Total Posts:377|Showing Posts:211-240|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Reasons to Believe Creation Model

RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 12:51:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2015 12:31:14 AM, tstor wrote:
At 9/10/2015 12:28:23 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

Two more questions, Ty. I think you'll need to use some judgement here because a dictionary won't go deep enough:

1) What does 'systematic' mean in a scientific context?
Pertaining or according to a system.
Systematics is the science of naming and classifying organisms in regard to their natural relationships, deals with populations, species and higher taxa.
(biology-online)

Yes, that's systematics -- a taxonomy. Not 'systematic' -- a quality of approach to research, analysis and modeling.

A systematic study in a scientific sense normally means it's:
* comprehensive (i.e. it covers the whole subject of study);
* coherent (it's logically consistent and connected);
* rigorous (it withstands testing and observation);
* parsimonious (it doesn't include extraneous assumptions or detail);
* naturalistic (i.e. it ascribes natural causes to natural events);
* transparent (i.e. it hides no critical detail);
* accountable (i.e. it uses accepted and proven methodologies); and
* constructive (i.e. it predicts things that can be observed.)

Would you agree that it's highly desirable that a scientific model shares these properties?

I expect you might be worried about creation vs naturalism here, Ty, but I'm not. If a creation event occurred, it might well have occurred naturalistically -- e.g. through the kind of actions an intelligent agency might do in a lab.

2) What is the difference between a model of a heart, and a story about a heart?
What kind of model? A physical model, a textual model, a 3D model, etc. None of those are in line with a story though.

That's correct. The missing bit here is that in all important respects, a model behaves as the object of study. So a mathematical model of the heart's pumping should behave as the fluid dynamics of the heart. A plastic model of the heart's anatomy should exhibit exactly what you'd see if you dissected the heart.

A model then, is not a story. It's actually a structure in some simpler domain that behaves as the system you're studying in whatever respects you care about. So what the model does, the object should do, and what the object does the model should do. The critical property here is called isomorphism, which is Greek for 'equal shape'. A valid model should be in lockstep behaviour with the object of study and vice-versa in all important respects.

I'll explain shortly why this is a big issue for the RTB account, but I want to get the 'systematic' issue tucked away first, because it also relates.
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 12:59:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2015 12:51:00 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

Yes, that's systematics -- a taxonomy. Not 'systematic' -- a quality of approach to research, analysis and modeling.

A systematic study in a scientific sense normally means it's:
* comprehensive (i.e. it covers the whole subject of study);
* coherent (it's logically consistent and connected);
* rigorous (it withstands testing and observation);
* parsimonious (it doesn't include extraneous assumptions or detail);
* naturalistic (i.e. it ascribes natural causes to natural events);
* transparent (i.e. it hides no critical detail);
* accountable (i.e. it uses accepted and proven methodologies); and
* constructive (i.e. it predicts things that can be observed.)

Would you agree that it's highly desirable that a scientific model shares these properties?
Most of them, yes. Though may I ask where you pulled your definition from?
http://www.biology-online.org...

I expect you might be worried about creation vs naturalism here, Ty, but I'm not. If a creation event occurred, it might well have occurred naturalistically -- e.g. through the kind of actions an intelligent agency might do in a lab.
It might well have not occurred naturalistically.

2) What is the difference between a model of a heart, and a story about a heart?
What kind of model? A physical model, a textual model, a 3D model, etc. None of those are in line with a story though.

That's correct. The missing bit here is that in all important respects, a model behaves as the object of study. So a mathematical model of the heart's pumping should behave as the fluid dynamics of the heart. A plastic model of the heart's anatomy should exhibit exactly what you'd see if you dissected the heart.

A model then, is not a story. It's actually a structure in some simpler domain that behaves as the system you're studying in whatever respects you care about. So what the model does, the object should do, and what the object does the model should do. The critical property here is called isomorphism, which is Greek for 'equal shape'. A valid model should be in lockstep behaviour with the object of study and vice-versa in all important respects.

I'll explain shortly why this is a big issue for the RTB account, but I want to get the 'systematic' issue tucked away first, because it also relates.
Unless you are looking at a completely different model, then I cannot see how the RTB model is a story.
"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
9/10/2015 1:31:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2015 12:59:28 AM, tstor wrote:
At 9/10/2015 12:51:00 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

Yes, that's systematics -- taxonomy. Not 'systematic' -- a quality of approach to research, analysis and modeling.

A systematic study in a scientific sense normally means it's:
* comprehensive (i.e. it covers the whole subject of study);
* coherent (it's logically consistent and connected);
* rigorous (it withstands testing and observation);
* parsimonious (it doesn't include extraneous assumptions or detail);
* naturalistic (i.e. it ascribes natural causes to natural events);
* transparent (i.e. it hides no critical detail);
* accountable (i.e. it uses accepted and proven methodologies); and
* constructive (i.e. it predicts things that can be observed.)

Would you agree that it's highly desirable that a scientific model shares these properties?
Most of them, yes. Though may I ask where you pulled your definition from?
http://www.biology-online.org...

The definition you quoted uses the same root word for another purpose, Ty.

The kind of 'systematic' we're talking about here is the kind where a physicist can recognise that a chemist is doing science, even if he doesn't know what a distillation is, because they both uphold the same systematic qualities in their approach.

The key qualities of scientific methodology are scattered through the literature, but I find that a useful starting place is this paper on Criteria for Judging Usable Hypotheses, taken from Methods in Social Research. [http://www.indiana.edu...] (That it's social research is immaterial, since these criteria are pretty general.)

This paper focuses on constructing a good hypothesis rather than building a systematic model, but we can talk about the relationship between the two if you want. And while it uses different language to what I used above, it's talking about very similar qualities. I've tried to match them below.

* Clear (Transparent, Coherent)
* Empirical (Naturalistic, Constructive)
* Specific (Parsimonious, Rigorous)
* Applicable to existing techniques (Accountable, Rigorous)
* Relevant to existing knowledge (Accountable, Rigorous)

My additional requirement of being Comprehensive doesn't apply to hypotheses because they test only a single question. However, it applies to models because they have multiple uses, including uses you may not have considered when you first built the model.

I expect you might be worried about creation vs naturalism here, Ty, but I'm not. If a creation event occurred, it might well have occurred naturalistically -- e.g. through the kind of actions an intelligent agency might do in a lab.
It might well have not occurred naturalistically.
Yes, that's true. We haven't clinically observed the universe making exceptions to its own laws, but that could conceivably happen.

2) What is the difference between a model of a heart, and a story about a heart?
What kind of model? A physical model, a textual model, a 3D model, etc. None of those are in line with a story though.

That's correct. The missing bit here is that in all important respects, a model behaves as the object of study. So a mathematical model of the heart's pumping should behave as the fluid dynamics of the heart. A plastic model of the heart's anatomy should exhibit exactly what you'd see if you dissected the heart.

A model then, is not a story. It's actually a structure in some simpler domain that behaves as the system you're studying in whatever respects you care about. So what the model does, the object should do, and what the object does the model should do. The critical property here is called isomorphism, which is Greek for 'equal shape'. A valid model should be in lockstep behaviour with the object of study and vice-versa in all important respects.

I'll explain shortly why this is a big issue for the RTB account, but I want to get the 'systematic' issue tucked away first, because it also relates.
Unless you are looking at a completely different model, then I cannot see how the RTB model is a story.

Because I'm still laying foundations with you.

Are we agreed then that a scientific model must be broadly systematic in the way I described, and that it must also behave as the system of study?
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 1:34:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2015 1:31:08 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

Are we agreed then that a scientific model must be broadly systematic in the way I described, and that it must also behave as the system of study?

* comprehensive (i.e. it covers the whole subject of study);
Yes

* coherent (it's logically consistent and connected);
Yes

* rigorous (it withstands testing and observation);
Yes

* parsimonious (it doesn't include extraneous assumptions or detail);
Yes

* naturalistic (i.e. it ascribes natural causes to natural events);
Not inherently

* transparent (i.e. it hides no critical detail);
Yes

* accountable (i.e. it uses accepted and proven methodologies); and
Yes

* constructive (i.e. it predicts things that can be observed.)
Yes
"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
9/10/2015 1:46:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2015 1:34:12 AM, tstor wrote:
At 9/10/2015 1:31:08 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

Are we agreed then that a scientific model must be broadly systematic in the way I described, and that it must also behave as the system of study?

* comprehensive (i.e. it covers the whole subject of study);
Yes

* coherent (it's logically consistent and connected);
Yes

* rigorous (it withstands testing and observation);
Yes

* parsimonious (it doesn't include extraneous assumptions or detail);
Yes

* naturalistic (i.e. it ascribes natural causes to natural events);
Not inherently

* transparent (i.e. it hides no critical detail);
Yes

* accountable (i.e. it uses accepted and proven methodologies); and
Yes

* constructive (i.e. it predicts things that can be observed.)
Yes

Okay, so we're largely agreed.

For practical reasons, I also believe naturalism is required, Ty -- not because I hold that non-naturalistic causes couldn't appear, but because I believe it's nearly impossible to recognise them, and even if you encountered one, you could work with it naturalistically anyway. I'd be happy to explain this more at another time, but I don't think the naturalistic criterion will matter very much in this discussion, so I'll set that aside for the moment.

So, I have two more questions for you:

1) We've agreed that a valid scientific model must be specific, coherent and comprehensive, and behave in all important respects as the system being studied. In the RTB account, what is the system being studied, what are its key important aspects and why?

2) We've also agreed that a valid scientific model must use an accepted scientific methodology -- i.e. an approach to building and using the model. What accepted scientific methodology did RTB use to produce its purported model, and how did that methodology produce the RTB model, and not some other?
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 1:58:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2015 1:46:25 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

1) We've agreed that a valid scientific model must be specific, coherent and comprehensive, and behave in all important respects as the system being studied. In the RTB account, what is the system being studied, what are its key important aspects and why?
The system being studied is simply nature. How did this all begin and how has it got from point A to point B? Important aspects of this system would included cosmology, origin of life, development of life, etc.

2) We've also agreed that a valid scientific model must use an accepted scientific methodology -- i.e. an approach to building and using the model. What accepted scientific methodology did RTB use to produce its purported model, and how did that methodology produce the RTB model, and not some other?
I think that the RTB website handles this nicely:
"This situation stems from Christians' failure to apply the scientific method to their interpretation of Genesis. A great irony, here, is that the scientific method comes from the Bible and from biblical theology. The core of this method is an appeal to the interpreter to delay drawing conclusions until both the frame of reference and the initial conditions have been established. If we approach Genesis in this way, we discover that we can, indeed, discern there a scientifically plausible, objectively defensible account of creation."

A lot of models use this same methodology.
"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
9/10/2015 2:51:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2015 1:58:58 AM, tstor wrote:
At 9/10/2015 1:46:25 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

1) We've agreed that a valid scientific model must be specific, coherent and comprehensive, and behave in all important respects as the system being studied. In the RTB account, what is the system being studied, what are its key important aspects and why?
The system being studied is simply nature. How did this all begin and how has it got from point A to point B? Important aspects of this system would included cosmology, origin of life, development of life, etc.

