and recognition of thermodynamics which further aligns the Bible creation with modern scientific understanding of the origin of life.

Where is Adam and Eve?

Were They Real? The Scientific Case for Adam and Eve
October 1, 2010 By Dr. Fazale Rana
http://www.reasons.org...

HIs entire case is based on what could be 'understood' as a single pair of humans but does not in any way specify a single pair of humans. He has not one bit of hard evidence to support his 'understanding', just once again shoehorning ancient myth into modern science. That's the modus operandi of the entire site.
Harikrish
Posts: 26,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 6:43:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/16/2015 5:59:08 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/16/2015 12:52:57 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/16/2015 12:20:06 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/16/2015 11:29:07 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/16/2015 11:00:40 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/16/2015 10:58:22 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/16/2015 10:33:00 AM, tejretics wrote:
The model seems to advocate for some form of "theistic panspermia," but I don't buy it simply because thermodynamic dissipation theory seems the best one regarding the origin of life.

It appears Hugh Ross has identified in the predictive Creation Model the application of the second law of thermodynamics and a possible reversal of entropy in the future.

That doesn't make the theory compatible with thermodynamic dissipation, since some natural, non-intelligent process likely caused the origin of life to relieve thermodynamic stress. I don't see how Ross' identification of the second law links to the dissipation model.

Hugh Ross does not endorse the abiotic primordial soup theory of abiogenesis and was leaning towards an alternate cause. The dissipation model fits nicely in his predictive creation model and recognition of thermodynamics which further aligns the Bible creation with modern scientific understanding of the origin of life.

Where is Adam and Eve?

Were They Real? The Scientific Case for Adam and Eve
October 1, 2010 By Dr. Fazale Rana
http://www.reasons.org...

HIs entire case is based on what could be 'understood' as a single pair of humans but does not in any way specify a single pair of humans. He has not one bit of hard evidence to support his 'understanding', just once again shoehorning ancient myth into modern science. That's the modus operandi of the entire site.

The data in the link builds a scientific case for Adam and Eve because "Did Adam and Eve really exist? Did all humanity originate from a single pair? These questions are not peripheral topics for an academic debate; they are central to the Christian faith."
You have mitochondria DNA, chromosomal comparisons, genetic diversity, genetic drift and the Creation Model.
All the hard evidence is presented on the RTB site. You are just too lazy to read and when you do try to read you poor comprehension gets in the way. Get help.
dhardage
Posts: 4,546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 7:26:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/16/2015 6:43:25 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/16/2015 5:59:08 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/16/2015 12:52:57 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/16/2015 12:20:06 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/16/2015 11:29:07 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/16/2015 11:00:40 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/16/2015 10:58:22 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/16/2015 10:33:00 AM, tejretics wrote:
The model seems to advocate for some form of "theistic panspermia," but I don't buy it simply because thermodynamic dissipation theory seems the best one regarding the origin of life.

It appears Hugh Ross has identified in the predictive Creation Model the application of the second law of thermodynamics and a possible reversal of entropy in the future.

That doesn't make the theory compatible with thermodynamic dissipation, since some natural, non-intelligent process likely caused the origin of life to relieve thermodynamic stress. I don't see how Ross' identification of the second law links to the dissipation model.

Hugh Ross does not endorse the abiotic primordial soup theory of abiogenesis and was leaning towards an alternate cause. The dissipation model fits nicely in his predictive creation model and recognition of thermodynamics which further aligns the Bible creation with modern scientific understanding of the origin of life.

Where is Adam and Eve?

Were They Real? The Scientific Case for Adam and Eve
October 1, 2010 By Dr. Fazale Rana
http://www.reasons.org...

HIs entire case is based on what could be 'understood' as a single pair of humans but does not in any way specify a single pair of humans. He has not one bit of hard evidence to support his 'understanding', just once again shoehorning ancient myth into modern science. That's the modus operandi of the entire site.

The data in the link builds a scientific case for Adam and Eve because "Did Adam and Eve really exist? Did all humanity originate from a single pair? These questions are not peripheral topics for an academic debate; they are central to the Christian faith."
You have mitochondria DNA, chromosomal comparisons, genetic diversity, genetic drift and the Creation Model.
All the hard evidence is presented on the RTB site. You are just too lazy to read and when you do try to read you poor comprehension gets in the way. Get help.

