Here is a very interesting interview of
Dr. Hugh Ross. He discusses how the
Reason to Believe group finds its
scientific models. I like
Dr Ross a great deal because of his attitude towards the Bible and the fact that he is tolerant of other people, especially other Christians, who disagree with him. I like how he is willing to see that the Bible does contain science but we can't assume that there is more than there really is in the Bible than God ever intended us to think.
Faithful Thinkers: Audio: Major Creation/Evolution Models
Well, he goes off the rails at 1:30 minutes in, when he claims the Theory of Evolution is trying to explain "the entire record of nature". It is not, it only explains the change over time in traits found in populations of animals.
ReplyDeleteAlso, it should be noted that as far as I know, Hugh Ross has never backed away from his absurd claim that "If the earth were 0.5% closer to the sun it would broil and if it was 0.5% farther from the sun it would freeze." [paraphrase]. The only reason I can think of for someone with a "PhD" to make such a clearly demonstratably false claim is to mislead. But that's par for the course with creationist, regardless of their "camp".
Of course evolution isn't trying to "explain the entire record of nature" because it explains nothing about how it all got started.
ReplyDeleteAnd where did you read that "If the earth were 0.5% closer to the sun it would broil and if it was 0.5% farther from the sun it would freeze." [paraphrase]? Its like +/- .3 AU. It's called the Habitable Zone - the range at which a planet can orbit around a star about the size our sun and still maintain liquid water.
So I don't know where you are getting your information from but I think either you are rejecting the Habitable Zone principle (therefore provide documentation for why you are rejecting it) or you are talking about something else. Also provide the name of a Physicist or Astronomer that agrees with you.
Of course evolution isn't trying to "explain the entire record of nature"
ReplyDeleteAnd yet that's what Hugh Ross claims, at 1:30 minutes into the video you reposted...
And where did you read...
Right, we agree (apparently) about the Habitable Zone, but that means you apparently disagree with Hugh Ross. His comment is in an interview with John Ankerberg (and he also mentions it in one of his books, I think). You can look it up on the googles. His claim is that the Habitable Zone is limited to an area between 0.995 and 1.005 AUs (for our particular star). Given his education and credentials, I would imagine his only motive for making such a demonstrably false claim is to emotionally impress the scientifically illiterate, which fits the creationist/apologist MO. To my knowledge he's not backed away from this claim.
I have to wonder if you vet what you post...
Right, we agree (apparently) about the Habitable Zone, but that means you apparently disagree with Hugh Ross. His comment is in an interview with John Ankerberg (and he also mentions it in one of his books, I think). You can look it up on the googles. His claim is that the Habitable Zone is limited to an area between 0.995 and 1.005 AUs (for our particular star). Given his education and credentials, I would imagine his only motive for making such a demonstrably false claim is to emotionally impress the scientifically illiterate, which fits the creationist/apologist MO. To my knowledge he's not backed away from this claim.
ReplyDeleteI have to wonder if you vet what you post...
If you bothered to use google, you would realize that there is not a consensus on the exact difference in the earth's orbit it takes for the earth to freeze or fry. What everyone does agree on is that difference is small. According to the numbers I've seen in various sources, 0.5% is generous and conservative. I also think that Dr Ross was merely pointing out a limitation to the evolutionary theory and if you bothered to listen to the end of the audio you would know that he believe that people who favor the evolutionary models do get somethings correct. He is way more tolerant and honest and humble than you.
There it is. I knew you'd change your tune. Can't be agreeing with Ryan!!!
ReplyDeleteIt's currently thought that our star's Habitable Zone could range from +/-0.7 to +/-3 AUs, depending on the model. That's quite a bit different from +/-0.005 AUs, especially accounting for an elliptical orbit.
Who said I fully disagreed with you? I don't think your read what I wrote. I disagree with your assessment of Dr Hugh Ross. And Like I said he's well within the range of what others see as the size of the habital zone. Do you even know what he said and when? You said it was was 0.5% now you are saying 0.005 AU. Which is it?
ReplyDeleteAnd Like I said he's well within the range of what others see as the size of the habital zone.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I wasn't aware that .005 was within .7 and 3. Thanks for the information.
You said it was was 0.5% now you are saying 0.005 AU. Which is it?
.5% = 0.005 AU
And Like I said he's well within the range of what others see as the size of the habital zone.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I wasn't aware that .005 was within .7 and 3. Thanks for the information.
What you are not aware of is the fact that not everyone agrees on how big the Habitable Zone is! The numbers you gave are common, but there are others that agree with Hugh Ross. It's debated. You have yet to provide a single scientist who will go as far as to say what you said about Hugh Ross.
You said it was was 0.5% now you are saying 0.005 AU. Which is it?
.5% = 0.005 AU
Agreed, but this is the first time you have said .5% of what. This is why people who are talking about science recognize that they put their units. I admit I made the mistake of not assuming you mean of the total distance from the earth to the sun. Thanks for being clearer.
