Addai Posted October 4, 2013 Group: Junior Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 85 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 20 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/27/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/07/1967 Share Posted October 4, 2013 (edited) His testimony is interesting. He says his faith came from study. As a teenager maybe even in very early adulthood he was an intellectual. Kind of unofficial agnostic. His family were "good people" as far as observing the judeo christian ethics but had no church background whatsoever. But intellectual study of different fields made him a theist then after that he studied the world religions and found that the Bible was the one Holy Book that held up under scrutiny. There are few people that have such a testimony. Miraculously" point 4: Is that perhaps a cop-out? Can science lay out its own limits? But I don't like to overuse my little brain... Not in the least. Previously old earth creationists tried to harmonize Creationism with Evolution. So the standard idea is "God did it all but he did it through evolution." Ross on the other hand took the bold step to say "Do you see all those fossils.... Do you see how they appear suddenly in the rock layers? Do you see how you don't see all those 'transitional life forms" that you always talk about? Well guess what? The reason why see it that way is that is the way it actually happened." There are some limitations with this perspective (Dawkins actually points to one, some creatures bodies don't lend themselves well to fossilization) but overall I think its the strongest position to have as far as evidence goes. Edited October 4, 2013 by Addai Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas t Posted October 4, 2013 Group: Senior Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 46 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 944 Content Per Day: 0.22 Reputation: 170 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/05/2012 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/20/1980 Author Share Posted October 4, 2013 Miraculously" point 4: Is that perhaps a cop-out? Can science lay out its own limits? But I don't like to overuse my little brain... Not in the least. Previously old earth creationists tried to harmonize Creationism with Evolution. So the standard idea is "God did it all but he did it through evolution." Ross on the other hand took the bold step to say "Do you see all those fossils.... Do you see how they appear suddenly in the rock layers? Do you see how you don't see all those 'transitional life forms" that you always talk about? Well guess what? The reason why see it that way is that is the way it actually happened." The term "miracle" brought into play by scientists creates wrinles in my forehead (my foto is still without, but you know...). Is there anything that urges him to say: the miracle is here but not there? Where does he draw the line between *miracle required* and *no miracle*? Isn't evoking a miracle equivalent to the God of the Gaps approach? An appoach I don't like so much. Ross' 5 tenets mentioned above would remain unaffected if God employed a mechanism xy, truely natural, to create 5 common ancestors and have evolution to be the next step in the race? Just a hypothetic scenario. And scientists just not knowing about the evidence for that today? I agree that forcing God upon the Theory of Evolution appears strange. But that doesn't require anybody wishing to engage into scientific debating to evoke miracles, I think. Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addai Posted October 4, 2013 Group: Junior Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 85 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 20 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/27/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/07/1967 Share Posted October 4, 2013 (edited) I agree that forcing God upon the Theory of Evolution appears strange. But that doesn't require anybody wishing to engage into scientific debating to evoke miracles, I think. I don't think you quite get it. First of all, all of this fits into epistemology, that everyone engages in officially or indirectly/ unofficially. So there is no "forcing", it's a matter of "Do you believe that this happened?" and secondly "Is there verifiable evidence in the world that would support that?". And even atheist scientists themselves can make nods in the directions of things like Singularities (that there is something beyond the laws of nature that activated the process, that there is a "First Cause" that sets the Big Bang in motion). In Ross' view, however he believes we can give a name and identity to that Singularity (the God of the Bible). Edited October 4, 2013 by Addai Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas t Posted October 4, 2013 Group: Senior Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 46 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 944 Content Per Day: 0.22 Reputation: 170 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/05/2012 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/20/1980 Author Share Posted October 4, 2013 I agree that forcing God upon the Theory of Evolution appears strange. But that doesn't require anybody wishing to engage into scientific debating to evoke miracles, I think. [...] In Ross' view, however he believes we can give a name and identity to that Singularity (the God of the Bible). Both a miracle and a naturalistic process can be attributed to God, in my opinion. Ross, according to what you said, seems to have made a decision that goes in the miracle direction. However, miracle is outside the realm of science as I see it. I think it might seem odd that a scientist recalls it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addai Posted October 4, 2013 Group: Junior Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 85 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 20 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/27/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/07/1967 Share Posted October 4, 2013 The term is more a descriptor of why he thinks that appearance of life was spontaneous/sudden. The problem is there would always be a "begging the question" problem if he