Okay. I'd say that RTB is seeking to provide an integrated cosmogenic and biogenic account, which is pretty much what you said.

But if that's so, then to be a model, this account should behave exactly as nature does, and each element of the account should exhibit the qualities previously discussed. In particular, cosmogeny and biogeny should be its whole subject, it should be coherent and transparent, with no extraneous detail. So let me pull out some of the steps listed in the account and make some comments. [http://www.reasons.org...]

1. Creation, by fiat miracle, of the entire physical universe (space-time dimensions, matter, energy, galaxies, stars, planets, etc.)
(Contradicted by a naturalistic, and more predictive account which explains specifics such as Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, galactic structures and specific proportions of elements in the universe. How is this transparent, rigorous, specific or relevant? If it's not, why mention it at all?)

2. planet Earth singled out for a sequence of creation miracles.
(Singled out using what criteria, confirmed how? Not rigorous, comprehensive, or specific. And how is it relevant to the life produced?)

3. clearing of the interplanetary debris and partial transformation of the earth's atmosphere so that light from the heavenly bodies now penetrates to the surface of Earth's ocean
(Let's agree that the earth's early history may have been dark and cloudy. Yet we know that certain life-forms do not require light to survive. [http://ocean.si.edu...] So how is this relevant?)

4. formation of water vapor in the troposphere under conditions that establish a stable water cycle
(We know water can occur from atmospheric hydrogen reacting with oxygen released from hot rock. It doesn't require sunlight to form -- heat is enough. There's no reason to suppose that water only appeared after light hit the planet. How does the sequence of this step behave as nature does? How is the assumption of this special creation event rigorous or parsimonious?)

5. formation of continental land masses and ocean basins
(Unclear why this should depend on the presence of light or water. We know geologically that land-masses move regardless of water, so surely this was occurring simultaneously. How does this act as nature does?)

6. production of plants on the continental land masses
(Ignores the overwhelming evidence for common ancestry of species, and therefore the likelihood that life emerged from simple cells. Lacks empiricism, rigour and transparency.)

7. transformation of the atmosphere from translucent to occasionally transparent. Sun, Moon, planets, and stars now can be seen from the vantage point of Earth's surface
(What has this to do with the origin of life? It's postulated simply to maintain parity with Genesis, which is not the subject of study. It's not relevant or parsimonious. Why plants and not simpler organisms? It's not transparent. Why the diversity between flowering and non-flowering plants, and their different places in the fossil record? It's not specific or constructive. And how are plants supposed to have survived in the dark? It's not coherent.)

8. production of swarms of small sea animals.
(Ignores overwhelming data supporting common ancestry, not to mention the fossil record. Somehow skips whatever sea animals were supposed to have eaten. Not rigorous or coherent.)

9. creation of sea mammals and birds
(Common ancestry, evidence for species evolution and extinction. Not rigorous. Incoherent.)

10. creation of three specialized kinds of land mammals: a) short-legged land mammals, b) long-legged land mammals that are easy to tame, and c) long-legged land mammals that are difficult to tame"all three specifically designed to cohabit with humans
(Common ancestry, evolving species, mass extinctions all prior to the first humans. Nor rigorous, not parsimonious, incoherent. Completely ignores superior biological taxa. Not relevant or rigorous)

11. creation of the human species
(Common ancestry, older hominins, prior tool-using hominins. Not rigorous, transparent, parsimonious or coherent.)

I've listed a lot of comments here, Ty. But I think they point to several issues:

1) The subject of RTB isn't actually cosmogenesis or biogenesis; it's the ancient Israelite myth of Genesis
2) There's no explanation of what accepted scientific methodology was used to produce these steps. In fact the methodology used appears to be just adapting and matching Genesis, which is not scientific or rigorous (or even a good methodology for understanding history.)
3) There's little evidence of relevance or accountability to a huge amount of naturalistic data, which have been overlooked -- including biological and paleological data.
4) Over-all lack of transparency: specifics, rigour and testability.
5) Vast obscurity as to why things were done as it claims, when it claims, where it claims, and how it produced the species we see, including the diversity and extinctions.
6) Does not behave as the system studied. Rather, hopes that the system studied will behave as per the account.
7) Over-all lack of constructive, specific, relevant predictions. The predictions claimed aren't specific, aren't all predictions, or aren't limited to just this model. Moreover, it also claims predictions that are misapprehensions rather than true predictions.

As I said, this isn't a model. It's a story. I think the subject of the story is Genesis rather than nature; this account uses no accepted scientific methodology to produce its ideas; and it's largely unconstructive.

Would you like to contrast it with the way Newton produced a model of gravity, or the way Einstein's Special Relativity replaced his laws of motion?

The difference will be striking.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 4:25:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2015 1:58:58 AM, tstor wrote:
At 9/10/2015 1:46:25 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
2) We've also agreed that a valid scientific model must use an accepted scientific methodology -- i.e. an approach to building and using the model. What accepted scientific methodology did RTB use to produce its purported model, and how did that methodology produce the RTB model, and not some other?
I think that the RTB website handles this nicely:
"This situation stems from Christians' failure to apply the scientific method to their interpretation of Genesis. A great irony, here, is that the scientific method comes from the Bible and from biblical theology. The core of this method is an appeal to the interpreter to delay drawing conclusions until both the frame of reference and the initial conditions have been established. If we approach Genesis in this way, we discover that we can, indeed, discern there a scientifically plausible, objectively defensible account of creation."

I didn't address this in the post above due to length, but lest my silence be taken for asent...

The idea of applying tabula rasa to thought is a principle of science, but it dates back to Aristotle in the fourth century BCE. By itself it's not sufficient to do science though. For natural philosophy to become science, it needs empiricism, an extension of tabula rasa frequently attributed to the 17th century philosopher John Locke, though popularised and developed in parts by others including Francis Bacon and Renes Descartes.

Between Aristotle and Locke are two millennia of unprovable conjectures, idealistic and inaccurate philosophies, proof by aesthetics and the occasional insightful observation or measurement that makes this period at best pseudoscientific or semiscientific, and at worst, utterly superstitious and confused.

So no. 'Tabula rasa' is not a methodology in itself, though it is part of every valid scientific methodology. And the Bible never taught anyone to do science.
dhardage
Posts: 4,546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 12:58:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2015 10:07:18 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/9/2015 9:22:46 PM, dhardage wrote:

Just for the record, Hari brought up aura scanners in post 149 from another thread. Second, boy, you should be a little more circumspect when calling others childish if all you can do is post other people's words and no original thoughts of your own. You lack both knowledge and wisdom, particularly if you follow this dolt who has been proven wrong over and over again.
Did I mention childish?

Yes, you did, or do you not read what you write?

Seems to me like you just copied what RuvDraba said. So if you are reading what he said, then you should naturally be reading what I said. Therefore, you know why I am not giving him what he wants. He wants me, someone who in the OP said that they were new to the model, to explain the model to him.

Exactly. He wants you to do your own investigation and demonstrate some understanding of the argument you are making before you support it. You have done neither which bespeaks a lack of intellectual honesty and maturity on your part.

I am not going to do that. He has yet to present any argument to the model. I have even given him articles about the model to help him understand it, yet he refuses to read them.

He is not the one making the argument and supporting the model, you are. The burden of providing evidence, therefore, is yours, not his or anyone else's. If you don't know whereof you speak you should not speak at all.

You also seem to copy RuvDraba's own argument, attack Hugh Ross with no evidence to support it.

If you want to complain about someone else not reading and looking things up then you really have no room to complain. A simple Google search of Hugh Ross will easily reveal all the different reasons he is considered a poor advocate for his views by both secular and religious authorities.

Unless you have some kind of real contribution to make, then I see no reason to continue posting on this thread.

Agreed. You can stop any time you want.
dhardage
Posts: 4,546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 1:17:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2015 11:03:16 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/9/2015 9:22:46 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/9/2015 9:18:15 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/9/2015 9:16:40 PM, Harikrish wrote:

You can see how they operate. They cannot deal with your OP so they try to derail it with their nonsense carried over from another thread. They are creating a distraction by attacking me. This isn't even my thread. I wouldn't even consider tbem atheist. That would be an insult to atheists.
Just the thought of aura scanners scares the hell out of the two. I apologize for the disruption.
Oh no, you are fine. It really discredits them when someone sees how childish they are when talking to both you and me.

Just for the record, Hari brought up aura scanners in post 149 from another thread. Second, boy, you should be a little more circumspect when calling others childish if all you can do is post other people's words and no original thoughts of your own. You lack both knowledge and wisdom, particularly if you follow this dolt who has been proven wrong over and over again.

Tstor has only been on DDO for a month. This is really shameful behaviour coming from our supposedly more mature members. Johnlubba was right, our moderators should take note on how some of our less secure members treat new members. I find their behaviour appalling and would demand that they apologize to our new member Tstor who in good faith continued the discussion.

I've not treated him any differently than I would anyone else. If he wishes to engage with adults he must be willing to act like an adult and be prepared for criticism for actions and words that are inappropriate or in gross error.

They know the rules and here again it was blatantly obvious their intent was to derail this thread. How can we condone such cowardly behaviour?

Again, it was you who brought up the aura detector deflection, not anyone else so if there is blame there, you share in it at the very least.

I know the OP deals with some leading edge scientific theories that many of our members may not be comfortable with. But those who stepped forward to accept the challenge should have prepared themselves better in keeping with the traditions of DDO. All we got were excuses, ad hominem attacks and innuendo .

What was presented was not cutting edge in any sense of the word. It was pure religious apologetics couched in pseudoscience to make it seem valid.

Surely we are capable of much better.

Indeed, and you are the most egregious offender, resorting immediately to personal attacks whenever someone demonstrates your absolute lack of knowledge and your tendency to bully those who you disagree with.

Between those possessed by God and those of lower dispositions,

Ah, so you see yourself as superior to anyone who is not a believer in God? That's a rather hypocritical statement isn't it, since pride is considered sinful by most religions?

if we cannot meet the demanding academic thresholds, then can we not at least maintain some intellectual integrity no matter how bleak the prospects may be?

I agree wholeheartedly. As soon as you start doing that we can all get along a little better. Once again I am reminded of the advice from the Christian Bible about removing the plank in your own eye before worrying about the mote in your neighbor's.

I am disappointed. As much as I appreciate the hands off approach our moderators take and their respect for the value of free speech. We do not want our members to be complacent in their ignorance or resistant to new challenges or wear their stupidity as a badge of honour. I ask that our moderators intervene and preserve this forum for the generation to come instead of tolerating a generation that was lost.

DDO is one of the better sites and I have a lot of respect for those who paved the way for our participation. But those are big shoes to fill and their ideals should not be dwarfed by intellectual midgets that I shall not name.

Tstor I apologize to you once again. You deserved better.
dee-em
Posts: 10,593
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 1:51:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2015 8:35:24 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/9/2015 2:40:33 PM, dee-em wrote:

I'm talking about the model I linked you to. The Babylonians for example held similar beliefs:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Thank you for the article, but I do not see anything faith shaking there. Are there any aspects you are trying to match to the Bible accounts?

