Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Reasons to Believe's Theory of Creation (Dr. Hugh Ross & Dr. Fazale Rana books)
Arithus
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 10 (348947)
09-13-2006 10:23 PM


I had recently came across this page while surfing and it says:
"At Reasons To Believe, our team of scientists has developed a theory for creation that embraces the latest scientific advances. It is fully testable, falsifiable, and successfully predicts the current discoveries in origin of life research."
Dr. Ross and Dr. Rana present their testable model for creation in The Creator and the Cosmos and their two new books, Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off and Who Was Adam? A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man. For the first time in over 80 years, this model catapults the evolution/creation controversy to an all new level-from science vs. religion to science vs. science.
The late Dr. Richard Smalley, Nobel Prize winning chemist, had this to say about Origins of Life and Who Was Adam: "Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading Origins of Life, with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution could not have occurred. The new book, Who Was Adam, is the silver bullet that puts the evolutionary model to death.
" Page
This was in dec 2005, and I was wondering if any of you read this book or know of any scientists that have addressed it. I basicaly want to know if these claims are true?
Edited by AdminJar, : fix link
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Changed topic title from "Reasons to believe" to "Reasons to Believe's Theory of Creation"
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added the "(Dr. Hugh Ross & Dr. Fazale Rana books)" part to the topic title.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 09-13-2006 10:58 PM Arithus has replied
 Message 6 by Matt P, posted 09-14-2006 3:16 PM Arithus has replied
 Message 8 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-19-2006 9:47 PM Arithus has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 10 (348951)
09-13-2006 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Arithus
09-13-2006 10:23 PM


In your own words....
It would be best if you picked something out of it that you think might be best and expressed it in your own words.
If you don't have the book but just want comments I guess we could put this in the book nook.
Meanwhile try good ol' google and see what you find.
Welcome, to EvC by the way. You are in a good place to discuss that from both points of view.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Introducing the new "Boot Camp" forum
Other useful links: Forum Guidelines, Observations about Evolution and This could be interesting....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Arithus, posted 09-13-2006 10:23 PM Arithus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Arithus, posted 09-13-2006 11:55 PM AdminNosy has replied

  
Arithus
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 10 (348966)
09-13-2006 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminNosy
09-13-2006 10:58 PM


Re: In your own words....
I'm just looking for comments. I did google it but I couldn't find much but a couple of amazon reviews mostly stating how great the book is. So I came here to get some imput.
To me the claims are outrageous but honestly I have no grounds to say something like that because I haven't read it. From my previous experiences, all of the Creation/ID books I have read were a waist of time (granted they were useful for debates). I also wan't to know if their science has been peer reviewed, and what knowledgeable and/or well informed people have to say about it...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 09-13-2006 10:58 PM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by AdminNosy, posted 09-14-2006 12:56 AM Arithus has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 4 of 10 (348974)
09-14-2006 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Arithus
09-13-2006 11:55 PM


Book Nook then
Maybe we can get some input.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Arithus, posted 09-13-2006 11:55 PM Arithus has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 5 of 10 (348977)
09-14-2006 12:57 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Matt P
Member (Idle past 4774 days)
Posts: 106
From: Tampa FL
Joined: 03-18-2005


Message 6 of 10 (349085)
09-14-2006 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Arithus
09-13-2006 10:23 PM