The main point is that you can't throw Ross under the bus because it's debatable how small the habitable Zone is. I agree the numbers you gave are viable, but there are references that agree with Ross.
Agreed, but this is the first time you have said .5% of what.
ReplyDeleteSee my very first comment for the actual first time I said .5% of what. What is funny is that you even confirm in the second comment that we are talking about a percentage of distance from earth to sun. This is why I consider it a simple observation of fact and not an ad hominem to call you an idiot. Wow, simply wow.
What you are not aware of is the fact that not everyone agrees on how big the Habitable Zone is!"
Remember when I said "It's currently thought that our star's Habitable Zone could range from +/-0.7 to +/-3 AUs, depending on the model"? So, yes I am aware of that.
As for folks agreeing with him, sure, there are also folks that agree the earth is the center of the solar system too. Give that you and I have no way to independently determine how big the Habitable Zone is, a consensus of astronomers is a valid way (for us) to determine what it is. If someone (Hugh Ross) is wildly outside that consensus and does not offer compelling evidence for why he is, then he can be dismissed.
ReplyDeleteSee my very first comment for the actual first time I said .5% of what. What is funny is that you even confirm in the second comment that we are talking about a percentage of distance from earth to sun. This is why I consider it a simple observation of fact and not an ad hominem to call you an idiot. Wow, simply wow.
U did not say .5% of an AU. I did not understand you to be saying that. Calling me an "idiot" is not an ad hominem attack it's just poor taste and rude. That is an obvious fact.
If someone (Hugh Ross) is wildly outside that consensus and does not offer compelling evidence for why he is, then he can be dismissed.
Have you ever read one of Hugh Ross's books?
U did not say .5% of an AU.
ReplyDeleteRight, so, an AU is the mean distance from the earth to the sun. I quoted Ross saying "If the earth were 0.5% closer to the sun...". Since you are an idiot, I guess (???) I can see why that confused you...
Have you ever read one of Hugh Ross's books?
I have read "The Genesis Question" back in the day and more recently, his "More than a Theory".
Right, so, an AU is the mean distance from the earth to the sun. I quoted Ross saying "If the earth were 0.5% closer to the sun...". Since you are an idiot, I guess (???) I can see why that confused you...
ReplyDeleteWell because of your rudeness and inability to communicate effectively I wasn't sure you knew what you were talking about. So in comparing numbers it helps to be clear about units. Remember that for next time.
I have read "The Genesis Question" back in the day and more recently, his "More than a Theory".
So if you don't know exactly what Hugh Ross said and why, you should read more before you decide to dismiss him. That is what honest people do.
Two books is plenty, especially considering you couldn't be bothered to read any of Hawking's books. Hypocrite...
ReplyDeleteTwo books is plenty, especially considering you couldn't be bothered to read any of Hawking's books. Hypocrite...
ReplyDeleteIt's not enough if you don't know what Hugh Ross thinks about the habitable zone and you confessed you didn't know the exact numbers he used or why he uses them. Given his resources he can measure such things and you confessed you could not. I'd think he carries more weight in this error than you ever could in this and in many other areas. Who's the hypocrite? You.
I don't remember ever saying that I didn't have to read Hawkings' books nor that I never would. That makes you a liar.
Sounds like you need to repent. But not to me. You need to repent to the one who made you and confess Him as Savior and Lord. And given your level of comprehension of what I write, I want to be clear. You need Jesus like all of us.
I know the exact numbers, it was the quote I was paraphrasing. He says "half of one percent"
ReplyDeleteAgain that's not what you wrote. You said you were paraphrasing. That means you were saying you weren't exactly sure.
ReplyDeleteNot sure of the phrasing, dingbat. I was positive about the number. I've since looked it up in my copy of "More than a Theory"(which needs to find it's way to the used book store...) You could also look the interview up on youtube.
ReplyDeleteHe says "If the Earth were one half of one percent closer to the sun, water on Earth would boil off. If the Earth were one half of one percent farther from the sun, all the water would freeze."
Happy?
No, I'm not satisfied. Does the line explain how he arrived at that? Given your inability to read well, I think you should go back and read one word at a time to make sure you understood it.
ReplyDeleteHe never explains it, that's the best part!!!
ReplyDeleteThen maybe you need to do more research or send um e-mail. Instead of just sitting back and make assumptions because he knows things you don't know given that he is a professional astronomer and you are not.
ReplyDeleteActually, if you make an assertion that's wildly outside the range of what is currently thought to be the case, you have an obligation to substantiate that assertion.
ReplyDeleteHe's actually a good example of why, as a layman, one should look for consensus among scientist rather than looking at one scientist. There are bad ones in every profession. But you of course will only look at the scientist that support the positions you want to believe.