All you had to do was keep reading. Sheesh.

In Babylonian cosmology, the Earth and the heavens were depicted as a "spatial whole, even one of round shape" with references to "the circumference of heaven and earth" and "the totality of heaven and earth". Their worldview was not exactly geocentric either. The idea of geocentrism, where the center of the Earth is the exact center of the universe, did not yet exist in Babylonian cosmology, but was established later by the Greek philosopher Aristotle's On the Heavens. In contrast, Babylonian cosmology suggested that the cosmos revolved around circularly with the heavens and the earth being equal and joined as a whole.[13]

Does that sound familiar? The link I provided for you cited verse after verse which made reference to this model. Here let me list them for you again.

This ultimately comes down to what the model has already stated:
"God gives humans the privilege to fill in the details, carefully, through patient, ongoing exploration and increased understanding of the natural realm."

What use is the Bible then?

Some of the verses you listed have no issues in them. Take for example the last one in Numbers, what is the issue? Sheol is the grave. Are you doubting that the grave is the realm of the dead within the earth?

Another glib dismissal. You've really done your research haven't you?

https://en.wikipedia.org...

According to Brichto, the early Israelites apparently believed that the graves of family, or tribe, united into one, and that this unified collectivity is to what the Biblical Hebrew term Sheol refers, the common Grave of humans. Although not well defined in the Tanakh, Sheol in this view was a subterranean underworld where the souls of the dead went after the body died. The Babylonians had a similar underworld called Aralu, and the Greeks had one known as Hades.

According to the Harper's Bible Dictionary, "The ancient Hebrews imagined the world as flat and round, covered by the great solid dome of the firmament which was held up by mountain pillars, (Job 26:11; 37:18). The blue color of the sky was attributed to the chaotic waters that the firmament separated from the earth (Gen. 1:7). The earth was thus surrounded by waters above and below (Gen. 1:6,7; cf. Psalms 24:2; 148:4, Deut. 5:8). The firmament was thought to be substantial; it had pillars (Job 26:11) and foundations (2 Sam. 22:8). When the windows of it were opened, rain fell (Gen. 7:11-12; 8:2). The sun, moon, and stars moved across or were fixed in the firmament (Gen. 1:14-19; Ps. 19:4,6). It was also the abode of the birds (Gen. 1:20; Deut. 4:17). Within the earth lay Sheol, the realm of the dead (Num. 16:30-33; Isa. 14:9,15)."

Alright. I do not doubt that the Hebrews probably thought that. Your point? Our understanding of scriptures are bound to change when we get new information. The Hebrews at that time had no way of knowing about all the specifics and what was meant scientifically, only what was revealed in the words. God did not hand them a modern science textbook, they had to fill in the blanks.

Hold it right there. What? Thank you for the honesty at last, but you must now realize that your thread is now dead with this concession. You only have these choices:

1) God doesn't exist. The Hebrews were documenting their beliefs which were similar to the cultures around them.
2) God exists but he didn't know what he had created when he relayed this misinformation to the Hebrews.
3) God exists and gave the Hebrews correct information but they couldn't make sense of it and fed in their own ideas.

You seem to be going for 3. There is only one problem. God is omniscient. He had to know what would happen. Surely an omnipotent God would be capable of giving an accurate account of reality in Genesis which could be understood. What is so hard about describing the Earth as a sphere which is surrounded by empty space? Surely it isn't hard to differentiate the Moon from the Sun as not being a light but more like a mirror? Why would God tell the Hebrews that there was a mass of water hanging up above the sky? Sorry, but disinformation cannot be hand-waved away as God wanting us to fill in the gaps. It's just wrong.

As well, I have yet to dishonestly cite anything. I am presenting what the Bible says and I am presenting the science that supports it.

Your dishonesty is in dismissing all of the above as idiom usage. It's undeniable that the Hebrew cosmology is as per the model I linked you to.

You linked me to an article about Babylonian cosmology, not Hebrew.

Because that's what you asked for. Another culture with a similar cosmology. I had already linked you to Hebrew cosmology. Why would I need to do it again?

You are being ridiculous. Revelation uses tons of symbolism and metaphors. You pick out one of the many and take it literally? If anything, you supported my claim.

Nonsense. What is it a metaphor for? Even imagery has to be imagined in the mind's eye. How do you imagine angels standing on four corners of a sphere? You can imagine them at the extremities of a flat Earth at the compass points quite easily.

You are aware of the Hebrew word used, right? It is not pinoh, paioh, ziovyoh, krnouth, or or even paamouth. The word used is "kanaph". This word means:
wing, extremity (Strong's Concordance)

In the Greek, the word used is "gonia", which means a corner or angle. So in Revelation 7:1, it is not that strange to see such a symbolism. There are much stranger ones used than "corner" for north, south, east, and west.

So what? The point I made still stands. If anything my point is stronger since I have been talking about extremities. Are there any extremities on a sphere?

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." (NIV)

Exactly. The Earth is a circle surrounded by the curtains of the heavens which envelop it like a tent (ie. a dome atop the land). Now this is a valid instance of supporting the claim of your opponent. Lol.
Are you arguing that the earth is not surrounded by space? Hugh Ross actually opens up with this idea in one of his lectures:


No, I am not arguing that. I am telling you that the NIV quote above exactly matches the Hebrew universe model which I linked you to. A flat circle of Earth surrounded by the pillars of heaven (mountains) which support the firmament/dome of the sky which holds back the waters above. The metaphor of a tent only makes sense on level (flat) ground. Have you ever tried to pitch a tent on a sphere? Lol.
Lying and/or abusive trolls on permanent ignore: ethang5, skipsaweirdo, dsjpk5, Polytheist_Witch, Studio-B, TKDB, Factseeker, graceofgod.
Harikrish
Posts: 26,246
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 4:47:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Those responding to Tstor's OP are directing their questions to Tstor when they should be dealing with the issues the OP creates for those with an atheistic worldview.
Rather than attacking Tstor who came across Hugh Ross and his Creation Model. They should make clear what it is they are challenging.
Are they challenging Hugh Ross's scientific credentials/qualifications? Hugh Ross is an astrophysicist/cosmologist/astronomer with a degree in physics and a distinguished writer.
"Hugh Ross has a degree in physics from the University of British Columbia and a National Research Council of Canada fellowship, Hugh earned a PhD in astronomy from the University of Toronto. For several years he continued his research on quasars and galaxies as a postdoctoral fellow at the California Institute of Technology. In 2012, Hugh, together with Dr. Gerald Schroeder, received the Ide P. Trotter Prize presented by Texas A&M University in recognition of his work in demonstrating connections between science and religion."

Are they challenging Hugh Ross's knowledge of scriptures?
"Dr. Hugh Ross has a worldwide ministry. . Hugh teaches as an adjunct faculty member at both A.W. Tozer Seminary and Southern Evangelical Seminary. He also serves as a minister of apologetics at Sierra Madre Congregational Church where he conducts a weekly apologetics class."

Are they questioning Hugh Riss's motives? Hugh Ross is not suggesting the bible should replace scientific knowledge nor is he suggesting scientific knowledge should replace the Bible and for good reasons. The bible cannot teach us science nor can science teach us morality.

What Ross is saying from his proficiency in both fields " theology and science " is; there is a reason to believe the Creation Model because there is scientific evidence for the Creation Model which past theologians resisted because they lacked the scientific knowledge to articulate their interpretation of the biblical creation to accommodate scientific theory just as much as scientist lacked the scriptural knowledge to recognize the connections and parallels between the two.

I can only appreciate the effort Tstor has put to rise to the occasion and respond to this onslaught of personal attacks and innuendo directed at him.

Hugh Ross is both a theologian and a scientist. He makes no apology for his Creation Model or the application of scientific theory to advance his beliefs and convictions. Picking Tstor as the soft target instead of Hugh Ross who is the harder target is being nothing but disingenuous on the part of those who have made a career attacking soft targets to avoid person embarrassment and ridicule at their incompetence in dealing with the harder targets. Their intellectual dishonesty must be stopped or DDO will be drowning with idiots of unquestionable stupidity.
Amoranemix
Posts: 564
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 6:02:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
tstor 35 quoting Ellicott to dee-em
[ . . . ] Even if the writer supposed that the rains were poured down from an upper reservoir, it would be no more an argument against his being inspired than St. Mark"s expression, 'The sun did set' (Mark 1:32), disproves the inspiration of the Gospels.[5] For the attainment of all such knowledge God has provided another way."[6]
[5] True. The Bible could have been inspired by a deity ignorant of meteorology.
[6] What way ?

- RuvDraba 49
This is just an elaborate God of the Gaps argument, Ty, and as invalid as constant theological reinterpretation. It's a struggle to keep belief permissible without doing as a real model should, and explain why an independent thinker (i.e. not simply a Christian) should hold that model in preference to any other accepted model.
- tstor 51
What do you know, the website addressed your criticism directly:
http://www.reasons.org...
I often see theists deny making god of the gaps arguments, followed by making a god of the gaps argument. That makes me wonder what qualifies as a god of the gaps argument. When scientists discovered that there didn't seem to be enough matter in the universe to keep galaxies rotating so fast, they gave their ignorance a name : dark matter, because some invisible matter suggests itself as an explanation. So they said that dark matter does it and that could be called dark matter of the gaps argument. Likewise, when there is apparent design, theists call their ignorance God because a designer suggests itself as an explanation and they already believe in the designer called God.
How do these explanations compare ?
- A designer is more powerful as an explanation, as it can explain many things.
- A designer is more shallow as his behaviour would need to be explained.
- Dark matter is modest and simple. A designer is a very complicated explanation.
- A designer is less conservative than dark matter as the latter lies in line with the progress of knowledge about the fundamental nature of reality (i.e. new particles).
Just like dark matter, a creator is merely a hypothesis, not a theory. One would need independent evidence (like harmoniously fitting it in the existing theoretical framework). For a creator, such independent evidence is for some reason notoriously hard to find. All we have is different unrelated observations that suggest design.

- RuvDraba 57
You cannot claim that Genesis = BBT + Evolution because the Bible is inerrant. You (or Hugh) can in fact only claim Biblical inerrance based on demonstrating that the the only reasonable intended meaning for Genesis is BBT + Evolution.
But we know the latter to be false.
- tstor 59
No we do not. No one has ever claimed, from my own readings, that Genesis and evolution can walk through the park together. They are simply opposing ideas and the creation model openly admits this, which is why evolution is not in it.[7] However, the Big Bang is in the Bible.[8] You seem to be stuck on the vagueness of the Biblical texts, which is fine, because the creation model states:
"God gives humans the privilege to fill in the details, carefully, through patient, ongoing exploration and increased understanding of the natural realm."[9]
[7] Some Christians claim Genesis and evolution are compatible. See 'Is The Creation Account Literal?' : http://www.debate.org...
[8] In what verse ?
[9] That seems to be a problem with the creation model. You have lot of behaviour to explain and I don't see how one could reasonably arrive at 'We ought to worship that creator.'

