Freethought & Rationalism Archive

luvluv · 07-07-2002, 08:18 AM

Is there any link to a review of this edition? The only one I find of the book is of the second edition, and many of it's complaints are cleared up in the third edition.

I'd also like to discuss this book with anyone willing. Some points:

1) I was led to believe around this site that natural explanations have a 100% success rate against the supernatural. If what Ross has said in his book is true, this isn't the case with the Big Bang. Ross seems to suggest that most scientists were very much philosophically opposed to a Big Bang for two reasons: a) It suggests a supernatrual (meaning outside nature, outside the universe) Beginner, b)it severely limits the time allowed for the origin of life.

I have been led to believe (perhaps unintentionally) on this site that there are unresolved issues about the big bang that necessitate alternative theories that do not involve some sort of super-natural Begining. But Ross's book seems to suggest that most of the alternative theories are entirely superflous: they are being proposed without evidence and without neccesity simply because scientists do not like the implications of the big bang. He states that there was never any impetus behind the hypothesis for the bouncing universe, oscilating universe, steady state universe, quantum tunneling (as on origin of the universe), etc except to find a way around an extra-natural origin of the universe. There has never been any evidence for any of the alternative cosmologies and there has never been any unexplained phenomenon to suggest the need for them: they have been errected solely as a defense against the implications of the big bang.

I was particularly suprised to hear what he had to say about quantum tunnelling. I wonder if anyone can dispute this claim:

"...the appeal to quantum mechanical space-time foam as a source of an infinite or near infinite number of universes radically violates the laws of quantum mechanics. One law of quantum mechanics states that the smaller the time interval, the smaller the probablity for a quantum event. The singularity theorems establish that at the cosmic creation event for our universe the time interval is zero (time is created at the creation event). With a zero time interval the probablity for a baby universe to pop into existence through a quantum event would be zero. Another quantum mechanical law stipulates that the bigger the mass brought into existence through a quantum fluctuation in the space-time fabric, the faster that mass must be returned to the space time continuum. For something as massive as our observable universe, the return time must be breifer than 10^-103 seconds (less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a tirllionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second). Clearly, our universe is a wee bit older."

Hugh Ross Creator and the Cosmos 3rd edition p. 170.

He goes on to say that the appeal to different quantum mechanical laws when the universe is younger than 10^-34 seconds old, while possible (in that it is impossible to disprove), is extraneous. There is no reason to believe that the quantum laws are different in that one (INCREDIBLY) brief momment from all over observable momments in the universe history. To state that they were outside of evidence, simply because the converse cannot be proven, is bad science. He also says that string theory "demonstrates how gravity and quantum mechanics can successfully coexist all the way back to the cosmic creation event, to that moment when time begins." (ibid, pg 171)

Also particularly daunting were the massive odds against a purely natural origin of life. I found this to be particularly telling:

"The ratio of carbon 12 to carbon 13 found in ancient sediments also indicates a plenitude of life on Earth for the era between 3.5 and 3.86 billion years ago. Now, the earth's crust remained molten until 3.9 billion years ago. Life obviously could not survive on or in a molten curst. That leaves just 40 million years between the earth's molten state and the first definitive evidence for life. But the era between 3.86 abd 3.5 billion years ago also had its grave dangers for lilfe....The earth and other bodies close to the sun experienced heavy bombardments by meteors, comets, asteroids, and dust in their early history....From 3.9 until 3.5 billion years ago, the bombardment gradually decreased to its present omparatively low level. But during those 400 million years at least 35 life exterminating impactst must have occured. These findings have enormous significance to our theories about the origin of life. They show that life sprang up on Earth (and re-sprang) in what could be called geologic instants, periods of 10 millions years or less (between devestating impacts."

He uses published articles from Manfred Schidlowski ("A 3,800-million-year Isotopic Record of Life from Carbon in Sedimentary Rocks" NATURE, 333 (1988) pages 313-318), S.J. Mojzsis (Evidence for Life on Earth Before 3,800 million Years Ago" Nature 384 (1996) pages 53-59), kevin A. Maher and David J. Stenvenson ("Impact Frustration on the Origin of Life" Nature 331 (1988) pages 612-614), Verne R. Oberbeck and Guy Fogleman "Impacts and the Origin of Life" Nature, 339 (1989) page 434) and Norman H. Sleep ("Annihilation of Ecosystems by Large Asteroid Impacts on the Early Earth" Nature 342 (1989) pages 139-142.

He also states, in regard to RNA synthesis, that Robert Shapiro demonstrated "...that the sythesis of RNA under prebiotic conditions is essentiall impossible... Shapiro then published his case against RNA synthesis in the journal Origin of Life and Evoltion of the Biosphere, a case that remains unchallenged to this day"

So I'd like to hear all the responses to this. This is certainly a radical departure from what I have been hearing over here.