No help needed here to see the con game he's pulling. As long as you willfully ignore all the problems with their methodology you'll remain a foolish child trying to look big, smart, and somehow special from your playpen.
Harikrish
Posts: 26,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 6:30:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/16/2015 7:26:14 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:43:25 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/16/2015 5:59:08 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/16/2015 12:52:57 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/16/2015 12:20:06 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/16/2015 11:29:07 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/16/2015 11:00:40 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/16/2015 10:58:22 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/16/2015 10:33:00 AM, tejretics wrote:
The model seems to advocate for some form of "theistic panspermia," but I don't buy it simply because thermodynamic dissipation theory seems the best one regarding the origin of life.

It appears Hugh Ross has identified in the predictive Creation Model the application of the second law of thermodynamics and a possible reversal of entropy in the future.

That doesn't make the theory compatible with thermodynamic dissipation, since some natural, non-intelligent process likely caused the origin of life to relieve thermodynamic stress. I don't see how Ross' identification of the second law links to the dissipation model.

Hugh Ross does not endorse the abiotic primordial soup theory of abiogenesis and was leaning towards an alternate cause. The dissipation model fits nicely in his predictive creation model and recognition of thermodynamics which further aligns the Bible creation with modern scientific understanding of the origin of life.

Where is Adam and Eve?

Were They Real? The Scientific Case for Adam and Eve
October 1, 2010 By Dr. Fazale Rana
http://www.reasons.org...

HIs entire case is based on what could be 'understood' as a single pair of humans but does not in any way specify a single pair of humans. He has not one bit of hard evidence to support his 'understanding', just once again shoehorning ancient myth into modern science. That's the modus operandi of the entire site.

The data in the link builds a scientific case for Adam and Eve because "Did Adam and Eve really exist? Did all humanity originate from a single pair? These questions are not peripheral topics for an academic debate; they are central to the Christian faith."
You have mitochondria DNA, chromosomal comparisons, genetic diversity, genetic drift and the Creation Model.
All the hard evidence is presented on the RTB site. You are just too lazy to read and when you do try to read you poor comprehension gets in the way. Get help.

No help needed here to see the con game he's pulling. As long as you willfully ignore all the problems with their methodology you'll remain a foolish child trying to look big, smart, and somehow special from your playpen.

Hugh Ross is both a scientist and theologian. I am sure he knows more about scientifically methodology and scriptural interpretation. You are the foolish ignoramus struggling to put together a rebuttal. Quit whining, get help.
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 1:59:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hugh Ross is both a scientist and theologian. I am sure he knows more about scientifically methodology and scriptural interpretation. You are the foolish ignoramus struggling to put together a rebuttal. Quit whining, get help.

It's not productive to debunk every single spurious attempt to force reconcile the biblical account with contemporary cosmology and biology when one can more readily demonstrate the Bible's historical, scientific and moral errancy. Why waste time on each individual fruit, when calling out the tree for the monstrous fallacy that it is at hand?

A note on style. It never ceases to amaze me how some people who will readily pontificate on the abstract of kindness, compassion and other fruits of love, will indulge in the opposite at the drop of a hat.
Harikrish
Posts: 26,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 2:27:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/18/2015 1:59:11 PM, Hitchian wrote:
Hugh Ross is both a scientist and theologian. I am sure he knows more about scientifica methodology and scriptural interpretation. You are the foolish ignoramus struggling to put together a rebuttal. Quit whining, get help.

It's not productive to debunk every single spurious attempt to force reconcile the biblical account with contemporary cosmology and biology when one can more readily demonstrate the Bible's historical, scientific and moral errancy. Why waste time on each individual fruit, when calling out the tree for the monstrous fallacy that it is at hand?

A note on style. It never ceases to amaze me how some people who will readily pontificate on the abstract of kindness, compassion and other fruits of love, will indulge in the opposite at the drop of a hat.

When the bible is studied objectively through the eyes of a scientist such as Hugh Ross who found evidence of a predictive Creation Model that is supported by scientific theories, the bible becomes less incredulous. We finally have a modern interpretation of the bible that lends itself to scientific scrutinity even as it scrutinizes science from a Creation Model Approach.
dhardage
Posts: 4,546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 2:45:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Isn't it cute how Harikrish keeps repeating the same thing over and over as if it will make it any less ridiculous?
Harikrish
Posts: 26,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 3:07:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/18/2015 2:45:14 PM, dhardage wrote:
Isn't it cute how Harikrish keeps repeating the same thing over and over as if it will make it any less ridiculous?