- RuvDraba 57
Before the BBT and Evolution were accepted scientific accounts, did any independent linguist ever propose that's what Genesis meant? In fact, didn't scholarly theologians spend over a century pronouncing evolution false because it contradicted Genesis?
- tstor 59
They still do pronounce it as false, even the creation model I gave you does. So you are showing me that you did not actually examine it too well. To answer your second question, I will start with a question: How could they? As Christians, the only information we have is in the Bible until we go find the extra-Biblical data. There is no way that someone in the first , second, third, etc. century could have described the BBT in any great detail.[10] However, Christians have always known there was a beginning of the universe, even when some said otherwise:
https://en.wikipedia.org...[11]
[10] If God existed, they could at least have given a summary with pictures.
[11] One doesn't need to much luck to guess correctly that the universe has a beginning. The Reasons To Believe followers also aren't taking much risk by declaring their model would be wrong if the universe turned out to be static.

Harikrish 68
That leaves very little vulnerabilities for our atheist members to expose. So far all the refutation by our atheist members have been pathetically weak, ill prepared and woefully inadequate.[12]
I encourage our theist members to capitalize on our atheist members incompetence and ineptness and mount an everlasting impression on their dull atheistic minds given the opening they have created by their failed coup.[13]
[12] Most atheists are unfamiliar with the creation model and they can't refute what they don't know. In addition, most atheists aren't experts in the fields that cover the presented arguments.
[13] It would be good for a change to debate theists that have case.

- RuvDraba 91
What new evidence is driving this model? What obscure natural mechanisms does it expose and explain? What does it add to the body of scientific insight?
The novelty seems to be the falsifiability. Doctor Ross wants to address the critique that creationism is not testable by trying to make testable predictions.

- RuvDraba 60
You are further aware that this account only changed when theologians realised they'd have to change it to fit accepted science. Then suddenly, there was more than one reasonable interpretation, which previously there had not been.
- tstor 93
Previously there had been no reason to use any of the other definitions. Please feel free to self educate yourself on the Hebrew word "yom":
https://en.wikipedia.org...
You seem to be starting from the inerrancy of the Bible. Is that a faith or evidence based belief ?

- tstor 99 to DanneJeRusse
You can read a more clear article on decay with this article from George Mason University:
http://physics.gmu.edu...
While the article is defending evolution, it still addresses decay nicely.
That is an article about the second main law of thermodynamics and it appears to have no relation to Romans 8.

- RuvDraba 91
There isn't actually any problem with debunking this cynical and egregious manipulation, Hari. It's breathtakingly dishonest and unscholarly on several fronts, and nobody serious is taking it seriously.
- Harikrish 102
This is a discussion/debating forum. The proposition was made and it is up to the atheist to respond. I believe Hugh Ross's blending of creation with scientific theory is a problem for members here because it is proving to be above their pay grade.[14] I cannot believe the pathetically weak responses mustered by our inept atheists and the level of incompetence they have demonstrated.
Or maybe it is too time-consuming for them.

- tstor 104 to DanneJeRusse
Are you not seeing how loss of heat energy and disorder are decay? From the source I gave you:
"the sun's energy only increases disorder. It speeds the processes of breakdown and decay."
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.
The earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 8:04:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2015 6:02:51 PM, Amoranemix wrote:
- RuvDraba 49
This is just an elaborate God of the Gaps argument, Ty, and as invalid as constant theological reinterpretation. It's a struggle to keep belief permissible without doing as a real model should, and explain why an independent thinker (i.e. not simply a Christian) should hold that model in preference to any other accepted model.
- tstor 51
What do you know, the website addressed your criticism directly:
http://www.reasons.org...
I often see theists deny making god of the gaps arguments, followed by making a god of the gaps argument. That makes me wonder what qualifies as a god of the gaps argument.

Hi Amoranemix. Thank you for your comments. I singled this one out because it was scientifically interesting. :)

When scientists discovered that there didn't seem to be enough matter in the universe to keep galaxies rotating so fast, they gave their ignorance a name : dark matter, because some invisible matter suggests itself as an explanation.
Yes, but in science, the term 'dark matter' represents outstanding business, rather than a claim to authority, and every working cosmologist sees it that way. There's every expected evidence for the Big Bang, and presently little evidence for anything else, yet not everything is explained, and in particular cosmologists believe that there ought to be more matter in the universe than is directly observable.

So it's their own critique of their own model which has produced the gap, and in the gap is not an answer, but an hypothesis to be either demonstrated or eventually abandoned in favour of a better idea.

That's very different approach to trying to find something nobody has observed, and claiming theological authority over it. For one thing, dark matter arose from self-criticism, and theology seldom self-criticises. For another, dark matter owns its burden of evidence, while theology shifts that burden to everyone else.

This illustrates a key difference between theology and science. Theology frequently takes an argument to the point where one may believe -- and then shifts the burden of disproof to everyone else. (This is in fact what RTB seeks to do.)

However, science holds much higher standards of evidence and accountability. Anything proposed for acceptance must be subject to diligent independent scrutiny, to the extent where there is no reasonable doubt -- not from evidence, or more robust explanations, not from any trained and credible empiricist. This is why peer-review publication is an essential step in any scientific claim. Because it isn't enough that you believe it, or can make ignoramuses believe it when they visit your web-site. You need to put it beyond reasonable doubt when the best scientific minds in the world read it.

Ross hasn't done this, and for good reason.

Even one of the criticisms I put up against Ross' model, if substantiated, would be enough to kill it before publication. But this guy is going on a romp, mangling history, flouting scientific discipline, playing bait-and-switch with his object of study, concocting his own circular and self-serving methodology, and knowingly exploiting the ignorance of his intended readers, whom I cannot imagine he respects.

It's deplorable and represensible, but on the bright side, it's also a good illustration for how theology makes for lazy minds: minds good at making themselves self-satisfied and happy, but poor at making themselves examined and accountable.
Harikrish
Posts: 26,246
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 8:24:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2015 8:04:15 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/10/2015 6:02:51 PM, Amoranemix wrote:
- RuvDraba 49
This is just an elaborate God of the Gaps argument, Ty, and as invalid as constant theological reinterpretation. It's a struggle to keep belief permissible without doing as a real model should, and explain why an independent thinker (i.e. not simply a Christian) should hold that model in preference to any other accepted model.
- tstor 51
What do you know, the website addressed your criticism directly:
http://www.reasons.org...
I often see theists deny making god of the gaps arguments, followed by making a god of the gaps argument. That makes me wonder what qualifies as a god of the gaps argument.

Hi Amoranemix. Thank you for your comments. I singled this one out because it was scientifically interesting. :)

When scientists discovered that there didn't seem to be enough matter in the universe to keep galaxies rotating so fast, they gave their ignorance a name : dark matter, because some invisible matter suggests itself as an explanation.
Yes, but in science, the term 'dark matter' represents outstanding business, rather than a claim to authority, and every working cosmologist sees it that way. There's every expected evidence for the Big Bang, and presently little evidence for anything else, yet not everything is explained, and in particular cosmologists believe that there ought to be more matter in the universe than is directly observable.

So it's their own critique of their own model which has produced the gap, and in the gap is not an answer, but an hypothesis to be either demonstrated or eventually abandoned in favour of a better idea.

That's very different approach to trying to find something nobody has observed, and claiming theological authority over it. For one thing, dark matter arose from self-criticism, and theology seldom self-criticises. For another, dark matter owns its burden of evidence, while theology shifts that burden to everyone else.

This illustrates a key difference between theology and science. Theology frequently takes an argument to the point where one may believe -- and then shifts the burden of disproof to everyone else. (This is in fact what RTB seeks to do.)

However, science holds much higher standards of evidence and accountability. Anything proposed for acceptance must be subject to diligent independent scrutiny, to the extent where there is no reasonable doubt -- not from evidence, or more robust explanations, not from any trained and credible empiricist. This is why peer-review publication is an essential step in any scientific claim. Because it isn't enough that you believe it, or can make ignoramuses believe it when they visit your web-site. You need to put it beyond reasonable doubt when the best scientific minds in the world read it.


Time to put those doubts back because scientific fraud increased 10 folds.
http://www.theguardian.com...

Science gone bad.
http://daily.jstor.org...

Ross hasn't done this, and for good reason.

Even one of the criticisms I put up against Ross' model, if substantiated, would be enough to kill it before publication. But this guy is going on a romp, mangling history, flouting scientific discipline, playing bait-and-switch with his object of study, concocting his own circular and self-serving methodology, and knowingly exploiting the ignorance of his intended readers, whom I cannot imagine he respects.

It's deplorable and represensible, but on the bright side, it's also a good illustration for how theology makes for lazy minds: minds good at making themselves self-satisfied and happy, but poor at making themselves examined and accountable.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 8:34:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2015 8:24:48 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/10/2015 8:04:15 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Science holds much higher standards of evidence and accountability. Anything proposed for acceptance must be subject to diligent independent scrutiny, to the extent where there is no reasonable doubt -- not from evidence, or more robust explanations, not from any trained and credible empiricist. This is why peer-review publication is an essential step in any scientific claim. Because it isn't enough that you believe it, or can make ignoramuses believe it when they visit your web-site. You need to put it beyond reasonable doubt when the best scientific minds in the world read it.

Time to put those doubts back because scientific fraud increased 10 folds.
http://www.theguardian.com...

Science gone bad.
http://daily.jstor.org...

That's largely biomedical, Hari -- and appears to arise from commercial pressures competing with scientific probity. Those do create serious conflicts of interests, which have been known and discussed for decades, yet the retraction of papers from publication is evidence that scientific probity still has teeth.

For comparison, can you imagine houses being de-listed from the real-estate pages because they're not as sunny and quaint as advertised? Beauty products being recalled from supermarket shelves because they don't do what their packaging says?

The number of biomedical papers retracted is a concern, but a concern specifically relevant to pharmaceuticals, medical devices, commercial genetics and agribusiness, rather than about the discipline over-all. I'd be very surprised if we saw the same sorts of misconduct-related retraction rates in cosmological papers. :)
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 9:10:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2015 1:51:10 PM, dee-em wrote:

Thank you for the article, but I do not see anything faith shaking there. Are there any aspects you are trying to match to the Bible accounts?

All you had to do was keep reading. Sheesh.
I read the whole thing. Keep reading to where?

This ultimately comes down to what the model has already stated:
"God gives humans the privilege to fill in the details, carefully, through patient, ongoing exploration and increased understanding of the natural realm."

What use is the Bible then?
I can only assume you are asking what the point of the creation accounts are and not the Bible itself. In which I will respond that the Bible laid down a foundation for science.

Some of the verses you listed have no issues in them. Take for example the last one in Numbers, what is the issue? Sheol is the grave. Are you doubting that the grave is the realm of the dead within the earth?

Another glib dismissal. You've really done your research haven't you?

https://en.wikipedia.org...