Theli · 07-07-2002, 09:56 AM

Quote:

a) It suggests a supernatrual (meaning outside nature, outside the universe) Beginner.

Was the cause of the universe supernatural and outside of of the universe? ok...
1. How could something be outside of space when was is no space?
2. How could something be "supernatural" when there was no "natural"?
3. Bahh!

luvluv · 07-07-2002, 10:13 AM

Here is what Ross had to say about that issue:

"The universe and everything in it is confined to a single, finite dimension of time. Time in that dimension proceeds only and always forward. The flow of time can never be reversed. Nor can it be stopped. Because it has a begining and can move in only one direction, time is really just half a dimension. The proof of creation lies in the mathematical observation that any entity confined to such a half-dimension of time must have a starting point or point of origination. That is, that entity must be created. This necessity for creation applies to the whole universe and ultimately to everything in it.
The necessity for God to be created, however, would apply only if God, too, were confined to half a dimension of time. He is not.
Again, by our defintion, time is that realm or dimension in which cause-and-effect phenomena take place. According to the space time theorems of general relativity, such effects as matter, energy, length, height, six other space dimensions, and time were caused independent of the time dimension of the universe. According to the New Testament (2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2) such effects as grace and hope were caused independent of the time dimension of the universe. So both the Bible and general relativity speak of at least the equivalent of one additional time dimension for God.
In the equivalent of two or more dimensions of time, an entity is free from the necessity of being created. If time were two-dimensional, for example, both a time length and a time width would be possible. Time would expand from a line into a plane. In a plane of time, an infinite number of lines running in an infinite number of directions would be possible. If God were to so choose, He could move and operate along an infinite time line that never crosses or touches the time line of our universe. As John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17, and Hebrews 7:3 say, He would have no begining and no end. He would not need to be created"

Other theists have been saying that on this site for a while. Only beings operating in this universe need to be created. That is the dilema with starting with the premise that the universe is all there is and all there was and all there ever will be.

[ July 07, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]

eh · 07-07-2002, 07:14 PM

Wow, where do I start? I never read this book, but I'll add my comments on the quotes.

1) I was led to believe around this site that natural explanations have a 100% success rate against the supernatural. If what Ross has said in his book is true, this isn't the case with the Big Bang. Ross seems to suggest that most scientists were very much philosophically opposed to a Big Bang for two reasons: a) It suggests a supernatrual (meaning outside nature, outside the universe) Beginner, b)it severely limits the time allowed for the origin of life.

What is Ross smoking? And more importantly, can I have some? Seriously, the Big Bang like any theory, wasn't instantly accepted by scientists because it lacked the evidence to back it up. When evidence started to come in (the cosmic background radiation being the biggest) the theory quickly gained acceptance.

But to suggest that the BB suggest a supernatural creator, is just plain wrong. In fact, modern Big Bang theories (inflation) make the idea extremely unlikely. In other words, what exact role could a God have in creating a universe via inflation? So this claim is just plain silly.

As for the origins of life, this too sounds a little far stretched. 15 billion years seems to be a long amount of time for life to evolve, and I don't ever recall reading about any scientists opposing the BB for this reason. Maybe in creationist la-la land, but not here.

....But Ross's book seems to suggest that most of the alternative theories are entirely superflous: they are being proposed without evidence and without neccesity simply because scientists do not like the implications of the big bang

And he is proposing a supernatural being as a creator without evidence, and without neccesity simply because he wants to believe in a God. Fair enough. While I agree that most alternatives to the BB don't seem to measure up, they are still more likely to be true than the explaination that magic created the universe.

He states that there was never any impetus behind the hypothesis for the bouncing universe, oscilating universe, steady state universe, quantum tunneling (as on origin of the universe), etc except to find a way around an extra-natural origin of the universe. There has never been any evidence for any of the alternative cosmologies and there has never been any unexplained phenomenon to suggest the need for them: they have been errected solely as a defense against the implications of the big bang.

This is complete nonsense. The big bang is widely accepted among cosmologists. Yet, the majority of these scientists are non theists. Why do you suppose this is? The answer is that the big bang in no way implies a magical origin to the universe as Ross is proposing.

I was particularly suprised to hear what he had to say about quantum tunnelling. I wonder if anyone can dispute this claim:

I don't wonder at all. Nor do I wonder why peer review and creationists don't seem to go hand in hand. It's much easier to write books to audiences where most of your claims will go unchallenged.