Isn't it ridiculous you spend all your time on DDO and don't contribute anything worthwhile and just keep repeating your ad hominem attacks. Get help!!!
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 7:10:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Ty, I hope you're well and realise you weren't active in this thread last week.

Because threads can run on anyway, and a week's worth of notifications can get spammy, for your convenience, here's a link to my video summary: http://www.debate.org...
Amoranemix
Posts: 564
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2015 9:36:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
- Amoranemix 223
I don't know about DanneJeRusse, but I am not seeing it. That the second main law of thermodynamics sometimes plays a role in decay does not imply loss of heat energy and disorder are decay and also not that decay refers to the second main law of thermodynamics.
- tstor 233
Please read the quotation I gave him.
Done. Relevance ?

tstor 239 to RuvDraba
I encourage you to look at the video I put in the OP, as they have secular professors directly responding to their model. As well, I suggest that you look at this video:
https://www.youtube.com......

Both are at secular universities and the second one actually features Victor Stenger.
That secular professors respond to their model does not support it.

- tstor 424
I will start with one of the articles I first suggested to you:
http://www.reasons.org...
The name of the article is:
"Origin-of-Life Predictions Face Off: Evolution vs. Biblical Creation"
It is written by Fazale Rana, the same guy who I gave you the credentials for earlier in this post. I hope that you recognize the somewhat similar title as that of the peer-reviewed paper.
Mr. Rana has me at a disadvantage as he must have about 50 times more experience on the subject than I do. An obvious way to partially compensate is to look for articles from experts who disagree with him, who must exist since most scientists disagree with the RTB model. But that is time-consuming and I am lazy.

Fazale Rana
Abiogenesis"the emergence of life from nonliving physicochemical systems"forms the core of the evolutionary paradigm. Life must have its beginning in exclusively physical and chemical processes for evolutionists to legitimately explain life"s diversity throughout Earth"s history from a strictly materialistic standpoint. If abiogenesis lacks scientific credibility, the foundation of evolutionary theory crumbles. Moreover, if life can be shown to have a supernatural origin, then the door opens for viewing all phenomena in biology from an intelligent design perspective.
The theory of evolution does not depend on abiogenesis. Evolution by natural selection can start from created life. In addition, you can't show life to have a supernatural origin allegedly because the designer is outside of space-time. Also, despite claiming positive evidence for creation is important, most of the article is about criticizing abiogenesis.

Fazale Rana
Giddy with Miller"s accomplishment, many scientists predicted answers to the origin-of-life question within the decades to come.3 However, origin-of-life researchers are no closer to understanding the origin of life today than they were 40 years ago when Stanley Miller did his first experiments.
Scientist often get the prediction of future discoveries and technology wrong. See for example old science fiction stories and the optimism about fusion power. I have a book from 1977 'De Mens in het Heelal' (Man in Space) with a prediction from NASA for the 21st century and nice artist impressions of huge cylindrical transparent space stations with forests and lakes. With today's knowledge, I don't see that happening because of the cost of getting all that dirt into space. In the 1970s cheap fusion power was 50 years away. (Back to the Future II from 1985 features home fusion power in 2015.) Today it is 40 years away.
"So many centuries after the Creation, it is unlikely that anyone could find hitherto unknown lands of any value." -- Committee advising King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain regarding a proposal by Christopher Columbus, 1486.

Fazale Rana
Reasons To Believe scholars seek to address the important and valid points made by Niles Eldredge and other critics of creationism head-on by developing a biblically based, scientifically testable creation model"one that makes testable predictions. Creation can be tested. Creation can be science. An overview of the Reasons To Believe Creation model appeared in a previous issue of FACTS for FAITH (Q2 2000) and will be the topic of a conference on June 28-30, 2001. Numerous scientific and theological tests support that model.10
The natural interpretation of the Bible (YEC) fails the science test, so it appears they are trying to salvage as much from it as possible, just like theistic evolutionists do, by exploiting the the gaps in scientific knowledge that suggest design.

Fazale Rana about Gen 1:2
[ . . . ] He would also note that Earth"s surface was covered entirely with water. An observer would also see Earth as unsuitable for life. [ . . . ]
The Genesis 1:2 description of the earth"s primordial conditions finds remarkable agreement with the scientific description of the earth"s initial conditions. The interplanetary debris of the early solar system and thick primordial atmosphere of early Earth would keep sunlight from reaching its surface.15 Darkness would, indeed, be pervasive on the planet. While scientists debate the mechanism and timing for the formation of the earth"s oceans, consensus holds that continents did not exist when the earth formed. Early in its history Earth was, indeed, a water world.
As far as I know there was no water on the surface before the sky cleared and was it the rain that cleared the sky.