According to Brichto, the early Israelites apparently believed that the graves of family, or tribe, united into one, and that this unified collectivity is to what the Biblical Hebrew term Sheol refers, the common Grave of humans. Although not well defined in the Tanakh, Sheol in this view was a subterranean underworld where the souls of the dead went after the body died. The Babylonians had a similar underworld called Aralu, and the Greeks had one known as Hades.
sheol - underworld (place to which people descend at death)
(NAS Exhaustive Concordance)

Job 26:6: "The Grave is naked in front of God, And the place of destruction lies uncovered." (NWT)

Alright. I do not doubt that the Hebrews probably thought that. Your point? Our understanding of scriptures are bound to change when we get new information. The Hebrews at that time had no way of knowing about all the specifics and what was meant scientifically, only what was revealed in the words. God did not hand them a modern science textbook, they had to fill in the blanks.

Hold it right there. What? Thank you for the honesty at last, but you must now realize that your thread is now dead with this concession. You only have these choices:
Are you implying that I have been dishonest with you?

1) God doesn't exist. The Hebrews were documenting their beliefs which were similar to the cultures around them.
False

2) God exists but he didn't know what he had created when he relayed this misinformation to the Hebrews.
False

3) God exists and gave the Hebrews correct information but they couldn't make sense of it and fed in their own ideas.
Yes

You seem to be going for 3. There is only one problem. God is omniscient. He had to know what would happen. Surely an omnipotent God would be capable of giving an accurate account of reality in Genesis which could be understood. What is so hard about describing the Earth as a sphere which is surrounded by empty space? Surely it isn't hard to differentiate the Moon from the Sun as not being a light but more like a mirror? Why would God tell the Hebrews that there was a mass of water hanging up above the sky? Sorry, but disinformation cannot be hand-waved away as God wanting us to fill in the gaps. It's just wrong.
The fact that you are still arguing as if those are strong points is an indication to your lack of studying on the reverse. You can find plenty of resources in your library, bookstore, or through a simple Google search to respond to every single point you just raised. Heck, even the creation model I put in the OP already addresses those points. If you are only willing to research one side of the debate, then I can do nothing to convince you of the weakness of your points.

I will try anyways.
"Surely an omnipotent God would be capable of giving an accurate account of reality in Genesis which could be understood. What is so hard about describing the Earth as a sphere which is surrounded by empty space?"
Like I said, God did not give them a modern science textbook. Man is supposed to figure things out. Remember when Jesus said:
"Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father." [NIV] (John 14:12)

Jesus knew that we would one day do greater things, so did God.

" Surely it isn't hard to differentiate the Moon from the Sun as not being a light but more like a mirror."
Right. Though the verse in Genesis (1:16) is dealing with a description from an observer. This has been made clear by many Biblical scholars. There is nothing wrong with stating that the moon is a lesser light to the sun, because that is what would be observed. As I have stated, we are supposed to fill in the details.

"Why would God tell the Hebrews that there was a mass of water hanging up above the sky?"
Did I not give you an accurate explanation from Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers?
"While this is a popular description of what we daily see"namely, masses of running water congregated upon earth"s surface, and above a cloudland, into which the waters rise and float"it is not contrary to, but in accordance with, science. The atmosphere is the receptacle of the waters evaporated from the earth and ocean, and by means of electrical action it keeps these aqueous particles in a state of repulsion, and forms clouds, which the winds carry in their bosom. So full of thoughtful contrivance and arrangement are the laws by which rain is formed and the earth watered, that they are constantly referred to in the Bible as the chief natural proof of God"s wisdom and goodness. (See Acts 14:17.) Moreover, were there not an open expanse next the earth, it would be wrapped in a perpetual mist, unvisited by sunshine. and the result would be such as is described in Genesis 2:5, that man could not exist on earth to till the ground. The use, however, of popular language and ideas is confessedly the method of Holy Scripture, and we must not force upon the writer knowledge which man was to gain for himself. Even if the writer supposed that the rains were poured down from an upper reservoir, it would be no more an argument against his being inspired than St. Mark"s expression, "The sun did set" (Mark 1:32), disproves the inspiration of the Gospels. For the attainment of all such knowledge God has provided another way.

Because that's what you asked for. Another culture with a similar cosmology. I had already linked you to Hebrew cosmology. Why would I need to do it again?
My apologies, I see why you linked that to me now. Though I still do not see how you are supporting your claim. There are very little similarities between the Bible and Babylonian creation. The key parts are really not in the Babylonian account.

So what? The point I made still stands. If anything my point is stronger since I have been talking about extremities. Are there any extremities on a sphere?
I will point out that I mentioned the "extremities" meaning north, south, east, and west. Consider this in light of Luke 13:29 and Isaiah 11:10-12:
"People will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God." (NIV)

(Continued in other post)
"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
9/10/2015 9:10:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2015 1:51:10 PM, dee-em wrote:

"In that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his resting place will be glorious. In that day the Lord will reach out his hand a second time to reclaim the surviving remnant of his people from Assyria, from Lower Egypt, from Upper Egypt, from Cush, from Elam, from Babylonia, from Hamath and from the islands of the Mediterranean.

He will raise a banner for the nations
and gather the exiles of Israel;
he will assemble the scattered people of Judah
from the four quarters of the earth." (NIV)

No, I am not arguing that. I am telling you that the NIV quote above exactly matches the Hebrew universe model which I linked you to. A flat circle of Earth surrounded by the pillars of heaven (mountains) which support the firmament/dome of the sky which holds back the waters above. The metaphor of a tent only makes sense on level (flat) ground. Have you ever tried to pitch a tent on a sphere? Lol.
You raise a good argument, don't get me wrong. I can only refute it with what I have already said, so if that does not convince you then I cannot change your mind. It is one of those interpretation differences that are all too common in Christianity.
"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
9/10/2015 9:10:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2015 12:58:31 PM, dhardage wrote:

Did I mention childish?

Yes, you did, or do you not read what you write?
It was a rhetorical question. I was making the point that you acted childish in your response to me accusing you of acting childish.

Seems to me like you just copied what RuvDraba said. So if you are reading what he said, then you should naturally be reading what I said. Therefore, you know why I am not giving him what he wants. He wants me, someone who in the OP said that they were new to the model, to explain the model to him.

Exactly. He wants you to do your own investigation and demonstrate some understanding of the argument you are making before you support it. You have done neither which bespeaks a lack of intellectual honesty and maturity on your part.
I have yet to say I support it, so now you are making up things about my position. Please read my OP:
"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:"

I have never claimed once in this entire thread to support the model. I think that the model is interesting and raises good points. Maybe when I grasp a clearer understanding I can then accept or reject it. My only "arguments" have been in response to people's attacks on me, Ross, or the model. Those "arguments" were simply refutations with resources. Essentially, no one has properly challenged Ross or his model in this thread.

I am not going to do that. He has yet to present any argument to the model. I have even given him articles about the model to help him understand it, yet he refuses to read them.

He is not the one making the argument and supporting the model, you are. The burden of providing evidence, therefore, is yours, not his or anyone else's. If you don't know whereof you speak you should not speak at all.
Once again, you are putting words in my mouth. I have yet to admit supporting the model. In fact, I will once again point you to my OP:
"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:"
No one has any burden of proof. I am not supporting the model. People can give criticisms or arguments against the model, but if I can then I will address those criticisms or claims with links to resources provided by Hugh Ross.

You also seem to copy RuvDraba's own argument, attack Hugh Ross with no evidence to support it.

If you want to complain about someone else not reading and looking things up then you really have no room to complain. A simple Google search of Hugh Ross will easily reveal all the different reasons he is considered a poor advocate for his views by both secular and religious authorities.
Provide a resource. Unlike RuvDraba, I will actually read what you send me. A quick Google search of Hugh Ross brings up:
"Reasons To Believe : About : Who We Are : Hugh Ross"
"Reasons To Believe : Where Modern Science & Faith ..."
"Hugh Ross (creationist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"
"Hugh Ross - Christian Answers Network"
"The dubious apologetics of Hugh Ross - creation.com"
"My Story: Dr. Hugh Ross - Cru"
"Hugh Ross, ICR, and the Bible | The Institute for Creation ..."
"Hugh Ross, ICR, and Facts of Science | The Institute for ..."
"The ministry of Dr. Hugh Ross exposed"
"Must Faithful Christians Believe in a Young Earth? A CP ..."
So unless you now trust ICR, creation.com, and bible.ca for information, then I fail to see what you are talking about.

Unless you have some kind of real contribution to make, then I see no reason to continue posting on this thread.

Agreed. You can stop any time you want.
I feel like, as creator of this thread, I should know what is relevant and what is not. Baseless and childish attacks on me, Harikrish, Ross, and Ross' model are not relevant.
"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
9/10/2015 9:10:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2015 2:51:34 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

Okay. I'd say that RTB is seeking to provide an integrated cosmogenic and biogenic account, which is pretty much what you said.
Both are included in their model, yes.

But if that's so, then to be a model, this account should behave exactly as nature does, and each element of the account should exhibit the qualities previously discussed. In particular, cosmogeny and biogeny should be its whole subject, it should be coherent and transparent, with no extraneous detail. So let me pull out some of the steps listed in the account and make some comments. [http://www.reasons.org...]
I would find it more appropriate to put these points into context, they are the chronology of Genesis 1:2.

1. Creation, by fiat miracle, of the entire physical universe (space-time dimensions, matter, energy, galaxies, stars, planets, etc.)
(Contradicted by a naturalistic, and more predictive account which explains specifics such as Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, galactic structures and specific proportions of elements in the universe. How is this transparent, rigorous, specific or relevant? If it's not, why mention it at all?)
Transparent
The foundation of this, since it is a chronology of Genesis 1:2, is founded in the Bible. We also know that there is a detectable creation point for space-time dimensions, matter, energy, galaxies, stars, planets, etc. Therefore, none of the items you listed contradict what Hugh Ross has stated.

2. planet Earth singled out for a sequence of creation miracles.
(Singled out using what criteria, confirmed how? Not rigorous, comprehensive, or specific. And how is it relevant to the life produced?)
I will remind you that you are examining a chronology of Genesis 1:2. So the Bible clearly and specifically mentions this. If you continue reading that point:
"At its beginning, Earth is empty of life and unfit for life; interplanetary debris and Earth's primordial atmosphere prevent the light of the sun, moon, and stars from reaching the planet's surface"

3. clearing of the interplanetary debris and partial transformation of the earth's atmosphere so that light from the heavenly bodies now penetrates to the surface of Earth's ocean
(Let's agree that the earth's early history may have been dark and cloudy. Yet we know that certain life-forms do not require light to survive. So how is this relevant?)
How is what you stated relevant? I don't think you disagree with the point.

4. formation of water vapor in the troposphere under conditions that establish a stable water cycle
(We know water can occur from atmospheric hydrogen reacting with oxygen released from hot rock. It doesn't require sunlight to form -- heat is enough. There's no reason to suppose that water only appeared after light hit the planet. How does the sequence of this step behave as nature does? How is the assumption of this special creation event rigorous or parsimonious?)
Once again, this does not refute was is being said. Simply because water can be formed outside of sunlight has no baring on water being formed in sunlight.