Really, did you find anything about this book that was convincing?

eh · 07-07-2002, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:
Here is what Ross had to say about that issue:

"The universe and everything in it is confined to a single, finite dimension of time. Time in that dimension proceeds only and always forward. The flow of time can never be reversed. Nor can it be stopped. Because it has a begining and can move in only one direction, time is really just half a dimension. The proof of creation lies in the mathematical observation that any entity confined to such a half-dimension of time must have a starting point or point of origination.

So is Ross claiming that there is such thing as God's time? A dimension which is independent of our familiar time?

TenaciousB · 07-07-2002, 10:30 PM

I'm really interested in this "time is a half-dimenstion" concept. i've never heard of that. Does this Ross fellow have any sources for this ? As i've read quite a few books on cosmology and i have never heard of time limited this way. Can you only go foward in all the dimensions? I doubt this mans knowledge on this subject anyway if he refers to time "flowing". Time is just like any other dimension, it is not an entity itself, merely an aspect of reality through which particles travel.

Though i'm not really an expert on quantum mechanics i can try to tackle a few points he makes:

Quote:

..never any impetus behind the hypothesis for the bouncing universe, oscilating universe, steady state universe, quantum tunneling (as on origin of the universe), etc except to find a way around an extra-natural origin of the universe. There has never been any evidence for any of the alternative cosmologies and there has never been any unexplained phenomenon to suggest the need for them: they have been errected solely as a defense against the implications of the big bang.

As far as I know there is quite a bit of evidence supporting an oscillating, or bouncing, universe.The driving force behind this particular explanation is String theory. Ross is later quoted as saying:

Quote:

[String theory] "demonstrates how gravity and quantum mechanics can successfully coexist all the way back to the cosmic creation event, to that moment when time begins.

If I am taking this quote in the correct context it seems he is supporting the validity of String Theory. In string theory a bouncing universe is required. (For those who don't know about strings, read Brian Greene's Elegant Universe. Basically it says that all particles are made up of tiny one-dimensional strings. These strings exhibit properities of various particles according to the way they vibrate) The reason being when the universe reaches "critical mass" so to speak it will crunch back in on itself. If string theory is correct, one-dimensional objects CANNOT be condensed into no-dimensional points as would be required of a singularity. So at the smallest point they just "bounce" back and inflate the universe again. Repeat ad infinity.

So for Ross's point that all quantum laws be obeyed at the "beginning", String theory needs to hold true to unify the various forces. If so, then an oscillating universe must exist as stated above. Thats just my modest account though.

Unfortunately, as much as I like String Theory, it really doesn't offer much of an explanation for the "start" of the universe. It all boils down to "it was just there"

-Brad

P.S. Wouldn't this do better in the Science forum? I'm sure someone there can point out my horrible mistakes and refute some of Ross's too

HRG · 07-08-2002, 12:36 AM

[quote]Originally posted by luvluv:
[QB]Is there any link to a review of this edition? The only one I find of the book is of the second edition, and many of it's complaints are cleared up in the third edition.

I'd also like to discuss this book with anyone willing. Some points:

1) I was led to believe around this site that natural explanations have a 100% success rate against the supernatural. If what Ross has said in his book is true, this isn't the case with the Big Bang. Ross seems to suggest that most scientists were very much philosophically opposed to a Big Bang for two reasons: a) It suggests a supernatrual (meaning outside nature, outside the universe) Beginner, b)it severely limits the time allowed for the origin of life.

I have been led to believe (perhaps unintentionally) on this site that there are unresolved issues about the big bang that necessitate alternative theories that do not involve some sort of super-natural Begining. But Ross's book seems to suggest that most of the alternative theories are entirely superflous: they are being proposed without evidence and without neccesity simply because scientists do not like the implications of the big bang. He states that there was never any impetus behind the hypothesis for the bouncing universe, oscilating universe, steady state universe, quantum tunneling (as on origin of the universe), etc except to find a way around an extra-natural origin of the universe. There has never been any evidence for any of the alternative cosmologies and there has never been any unexplained phenomenon to suggest the need for them: they have been errected solely as a defense against the implications of the big bang.
[QUOTE]
That's like saying that Ben Franklin and others investigated natural explanations for lightning because they did not want to believe in Thor.

Science looks for naturalistic explanations - by definition. If the Big Bang can be explained in terms of a more basic mechanisms (like M-branes in the ekpyrotic model), then investigating those mechanisms is a perfectly scientific endeavor, and not an attempt to escape the implications of the Big Bang.

Quote:

I was particularly suprised to hear what he had to say about quantum tunnelling. I wonder if anyone can dispute this claim:

"...the appeal to quantum mechanical space-time foam as a source of an infinite or near infinite number of universes radically violates the laws of quantum mechanics. One law of quantum mechanics states that the smaller the time interval, the smaller the probablity for a quantum event.