did not say this concerning "Why do propose such a thing" so he just states it to address that aspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphaparticle Posted October 4, 2013 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,363 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 403 Days Won: 5 Joined: 08/01/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted October 4, 2013 I agree that forcing God upon the Theory of Evolution appears strange. But that doesn't require anybody wishing to engage into scientific debating to evoke miracles, I think. I don't think you quite get it. First of all, all of this fits into epistemology, that everyone engages in officially or indirectly/ unofficially. So there is no "forcing", it's a matter of "Do you believe that this happened?" and secondly "Is there verifiable evidence in the world that would support that?". And even atheist scientists themselves can make nods in the directions of things like Singularities (that there is something beyond the laws of nature that activated the process, that there is a "First Cause" that sets the Big Bang in motion). In Ross' view, however he believes we can give a name and identity to that Singularity (the God of the Bible). Singularities aren't 'beyond the laws of nature'. Singularities are a challenge because they are an extreme situation that requires a quantum theory gravity, which we do not have. Ostensibly every physical thing obeys physical laws, it just may be that we are ignorant of the laws in question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addai Posted October 4, 2013 Group: Junior Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 85 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 20 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/27/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/07/1967 Share Posted October 4, 2013 (edited) Singularities aren't 'beyond the laws of nature'. Singularities are a challenge because they are an extreme situation that requires a quantum theory gravity, which we do not have. Ostensibly every physical thing obeys physical laws, it just may be that we are ignorant of the laws in question. Thanks for the info. What you said though would be significant though in the evolutionist/ creationist discussion. Like the "God of the Gaps" objection that atheists raise. Ross points out that the other side has their own "Gaps" problem. They basically propose a "Nature of the Gaps" equivalent when they reach the point where their theory no longer works. Edited October 4, 2013 by Addai Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphaparticle Posted October 4, 2013 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,363 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 403 Days Won: 5 Joined: 08/01/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted October 4, 2013 Singularities aren't 'beyond the laws of nature'. Singularities are a challenge because they are an extreme situation that requires a quantum theory gravity, which we do not have. Ostensibly every physical thing obeys physical laws, it just may be that we are ignorant of the laws in question. Thanks for the info. What you said though would be significant though in the evolutionist/ creationist discussion. Like the "God of the Gaps" objection that atheists raise. Ross points out that the other side has their own "Gaps" problem. They basically propose a "nature of the Gaps" equivalent when they reach the point where their theory no longer works. Ah well I suppose the assumption is that there is going to be a natural explanation in terms of natural laws. I can see why that might be questionable if we are talking about an ultimate origins question but that isn't the case here. There are all kinds of singularities according to GR in the universe, at the center of every ordinary black hole. I think we should expect to be able to describe them using a theory of quantum gravity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addai Posted October 4, 2013 Group: Junior Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 85 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 20 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/27/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/07/1967 Share Posted October 4, 2013 (edited) Alpha I wish I could post links here, but will recommend a youtube video. The poster gave it an unfortunate polemical sounding title "Science v's God its the collapse of Physics as we know it" But the video features Michio Kaku and some other big physicists (Don't know who they are). Anyway Michio Kaku and this other guy make statements that trying to reconcile General Relativity with Quantum theory is not working out. "Science is having a nervous breakdown" Michio at one point states (i.e. getting infinity values when working the equations etc). And basically that they are at a loss of where to go next..... I don't have a problem with that. But it does have value when dealing with Evidentialists and some of their rhetoric. i.e. claiming that only creationists "have faith" when it comes to forming their beliefs and outlook on life. Clearly there is definitely an analog of Faith on the other side of the fence. Edited October 4, 2013 by Addai Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas t Posted October 4, 2013 Group: Senior Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 46 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 944 Content Per Day: 0.22 Reputation: 170 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/05/2012 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/20/1980 Author Share Posted October 4, 2013 The term is more a descriptor of why he thinks that appearance of life was spontaneous/sudden. The problem is there would always be a "begging the question" problem if he did not say this concerning "Why do propose such a thing" so he just states it to address that aspect. Why propose such a thing? Because facts lead to his conclusions? No? Is it that Bible alone made him draw his conclusions? Does it seem to you that he lacked any argument that could be drawn from facts avaible to him and for this reason he explained through a miracle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.7803ec9e3f1e9eeba0a93e6ebdacb0e3.jpg)
Recommended Posts