5. formation of continental land masses and ocean basins
(Unclear why this should depend on the presence of light or water. We know geologically that land-masses move regardless of water, so surely this was occurring simultaneously. How does this act as nature does?)
Once again, your point does not refute what is being said. The Bible did not say that sunlight and water needed to be present. This is simply the chronology of Genesis 1:2.

6. production of plants on the continental land masses
(Ignores the overwhelming evidence for common ancestry of species, and therefore the likelihood that life emerged from simple cells. Lacks empiricism, rigour and transparency.)
Ignores? No. Instead you have ignored the information provided by RTB.

7. transformation of the atmosphere from translucent to occasionally transparent. Sun, Moon, planets, and stars now can be seen from the vantage point of Earth's surface
(What has this to do with the origin of life? It's postulated simply to maintain parity with Genesis, which is not the subject of study. It's not relevant or parsimonious. Why plants and not simpler organisms? It's not transparent. Why the diversity between flowering and non-flowering plants, and their different places in the fossil record? It's not specific or constructive. And how are plants supposed to have survived in the dark? It's not coherent.)
How is Genesis not the subject of study? This is about Genesis 1:2 chronology. Go back to point three:
"light from the heavenly bodies now penetrates to the surface of Earth's ocean"

8. production of swarms of small sea animals.
(Ignores overwhelming data supporting common ancestry, not to mention the fossil record. Somehow skips whatever sea animals were supposed to have eaten. Not rigorous or coherent.)
Ignores? No. Instead you have ignored the information provided by RTB.

9. creation of sea mammals and birds
(Common ancestry, evidence for species evolution and extinction. Not rigorous. Incoherent.)
Ignores? No. Instead you have ignored the information provided by RTB.

10. creation of three specialized kinds of land mammals: a) short-legged land mammals, b) long-legged land mammals that are easy to tame, and c) long-legged land mammals that are difficult to tame"all three specifically designed to cohabit with humans
(Common ancestry, evolving species, mass extinctions all prior to the first humans. Nor rigorous, not parsimonious, incoherent. Completely ignores superior biological taxa. Not relevant or rigorous)
Ignores? No. Instead you have ignored the information provided by RTB.

11. creation of the human species
(Common ancestry, older hominins, prior tool-using hominins. Not rigorous, transparent, parsimonious or coherent.)
It helps to read the articles given by RTB to find information rather than reading one sentence and bleating about the lack of information.

I've listed a lot of comments here, Ty. But I think they point to several issues:
You did list a lot of irrelevant information, yes.

1) The subject of RTB isn't actually cosmogenesis or biogenesis; it's the ancient Israelite myth of Genesis
I can see why you would think that after you only read a chronology list of Genesis 1:2. You know, opposed to reading actual articles about the data.

2) There's no explanation of what accepted scientific methodology was used to produce these steps. In fact the methodology used appears to be just adapting and matching Genesis, which is not scientific or rigorous (or even a good methodology for understanding history.)
Either I gave this to you already of I gave it to someone else on here:
"This situation stems from Christians' failure to apply the scientific method to their interpretation of Genesis. A great irony, here, is that the scientific method comes from the Bible and from biblical theology. The core of this method is an appeal to the interpreter to delay drawing conclusions until both the frame of reference and the initial conditions have been established. If we approach Genesis in this way, we discover that we can, indeed, discern there a scientifically plausible, objectively defensible account of creation."

(Continued in next post)
"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
9/10/2015 9:10:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2015 2:51:34 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

3) There's little evidence of relevance or accountability to a huge amount of naturalistic data, which have been overlooked -- including biological and paleological data.
Helps to read their articles about the data rather than one line summaries they have provided.

4) Over-all lack of transparency: specifics, rigour and testability.
Once again, read their articles about the data and specifics. Reading one line summaries is not helping you.

5) Vast obscurity as to why things were done as it claims, when it claims, where it claims, and how it produced the species we see, including the diversity and extinctions.
I may sound like a broken record, but it helps to read their actual articles about the data and not a summary of Genesis 1:2 chronology. Apply this same response to your next two points.

As I said, this isn't a model. It's a story. I think the subject of the story is Genesis rather than nature; this account uses no accepted scientific methodology to produce its ideas; and it's largely unconstructive.
I can't say I trust your opinion too much when you have already mistaken a brief summary of Genesis 1:2 chronology as their entire model. Once you actually dig in deep and find real issues in it, let me know.

Would you like to contrast it with the way Newton produced a model of gravity, or the way Einstein's Special Relativity replaced his laws of motion?

The difference will be striking.
How would you know if it would be striking since you have not actually examined the model provided by RTB?
"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
9/10/2015 9:10:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2015 4:25:53 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

I didn't address this in the post above due to length, but lest my silence be taken for asent...

The idea of applying tabula rasa to thought is a principle of science, but it dates back to Aristotle in the fourth century BCE. By itself it's not sufficient to do science though. For natural philosophy to become science, it needs empiricism, an extension of tabula rasa frequently attributed to the 17th century philosopher John Locke, though popularised and developed in parts by others including Francis Bacon and Renes Descartes.

Between Aristotle and Locke are two millennia of unprovable conjectures, idealistic and inaccurate philosophies, proof by aesthetics and the occasional insightful observation or measurement that makes this period at best pseudoscientific or semiscientific, and at worst, utterly superstitious and confused.

So no. 'Tabula rasa' is not a methodology in itself, though it is part of every valid scientific methodology. And the Bible never taught anyone to do science.
Not sure what you are really trying to ramble about, but alright.
"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
9/10/2015 9:10:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2015 6:02:51 PM, Amoranemix wrote:
I removed quotes from you to make more room, but be aware that I did read them and responded to you in light of them.

[5] True. The Bible could have been inspired by a deity ignorant of meteorology.
Not sure where you are pulling that from, but I disagree.

[6] What way ?
RTB puts it nicely:
"God gives humans the privilege to fill in the details, carefully, through patient, ongoing exploration and increased understanding of the natural realm."

I often see theists deny making god of the gaps arguments, followed by making a god of the gaps argument. That makes me wonder what qualifies as a god of the gaps argument. When scientists discovered that there didn't seem to be enough matter in the universe to keep galaxies rotating so fast, they gave their ignorance a name : dark matter, because some invisible matter suggests itself as an explanation. So they said that dark matter does it and that could be called dark matter of the gaps argument. Likewise, when there is apparent design, theists call their ignorance God because a designer suggests itself as an explanation and they already believe in the designer called God.
How do these explanations compare ?
- A designer is more powerful as an explanation, as it can explain many things.
- A designer is more shallow as his behaviour would need to be explained.
- Dark matter is modest and simple. A designer is a very complicated explanation.
- A designer is less conservative than dark matter as the latter lies in line with the progress of knowledge about the fundamental nature of reality (i.e. new particles).
Just like dark matter, a creator is merely a hypothesis, not a theory. One would need independent evidence (like harmoniously fitting it in the existing theoretical framework). For a creator, such independent evidence is for some reason notoriously hard to find. All we have is different unrelated observations that suggest design.
I am not going to pretend to be well versed on the topic of dark matter, so excuse my ignorance. Though I would like to address one point:
"For a creator, such independent evidence is for some reason notoriously hard to find. All we have is different unrelated observations that suggest design."
This is simply because God exists outside of time and space. There is no way for us to detect something like that by using earthly research.

[7] Some Christians claim Genesis and evolution are compatible. See 'Is The Creation Account Literal?' : http://www.debate.org...
Not really. They say that the Bible and evolution can coexist, but they do not explain how to account for original sin and the atonement of man. As well, they do not know how to account for Jesus saying:
"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." [KJV] (Mark 10:6)

[8] In what verse ?
Genesis 1:1

[9] That seems to be a problem with the creation model. You have lot of behaviour to explain and I don't see how one could reasonably arrive at 'We ought to worship that creator.'
Can you clarify?

[10] If God existed, they could at least have given a summary with pictures.
A summary as in what you would find in the Bible?

[11] One doesn't need to much luck to guess correctly that the universe has a beginning. The Reasons To Believe followers also aren't taking much risk by declaring their model would be wrong if the universe turned out to be static.
They have openly admitted it anytime they are asked.

Previously there had been no reason to use any of the other definitions. Please feel free to self educate yourself on the Hebrew word "yom":
https://en.wikipedia.org...
You seem to be starting from the inerrancy of the Bible. Is that a faith or evidence based belief ?
My personal belief is that the Bible is inerrant. Though that has no baring on defining the Hebrew word "yom".

That is an article about the second main law of thermodynamics and it appears to have no relation to Romans 8.
I agree that it is about the second law of thermodynamics, that was the point. You can read what I have already said to DanneJeRusse to see my perspective of it in relation to Romans 8.

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.
Please read the quotation I gave him.
"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)
dhardage
Posts: 4,546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 9:52:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2015 9:10:06 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/10/2015 12:58:31 PM, dhardage wrote:

Did I mention childish?

Yes, you did, or do you not read what you write?
It was a rhetorical question. I was making the point that you acted childish in your response to me accusing you of acting childish.

Seems to me like you just copied what RuvDraba said. So if you are reading what he said, then you should naturally be reading what I said. Therefore, you know why I am not giving him what he wants. He wants me, someone who in the OP said that they were new to the model, to explain the model to him.

Exactly. He wants you to do your own investigation and demonstrate some understanding of the argument you are making before you support it. You have done neither which bespeaks a lack of intellectual honesty and maturity on your part.
I have yet to say I support it, so now you are making up things about my position. Please read my OP:
"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:"

I have never claimed once in this entire thread to support the model. I think that the model is interesting and raises good points. Maybe when I grasp a clearer understanding I can then accept or reject it. My only "arguments" have been in response to people's attacks on me, Ross, or the model. Those "arguments" were simply refutations with resources. Essentially, no one has properly challenged Ross or his model in this thread.

Really? Your entire tone has been to defend the so-called model and all of its proponents. You are defending and idea you admit you do not fully comprehend. That's not a sign of a mature, critical analysis of anything.

I am not going to do that. He has yet to present any argument to the model. I have even given him articles about the model to help him understand it, yet he refuses to read them.

He has explained the model's failure and all you do is keep pointing back to the same articles. If you don't understand the model, how do you assert that he has presented no arguments against it?

He is not the one making the argument and supporting the model, you are. The burden of providing evidence, therefore, is yours, not his or anyone else's. If you don't know whereof you speak you should not speak at all.

Once again, you are putting words in my mouth. I have yet to admit supporting the model. In fact, I will once again point you to my OP:

You can keep pointing out that disingenuous statement but simply looking over your posts shows that you believe it and are fighting for it. At least own your own attitude.

"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:"

No one has any burden of proof. I am not supporting the model. People can give criticisms or arguments against the model, but if I can then I will address those criticisms or claims with links to resources provided by Hugh Ross.

That's why Ruv has called you intellectually lazy. Instead of reading and learning so you can speak with some level of authority, you just point to links and resources from the challenged party that would only be self-serving, not anything independent or scholastically relevant.