Ross and Rana
Hi Arithus, welcome to EvC!
I've not read either of their books, so I can't help too much with any of their specific claims. I have partially read "A Matter of Days" but that's been about it. However, I have recently seen the way they handle new research first hand, and if this characterization is at all similar to the material in their books, then I'm inclined to believe that most scientists will ignore their work, rather than attempt to respond to it much beyond "They misrepresent science."
I've done some research in the origins of life field, and published in the journal Astrobiology. Reasons to Believe actually referenced this work on their website, which was surprising:
New research designed to identify a viable source of prebiotic phosphorus (critical for life) highlights the intractable chemical problems associated with evolutionary scenarios for the origin of life. Investigators posit iron phosphide minerals delivered to early Earth in meteorites as a source of reactive phosphorus species. Presumably, once these meteorites reached Earth, exposure to surface water transformed phosphide into phosphate and phosphonate compounds, which could then react with prebiotic organic materials. Laboratory experiments seemingly provide support for this scenario, but there are problems. For example, if any calcium or magnesium is present (which surely would have been the case on early Earth), the phosphate species precipitate, rendering them unavailable as a source of reactive phosphorus. This work typifies the significant obstacles researchers encounter as they pursue chemical evolutionary scenarios to account for life’s origin.
Source:
Page not found - Reasons to Believe
(Note that one thing I do like about Reasons to Believe is that they're very much on the up-and-up on scientific advances, and they aren't completely hostile to all science. They do try, which is very admirable). Apparently this work is referenced in "Origins of Life," so I guess this post does directly address their book. Interesting.
Their last section, starting with "but there are problems" is where they let their world-view get in the way. It's kind of interesting to see how it worked, since it almost seems as though they read the abstract and the introduction to my paper, then stopped. For instance, the introduction focused on the phosphate problem of the origin of life, wherein calcium and magnesium are efficient at removing phosphate from water, preventing the build-up of this vital element. However, the work, discussion, and conclusion of my paper discussed a way of getting around the calcium and magnesium problem, namely through soluble phosphorus species that can react to form organic phosphorus compounds. So I feel kind of like they chose to completely ignore the meat of that paper, focusing on the historical phosphorus problem.
If my case is at all similar to the case for other scientists, then most people will probably respond along the lines of "Well, that's not correct. Did you even read my conclusions?" Science papers frequently first addresses the problem the authors are seeking to solve in science, and then follows up with a solution. It doesn't look like Reasons to Believe reads the solution, which makes it fairly easy to present a full model.
I fully acknowledge that my case is fairly specific, and probably isn't the same experience for all the scientists addressed by Ross and Rana, so it's hard to say what the response will be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Arithus, posted 09-13-2006 10:23 PM Arithus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Arithus, posted 09-17-2006 3:29 AM Matt P has not replied

  
Arithus
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 10 (349732)
09-17-2006 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Matt P
09-14-2006 3:16 PM


Re: Ross and Rana
They used your work as a reference? Sweet!
Thanks for your input by the way...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Matt P, posted 09-14-2006 3:16 PM Matt P has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 10 (350500)
09-19-2006 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Arithus
09-13-2006 10:23 PM


Origins of Life
I had recently came across this page while surfing and it says:
"At Reasons To Believe, our team of scientists has developed a theory for creation that embraces the latest scientific advances. It is fully testable, falsifiable, and successfully predicts the current discoveries in origin of life research."
Dr. Ross and Dr. Rana present their testable model for creation in The Creator and the Cosmos and their two new books, Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off and Who Was Adam? A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man. For the first time in over 80 years, this model catapults the evolution/creation controversy to an all new level-from science vs. religion to science vs. science.
The late Dr. Richard Smalley, Nobel Prize winning chemist, had this to say about Origins of Life and Who Was Adam: "Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading Origins of Life, with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution could not have occurred. The new book, Who Was Adam, is the silver bullet that puts the evolutionary model to death." Page
This was in dec 2005, and I was wondering if any of you read this book or know of any scientists that have addressed it. I basicaly want to know if these claims are true?
I checked this book out and read it this summer about 3 or 4 months ago. I can say this much that it is not the best book to get on the subject if you're a layman. It uses scientifc jargon throughout the literature and employs numerous theorems to support their advances. I think Rana demonstrates quite persuasively that what he calls the RTB model is plausible. As well, he tackles all of the past and current origin of life scenarios from extremophiles to nucleofission to show the improbablility of life originating at random.

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Arithus, posted 09-13-2006 10:23 PM Arithus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Taz, posted 09-20-2006 12:13 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 9 of 10 (350544)
09-20-2006 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Hyroglyphx
09-19-2006 9:47 PM


Re: Origins of Life
nj writes:
As well, he tackles all of the past and current origin of life scenarios from extremophiles to nucleofission to show the improbablility of life originating at random.
Which proves a very important point, that creationists can't seem to stay on topic no matter what.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-19-2006 9:47 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Arithus, posted 09-21-2006 12:53 AM Taz has not replied

  
Arithus
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 10 (350892)
09-21-2006 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Taz
09-20-2006 12:13 AM


Re: Origins of Life
Even if the ideas are plausible can we test them yet?
I just started learning biology etc., so I guess I shouldn't bother with it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Taz, posted 09-20-2006 12:13 AM Taz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024