Fazale Rana
Table II
Some Predictions Made by the Biblical Origin-of-life Scenario
1. Life appeared early in Earth"s history.
2. Life appeared under harsh conditions.
3. Life miraculously persisted under harsh conditions.
4. Life arose quickly.
5. Life in its minimal form is complex.
I don't see how he arrives at predictions 1 to 3.

Fazale Rana
Many of these events still would have vaporized the earth"s oceans, leading to a wholesale destruction of life. Between 3.9 and 3.5 billion years ago, multiple origin-of-life events must have taken place with the maximum time window between impact events, and hence for the origin of life, being 10 million years.
From what I heard, subterranean microbial life can survive the evaporation of oceans.

Fazale Rana
New evidence indicates that life in its minimal form is chemically complex even if morphologically simple. The smallest bacterial genomes capable of independent survival include between 1500-1900 gene products.47-50 These bacteria are believed to be the oldest organisms on Earth and quite likely reflect the complexity of first life on Earth and the minimum complexity of independent life.51 The smallest known genome, that of Mycoplasma genitalium, is comprised of 470 gene products.52
I wonder what the problem is if the organism would be less complex. Wouldn't it be alive then ? In that case, perhaps living cells evolved from simpler non-living ones. A probably necessary attribute is the ability to reproduce. Prions are proteins (being much simpler than the simplest cells) that can replicate themselves by changing other proteins into themselves.

tstor 251 to RuvDraba
Cambrian Explosion: 50%-80% of all animal phylum appears in a 2-3 million year window. Claims that a naturalistic evolution model cannot account for this.
The Cambrian explosion time window is larger according to most evolutionists and after the explosion life continued to diversify.

tstor 251
What does the Mitochondrial (Eve) DNA Suggest?:
1) 150,000-200,000 years old
2) Small population
3) Single location of origin in East Africa
4) Traces to individual woman
Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomial Adam may not have been alone.

tstor 251
Does this match the model?:
Single location (yes)
50,000-250,000 years (yes)
Small population (yes)
It also matches the out of Africa theory and as far as I know there is no evidence Africans originated from the Middle-East.
The earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth.
Harikrish
Posts: 26,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2015 10:56:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/18/2015 7:10:47 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Ty, I hope you're well and realise you weren't active in this thread last week.

Because threads can run on anyway, and a week's worth of notifications can get spammy, for your convenience, here's a link to my video summary: http://www.debate.org...

I am sure Tstor must be caught up in something more important than encouraging you to read RTB and Hugh's Creation Model Approach. But I did go through the link you provided. Here is what I have to say about it.

There is evidence of a higher intelligence. You have to look around at the scientist with the most brilliant minds struggling to produce an intelligent theory of everything.

Victor J Stenger a physicist came up with several mathematical models of the universe and alternate universes. But confirmed the universe in existence was real and not just a mathematical model. So the Creation Model is mathematically possible. In fact it is only model that scientists have for their other theories.

Stephen Hawking another brilliant mind has retracted from his "Singularity" and no longer believes "Black Holes" are as destructive as he first postulated. In short he now doubts all his previous guess works.

For all of biological breakthroughs and theories of the origin of life and evolution. No scientist has ever produced life out of inorganic matter. In fact no life has ever been created in a lab. Yet the world is teeming with life, life is the most ubitiquously present fact surrounding us. Certainly speaks of a higher intelligence.

Hugh Ross comes across as laying the ground work for a model that will be the basis of all other models because it is here and it works!!!!
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2015 11:57:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/19/2015 10:56:55 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/18/2015 7:10:47 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Ty, I hope you're well and realise you weren't active in this thread last week.
Because threads can run on anyway, and a week's worth of notifications can get spammy, for your convenience, here's a link to my video summary: http://www.debate.org...
I am sure Tstor must be caught up in something more important than encouraging you to read RTB and Hugh's Creation Model Approach.

I hope he is, Hari, just as I am engaged in more important matters than responding to the superficial maunderings of what appears to be malignant narcissism.

Right now there's only one thing that would make me pay serious attention to a post of yours, and that's to provide a careful, considered, evidentiary response to the 'Most Spiritual' thread, as I originally asked you to do.