You also seem to copy RuvDraba's own argument, attack Hugh Ross with no evidence to support it.

If you want to complain about someone else not reading and looking things up then you really have no room to complain. A simple Google search of Hugh Ross will easily reveal all the different reasons he is considered a poor advocate for his views by both secular and religious authorities.

Provide a resource. Unlike RuvDraba, I will actually read what you send me. A quick Google search of Hugh Ross brings up:

"Reasons To Believe : About : Who We Are : Hugh Ross"
"Reasons To Believe : Where Modern Science & Faith ..."
"Hugh Ross (creationist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"
"Hugh Ross - Christian Answers Network"
"The dubious apologetics of Hugh Ross - creation.com"
"My Story: Dr. Hugh Ross - Cru"
"Hugh Ross, ICR, and the Bible | The Institute for Creation ..."
"Hugh Ross, ICR, and Facts of Science | The Institute for ..."
"The ministry of Dr. Hugh Ross exposed"
"Must Faithful Christians Believe in a Young Earth? A CP ..."

So unless you now trust ICR, creation.com, and bible.ca for information, then I fail to see what you are talking about.

No, I'm just pointing out that he's been criticized from both sides, science and religion, for his post hoc attempts to conflate ancient myth with current knowledge. No primitive Judean had any clue about how the universe formed, that the world was a sphere held in place by gravity, that there was nothing solid above them, or any of that so to say that somehow that's what their writings said is totally bogus.

Unless you have some kind of real contribution to make, then I see no reason to continue posting on this thread.

Agreed. You can stop any time you want.
I feel like, as creator of this thread, I should know what is relevant and what is not. Baseless and childish attacks on me, Harikrish, Ross, and Ross' model are not relevant.

Then please tell Harikrish to stop being childish and starting fights. I respond in kind when attacked. As for Ross, my criticism are not baseless or childish. If you can't see that, well, that's your problem. As for posting, you're on a public forum for better or worse and people will say what they will as long as they do not violate terms of service.

Look, just take a good, hard look at what you're supporting (whether you want to admit it or not) and you'll see it's not scientific, it's not transparent, it's not predictive in any way. That means it's not science. You're smarter than that and I hope you use that young, agile mind instead of simply swallowing his hype whole.
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 10:30:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2015 9:52:58 PM, dhardage wrote:

I have never claimed once in this entire thread to support the model. I think that the model is interesting and raises good points. Maybe when I grasp a clearer understanding I can then accept or reject it. My only "arguments" have been in response to people's attacks on me, Ross, or the model. Those "arguments" were simply refutations with resources. Essentially, no one has properly challenged Ross or his model in this thread.

Really? Your entire tone has been to defend the so-called model and all of its proponents. You are defending and idea you admit you do not fully comprehend. That's not a sign of a mature, critical analysis of anything.
Yes, I have defended the model from baseless claims. I do not fully understand the model, sure, but I can defend it against baseless claims.

I am not going to do that. He has yet to present any argument to the model. I have even given him articles about the model to help him understand it, yet he refuses to read them.

He has explained the model's failure and all you do is keep pointing back to the same articles. If you don't understand the model, how do you assert that he has presented no arguments against it?
He has yet to point out a failure. He has made generalized and vague statements about the model with no specifics to them. I can do that about anything, but it is meaningless. Because he has only made vague disputes, I have provided him articles about those areas he is disputing. If he brings up a legitimate argument, then I can address him directly.

Once again, you are putting words in my mouth. I have yet to admit supporting the model. In fact, I will once again point you to my OP:

You can keep pointing out that disingenuous statement but simply looking over your posts shows that you believe it and are fighting for it. At least own your own attitude.
From what I have read, it is a good model. I am continuing my reading. I am not going to sit here and listen to baseless claims being made against me, Ross, or his model. I will dispute them as I have.

No one has any burden of proof. I am not supporting the model. People can give criticisms or arguments against the model, but if I can then I will address those criticisms or claims with links to resources provided by Hugh Ross.

That's why Ruv has called you intellectually lazy. Instead of reading and learning so you can speak with some level of authority, you just point to links and resources from the challenged party that would only be self-serving, not anything independent or scholastically relevant.
So pointing to a resource is not scholarly relevant? I am being lazy because he is as well. If he does not bring up any legitimate claims, then I have no reason to articulate a legitimate response. I will simply provide him with further reading, after all, he has yet to actually examine the model. If you read his last posts, he was so lost that he actually tried to say that their listing of Genesis 1:2 chronology was their whole model.

Provide a resource. Unlike RuvDraba, I will actually read what you send me. A quick Google search of Hugh Ross brings up:

"Reasons To Believe : About : Who We Are : Hugh Ross"
"Reasons To Believe : Where Modern Science & Faith ..."
"Hugh Ross (creationist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"
"Hugh Ross - Christian Answers Network"
"The dubious apologetics of Hugh Ross - creation.com"
"My Story: Dr. Hugh Ross - Cru"
"Hugh Ross, ICR, and the Bible | The Institute for Creation ..."
"Hugh Ross, ICR, and Facts of Science | The Institute for ..."
"The ministry of Dr. Hugh Ross exposed"
"Must Faithful Christians Believe in a Young Earth? A CP ..."

So unless you now trust ICR, creation.com, and bible.ca for information, then I fail to see what you are talking about.

No, I'm just pointing out that he's been criticized from both sides, science and religion, for his post hoc attempts to conflate ancient myth with current knowledge. No primitive Judean had any clue about how the universe formed, that the world was a sphere held in place by gravity, that there was nothing solid above them, or any of that so to say that somehow that's what their writings said is totally bogus.
He has been criticized about his conclusions, not his science. His theology has been criticized, but there are also many theologians that support his interpretations. Like I said, provide me resources.

I feel like, as creator of this thread, I should know what is relevant and what is not. Baseless and childish attacks on me, Harikrish, Ross, and Ross' model are not relevant.

Then please tell Harikrish to stop being childish and starting fights. I respond in kind when attacked. As for Ross, my criticism are not baseless or childish. If you can't see that, well, that's your problem. As for posting, you're on a public forum for better or worse and people will say what they will as long as they do not violate terms of service.
Tell me, what arguments have you made against Ross that actually have any backing? You have made claims about him, but you have failed to present any proof of those claims. Until then, I see no reason to take those claims seriously.

It is sad that you base your own character off of what another person does.

Look, just take a good, hard look at what you're supporting (whether you want to admit it or not) and you'll see it's not scientific, it's not transparent, it's not predictive in any way. That means it's not science. You're smarter than that and I hope you use that young, agile mind instead of simply swallowing his hype whole.
I will challenge you to the same thing I have challenged others to:
Provide proof for your claims. Give legitimate reasons. I do not want vague and baseless claims like: "Look, just take a good, hard look at what you're supporting (whether you want to admit it or not) and you'll see it's not scientific, it's not transparent, it's not predictive in any way."
"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
9/10/2015 10:35:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2015 9:10:08 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/10/2015 2:51:34 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
(Ignores the overwhelming evidence for common ancestry of species, and therefore the likelihood that life emerged from simple cells. Lacks empiricism, rigour and transparency.)
Ignores? No. Instead you have ignored the information provided by RTB.

You are welcome to explain it to me. But since you seem not to understand the overwhelming evidence for common ancestry well enough to talk about it, I think you'll have difficulty -- which is also why you're over-representing the power of RTB's arguments.

Put it this way, Ty: if RTB had a better explanation for biological data than evolution, the authors can put it into a paper, submit it to a peer-reviewed biological journal ,and make stellar careers comparable to that of Charles Darwin. Until they do that and it's submitted to the review of the world's best biologists, I'm not obliged to read their conjectures because they haven't been vetted as credible science. And I read enough science to know that biologists are unaware of a better explanation for the data than evolution, which is why a web-publication by a fringe loonie doesn't concern me.

On the other hand, if you want me to take the time to read his stuff and talk it through with you, you are welcome to persuade me to do so by explaining what the evidence for common ancestry is, and how you feel this paper does a better job of making sense of it than evolution does. I would welcome that discussion from you since it would certainly grow you, and might grow me too.

Or if you're wondering why I'm so adamant about the deficiencies in their unread arguments, you could ask me about the overwhelming evidence for common ancestry, and satisfy yourself whether they are addressing it. But you haven't done that, and I now believe you won't.

Meanwhile, there are multiple problems with their account:
* It's not a model;
* Its subject is not cosmogensis nor biogenesis, but Ross' own interpretation of Genesis;
* his interpretation is not supported by historical references anyway;
* It's incoherent;
* It's unevidenced;
* it's obscure; and
* it's unconstructive.

Any single one of these problems would be serious enough to prevent publication in any serious cosmological or biological journal. That all these problems are present in the publication of a trained scientist represents not negligence or work in progress, but cynical deceit targeted at exactly the sort of person you are, Ty: a religiously-biased, theologically-steeped scientific illiterate too zealous about the authority of his own conjectures to understand the empirical weakness in his own untutored reasoning.

The bogus argument of theology: to argue to the point where you may believe, and then shift any residual burden of evidence to disproof; is intellectually weak. If that's the only kind of argument you have ever seen, you will have a completely mistaken idea of the rigour and standard of evidence expected in science.

Telling me this is science doesn't make it so, Ty. You need to read enough science to understand the rigour required before your opinion has any weight. But the scientific bar is much higher. I've tried to explain how, but you simply don't have the experience yet to understand what the words mean.

To help with that, I have offered to show you by comparison how Newton's model of gravity represents a much more robust standard, but you haven't accepted that offer.

I now believe you're satisfied with your own ignorance, and are selling and obstructing rather than discussing.

I'm satisfied therefore that your ignorance is deserved; that you are deliberately creating the weak and ignorant thought you most want to inhabit; and shall not offer you further information unless and until you ask for it.
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 10:57:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2015 10:35:25 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

You are welcome to explain it to me. But since you seem not to understand the overwhelming evidence for common ancestry well enough to talk about it, I think you'll have difficulty -- which is also why you're over-representing the power of RTB's arguments.
I do not know why you think a seventeen year old high school student can give you any reasonable arguments on studies outside of their knowledge. You can either read the articles or continue in your way of ignorance.

Put it this way, Ty: if RTB had a better explanation for biological data than evolution, the authors can put it into a paper, submit it to a peer-reviewed biological journal ,and make stellar careers comparable to that of Charles Darwin. Until they do that and it's submitted to the review of the world's best biologists, I'm not obliged to read their conjectures because they haven't been vetted as credible science. And I read enough science to know that biologists are unaware of a better explanation for the data than evolution, which is why a web-publication by a fringe loonie doesn't concern me.
I guess you conveniently ignored the peer-reviewed journal I sent to you that featured one of their papers. I guess you conveniently ignored the 300+ universities they have given lectures, presentations, and debates at. I guess you conveniently ignored all the guest authors they have on their website. I guess you conveniently ignored all their articles, videos, and podcasts addressing every single claim you have made. I guess you conveniently ignored my request for you to debunk Hugh Ross.

RuvDraba, this conversation is coming to a close.