You haven't done that, and if you were capable of doing so, you'd surely have done so by now. But I think you're not only incapable, but unmotivated to do so; you seem very lazy, and more interested in insult and adopting airs than exploring ideas.

But regardless, until you until you do, I'm afraid that like a yapping dog two blocks away, you're beyond the margins of my attention.

My suggestion: run along and play with someone who'll notice.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 12:51:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/20/2015 12:28:45 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/19/2015 11:57:32 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/19/2015 10:56:55 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/18/2015 7:10:47 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Ty, I hope you're well and realise you weren't active in this thread last week.
Because threads can run on anyway, and a week's worth of notifications can get spammy, for your convenience, here's a link to my video summary: http://www.debate.org...
I am sure Tstor must be caught up in something more important than encouraging you to read RTB and Hugh's Creation Model Approach.

I hope he is, Hari, just as I am engaged in more important matters than responding to the superficial maunderings of what appears to be malignant narcissism.

Right now there's only one thing that would make me pay serious attention to a post of yours, and that's to provide a careful, considered, evidentiary response to the 'Most Spiritual' thread, as I originally asked you to do.

You haven't done that, and if you were capable of doing so, you'd surely have done so by now. But I think you're not only incapable, but unmotivated to do so; you seem very lazy, and more interested in insult and adopting airs than exploring ideas.

But regardless, until you until you do, I'm afraid that like a yapping dog two blocks away, you're beyond the margins of my attention.

My suggestion: run along and play with someone who'll notice.

I fully responded to your questions in post#323. Click on link.

http://www.debate.org...

It's off-topic to discuss that further here, but the quality of that post illustrates my point. You had nothing to say but a few vague links and some unsubstantiated claims of expertise. I replied to that ages ago.

Your commentary on this topic has been equally superficial, Hari. You want to critique everyone's engagement, but you've added no insight about biology, cosmology, the scientific method, or Ross' material.

You remind me of aggressive sports parents who don't play the sport themselves, but just go to indulge their insecurities and frustrations by bullying and bellowing from the sidelines at the people who are actually playing.

As and when I see the quality of your interactions improve, I'll tell you. Meanwhile, I have no interest in your opinions about anything. You're wasting your time with me.
Harikrish
Posts: 26,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 2:19:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/20/2015 12:51:30 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/20/2015 12:28:45 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/19/2015 11:57:32 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/19/2015 10:56:55 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/18/2015 7:10:47 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Ty, I hope you're well and realise you weren't active in this thread last week.
Because threads can run on anyway, and a week's worth of notifications can get spammy, for your convenience, here's a link to my video summary: http://www.debate.org...
I am sure Tstor must be caught up in something more important than encouraging you to read RTB and Hugh's Creation Model Approach.

I hope he is, Hari, just as I am engaged in more important matters than responding to the superficial maunderings of what appears to be malignant narcissism.

Right now there's only one thing that would make me pay serious attention to a post of yours, and that's to provide a careful, considered, evidentiary response to the 'Most Spiritual' thread, as I originally asked you to do.

You haven't done that, and if you were capable of doing so, you'd surely have done so by now. But I think you're not only incapable, but unmotivated to do so; you seem very lazy, and more interested in insult and adopting airs than exploring ideas.

But regardless, until you until you do, I'm afraid that like a yapping dog two blocks away, you're beyond the margins of my attention.

My suggestion: run along and play with someone who'll notice.

I fully responded to your questions in post#323. Click on link.

http://www.debate.org...

It's off-topic to discuss that further here, but the quality of that post illustrates my point. You had nothing to say but a few vague links and some unsubstantiated claims of expertise. I replied to that ages ago.

Your commentary on this topic has been equally superficial, Hari. You want to critique everyone's engagement, but you've added no insight about biology, cosmology, the scientific method, or Ross' material.

You remind me of aggressive sports parents who don't play the sport themselves, but just go to indulge their insecurities and frustrations by bullying and bellowing from the sidelines at the people who are actually playing.

As and when I see the quality of your interactions improve, I'll tell you. Meanwhile, I have no interest in your opinions about anything. You're wasting your time with me.

Just admit you are overmatched. You do well dodging softballs. But fail miserably when the going gets tough. I still say your behaviour is consistent with that of cultural and geographical isolation exhibited by those living down under.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 8:34:07 PM
Posted: 3 years 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:

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.

There is only one reason to believe it.

Its true.
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.