On the other hand, if you want me to take the time to read his stuff and talk it through with you, you are welcome to persuade me to do so by explaining what the evidence for common ancestry is, and how you feel this paper does a better job of making sense of it than evolution does. I would welcome that discussion from you since it would certainly grow you, and might grow me too.
This is the first time you have requested for the evidence for common ancestry. You have been requesting me to present you what RTB says about it. The evidence for common ancestry falls into archaeological and DNA studies. You obviously know it all, so how do you benefit from me telling you?

Or if you're wondering why I'm so adamant about the deficiencies in their unread arguments, you could ask me about the overwhelming evidence for common ancestry, and satisfy yourself whether they are addressing it. But you haven't done that, and I now believe you won't.
Since I am taking a college level biology class in high school, I will soon find out if they properly interpret the findings for common ancestry. Though from what I know about common ancestry and from what I have read, they have properly done so already.

Meanwhile, there are multiple problems with their account:
* It's not a model;
You have yet to read their model, so I fail to see how you can come to that conclusion.

* Its subject is not cosmogensis nor biogenesis, but Ross' own interpretation of Genesis;
You have yet to read any of their articles about the data, so I fail to see how you can come to that conclusion.

* his interpretation is not supported by historical references anyway;
This is the first time you have brought up historical references, but other users have already. So don't waste your time.

* It's incoherent;
You have yet to show how.

* It's unevidenced;
You have yet to show how.

* it's obscure; and
You have yet to show how.

* it's unconstructive.
You have yet to show how.

Any single one of these problems would be serious enough to prevent publication in any serious cosmological or biological journal. That all these problems are present in the publication of a trained scientist represents not negligence or work in progress, but cynical deceit targeted at exactly the sort of person you are, Ty: a religiously-biased, theologically-steeped scientific illiterate too zealous about the authority of his own conjectures to understand the empirical weakness in his own untutored reasoning.
Yet one of their papers has been in a peer reviewed journal. Not that you would have actually read the post that I showed it in, you barely read anything at all from what I gather. You have made all these claims before, but you have yet to prove them, just like before.

The bogus argument of theology: to argue to the point where you may believe, and then shift any residual burden of evidence to disproof; is intellectually weak. If that's the only kind of argument you have ever seen, you will have a completely mistaken idea of the rigour and standard of evidence expected in science.
I am not asking you to disprove their model, you have been trying to this whole time though. I simply asked for opinions, comments, and criticisms. I was not expecting you to attack Ross and his model with no basis.

Telling me this is science doesn't make it so, Ty. You need to read enough science to understand the rigour required before your opinion has any weight. But the scientific bar is much higher. I've tried to explain how, but you simply don't have the experience yet to understand what the words mean.
If you feel satisfied with that argument, then good on you. Just don't expect it to convince me or anyone else. You can easily demolish this model by pointing out one piece of false information in it, but you have not.

To help with that, I have offered to show you by comparison how Newton's model of gravity represents a much more robust standard, but you haven't accepted that offer.
Just as you do not care what I have to say, I do not care for what you have to say. I have lost a fair amount of respect for you, RuvDraba.

I now believe you're satisfied with your own ignorance, and are selling and obstructing rather than discussing.
Funny, I was going to say the same thing about you.

I'm satisfied therefore that your ignorance is deserved; that you are deliberately creating the weak and ignorant thought you most want to inhabit; and shall not offer you further information unless and until you ask for it.
I think that you are upset that you cannot discredit Ross or his model. Your words have no impression on me unless they actually have proof, which they do not. In fact, you discredited yourself when you interpreted their listing of Genesis 1:2 chronology as their model.

I see no reason to continue with this conversation. You have made baseless claims for two days now, I don't expect that 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
9/10/2015 11:15:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2015 10:57:21 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/10/2015 10:35:25 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
You are welcome to explain it to me. But since you seem not to understand the overwhelming evidence for common ancestry well enough to talk about it, I think you'll have difficulty -- which is also why you're over-representing the power of RTB's arguments.
I do not know why you think a seventeen year old high school student can give you any reasonable arguments on studies outside of their knowledge.
It's not important that you get it right, Ty, but it's vital for your own development that you read outside what you've been spoon-fed, go to the primary sources for ideas, and try.

I take great satisfaction from you thinking critically, and take no pleasure from you not knowing something or getting something wrong. However I despair when you tell me from ignorance how a scientific model works, or how the peer-review process works, or how a paper in a peer-reviewed journal which is not about their purported model, has anything to do with the validation of the model.

I guess you conveniently ignored the peer-reviewed journal I sent to you that featured one of their papers.
Did that paper include their supposed 'model'? By its title, it seemed not to. It looked like an opinion piece. So how does submitting a paper on one matter, validate another?

I guess you conveniently ignored the 300+ universities they have given lectures, presentations, and debates at.
Not at all. Universities love inviting credentialed nut-jobs to debate. And seminaries and theological faculties often have little regard for science anyway, and love nothing more than a scientist telling them how great theology is.

I guess you conveniently ignored all the guest authors they have on their website.
Er, nope. I'm wondering what significance you give that though, since there are plenty of evangelical authors around.

I guess you conveniently ignored all their articles, videos, and podcasts addressing every single claim you have made.
Not at all. I'll be happy to read and watch every single one that you summarise, explain and defend for me, even if it takes months to get through them.

I guess you conveniently ignored my request for you to debunk Hugh Ross.
Au contraire. In fact I agreed to do so, once you explained the evidence for common ancestry, and how Ross addresses all of it constructively, while making significant, specific and falsifiable predictions.

You failed to step up. So why should I spend the effort when you don't?

RuvDraba, this conversation is coming to a close.
Sadly, this and many others, Ty.

Conversation, like education, is wasted on a lazy mind.
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 11:25:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2015 11:15:01 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

I do not know why you think a seventeen year old high school student can give you any reasonable arguments on studies outside of their knowledge.
It's not important that you get it right, Ty, but it's vital for your own development that you read outside what you've been spoon-fed, go to the primary sources for ideas, and try.
I do read from Wikipedia regularly. Unless you have a better source.

I take great satisfaction from you thinking critically, and take no pleasure from you not knowing something or getting something wrong. However I despair when you tell me from ignorance how a scientific model works, or how the peer-review process works, or how a paper in a peer-reviewed journal which is not about their purported model, has anything to do with the validation of the model.
I gave you dictionary definitions, so how is that out of ignorance? I know how the peer-review process works and so does RTB. The paper reviewed was:
"Origins of Life. Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off"
How is this not about their model?

I guess you conveniently ignored the peer-reviewed journal I sent to you that featured one of their papers.
Did that paper include their supposed 'model'? By its title, it seemed not to. It looked like an opinion piece. So how does submitting a paper on one matter, validate another?
The name of the paper was:
"Origins of Life. Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off"
If that has nothing to do with their model, then I do not know what does.

I guess you conveniently ignored the 300+ universities they have given lectures, presentations, and debates at.
Not at all. Universities love inviting credentialed nut-jobs to debate. And seminaries and theological faculties often have little regard for science anyway, and love nothing more than a scientist telling them how great theology is.
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:

Both are at secular universities and the second one actually features Victor Stenger.

I guess you conveniently ignored all the guest authors they have on their website.
Er, nope. I'm wondering what significance you give that though, since there are plenty of evangelical authors around.
Most of them have valid credentials to talk about the topics they discuss. What more do you want?

I guess you conveniently ignored all their articles, videos, and podcasts addressing every single claim you have made.
Not at all. I'll be happy to read and watch every single one that you summarise, explain and defend for me, even if it takes months to get through them.
Okay, what type of article would you personally be most interested in?

I guess you conveniently ignored my request for you to debunk Hugh Ross.
Au contraire. In fact I agreed to do so, once you explained the evidence for common ancestry, and how Ross addresses all of it constructively, while making significant, specific and falsifiable predictions.

You failed to step up. So why should I spend the effort when you don't?
That is the exact same thing I said to dhardage. You have been lazy this whole time, RuvDraba. So why should I take the time to address your baseless claims?

RuvDraba, this conversation is coming to a close.
Sadly, this and many others, Ty.
Many others?
"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)
deetoodee
Posts: 50
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 11:27:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2015 11:15:01 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/10/2015 10:57:21 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/10/2015 10:35:25 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
You are welcome to explain it to me. But since you seem not to understand the overwhelming evidence for common ancestry well enough to talk about it, I think you'll have difficulty -- which is also why you're over-representing the power of RTB's arguments.
I do not know why you think a seventeen year old high school student can give you any reasonable arguments on studies outside of their knowledge.
It's not important that you get it right, Ty, but it's vital for your own development that you read outside what you've been spoon-fed, go to the primary sources for ideas, and try.

I take great satisfaction from you thinking critically, and take no pleasure from you not knowing something or getting something wrong. However I despair when you tell me from ignorance how a scientific model works, or how the peer-review process works, or how a paper in a peer-reviewed journal which is not about their purported model, has anything to do with the validation of the model.

I guess you conveniently ignored the peer-reviewed journal I sent to you that featured one of their papers.
Did that paper include their supposed 'model'? By its title, it seemed not to. It looked like an opinion piece. So how does submitting a paper on one matter, validate another?

I guess you conveniently ignored the 300+ universities they have given lectures, presentations, and debates at.
Not at all. Universities love inviting credentialed nut-jobs to debate. And seminaries and theological faculties often have little regard for science anyway, and love nothing more than a scientist telling them how great theology is.

I guess you conveniently ignored all the guest authors they have on their website.
Er, nope. I'm wondering what significance you give that though, since there are plenty of evangelical authors around.

I guess you conveniently ignored all their articles, videos, and podcasts addressing every single claim you have made.
Not at all. I'll be happy to read and watch every single one that you summarise, explain and defend for me, even if it takes months to get through them.

I guess you conveniently ignored my request for you to debunk Hugh Ross.
Au contraire. In fact I agreed to do so, once you explained the evidence for common ancestry, and how Ross addresses all of it constructively, while making significant, specific and falsifiable predictions.

You failed to step up. So why should I spend the effort when you don't?

RuvDraba, this conversation is coming to a close.
Sadly, this and many others, Ty.

Conversation, like education, is wasted on a lazy mind. : :

Welcome to the confusing world. There's only ONE who can straighten out man's confused thoughts but you have to listen to His voice;

Deuteronomy 28
15: "But if you will not obey the voice of the Lord your God or be careful to do all his commandments which I command you this day, then all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you.
16: Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the field.
17: Cursed shall be your basket and your kneading-trough.
18: cursed shall be the fruit of your body, and the fruit of your ground, the increase of your cattle, and the young of your flock.
19: Cursed shall you be when you come in, and cursed shall you be when you go out.
20: "the Lord will send upon you curses, confusion, and frustration, in all that you undertake to do, until you are destroyed and perish quickly, on account of the evil of your doings, because you have forsaken me.

Our Creator knows how He created everything but His people aren't willing to listen to His voice. The Jews didn't listen to His voice and neither have the Christians except for those who were chosen to listen but most of the chosen are not religious people.

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