The singularity theorems establish that at the cosmic creation event for our universe the time interval is zero (time is created at the creation event).

The singularity theorems are valid only in classical relativity, not in quantum gravity. Applying them to a question about quantum fluctuations is ridiculous. It would be like if someone insists that there are no electrons because their self-mass diverges linearly when calculated in classical physics.

If the universe is the product of a quantum fluctuation, then it - almost by definition - does not have a singularity at the origin.

Quote:

With a zero time interval the probablity for a baby universe to pop into existence through a quantum event would be zero. Another quantum mechanical law stipulates that the bigger the mass brought into existence through a quantum fluctuation in the space-time fabric, the faster that mass must be returned to the space time continuum. For something as massive as our observable universe, the return time must be breifer than 10^-103 seconds (less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a tirllionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second).

This claim makes me doubt Ross' qualification of an astrophysicist. Apparently he has never heard of cosmological models where the total energy is always zero, because the negative gravitational binding energy exactly balances the positive contributions.

<snip>

Quote:

So I'd like to hear all the responses to this. This is certainly a radical departure from what I have been hearing over here.

Sure. And you find an even more radical departure from what you heard here when you look into AnswersInGenesis - and the most radical departure when you listen to Kent Hovind.

Regards,
HRG.

luvluv · 07-09-2002, 04:46 PM

TenaciousB

Quote:

As far as I know there is quite a bit of evidence supporting an oscillating, or bouncing, universe.

Well, if Ross's information is accurate, the bouncing and oscillating universe theories are begining to be considered invalid.

Quote:

So for Ross's point that all quantum laws be obeyed at the "beginning", String theory needs to hold true to unify the various forces. If so, then an oscillating universe must exist as stated above. Thats just my modest account though.

Regrettably, I've loaned away my copy to a co-worker (a physics major who I've recruited to help me understand some of the more obscure passages of the book) so I can't now directly quote. I believe, however, that while Ross stated that he did not believe String Theory and that it was not a completely proven propositions, certain proofs that String Theory has produced has already established that the laws of quantum mechanics do go back to the creation event.

Again, regretably I do not have the book, but the book's presentation gives pretty meticulous rebuttals of all the oscillating and bouncing universe theories. I'll try to get it back later in the week.

eh:

Can you link me to some information about inflation?

Quote:

As for the origins of life, this too sounds a little far stretched. 15 billion years seems to be a long amount of time for life to evolve, and I don't ever recall reading about any scientists opposing the BB for this reason. Maybe in creationist la-la land, but not here.

Actually, 4.5 billion. As I noted above, due to geological conditions on earth, Ross actually cuts this to 40 million. I was wondering if anyone could respond to that portion of the book?

Also, Ross does quote from numerous steady state proponents, particularly Fred Hoyle (? Am I remembering that name right?) who made statements about the necessity of an infinite universe in order to give evolution time. Again, I'm sorry I don't have the book but I'll give you the quotes as soon as I have them.

Quote:

While I agree that most alternatives to the BB don't seem to measure up, they are still more likely to be true than the explaination that magic created the universe.

Strawman.

But at any rate, Ross was combining the Big Bang with the anthropic coincidences and combined they do make a rather potent appeal.

I think what the BB certainly does is make naturalism untennable. If the universe did have a begining, Ross quotes Hawkings himself as saying that it wouldn't be irrational to assume that it had a beginner. At any rate, if the universe has a begining, then there is something beyond the universe. That would be the undoing of naturalism.

Quote:

I don't wonder at all. Nor do I wonder why peer review and creationists don't seem to go hand in hand.

The great majority of the book is Hugh Ross citing from peer reviewed scientific articles

HRG:

Quote:

If the universe is the product of a quantum fluctuation, then it - almost by definition - does not have a singularity at the origin.

Would there be time at the start of the quantum fluctuation?

I think Ross was pulling from two theories at the time. He was saying that Hawkins had already established that time was created at the creation event. Therefore, there would not have been any time at the creation event whether it was the result of a singularity or a quantum fluctuation. So the problem would remain, no?

(I'm admittedly talking WAY over my head at this point, but this is the position I believe Ross was trying to make. Feel free to intellectually pimp-slap me as needed.)

So, again, is there a time interval for quantum mechanisms to work with even outside a singularity, given Hawkings discovery?

Quote:

This claim makes me doubt Ross' qualification of an astrophysicist. Apparently he has never heard of cosmological models where the total energy is always zero, because the negative gravitational binding energy exactly balances the positive contributions.

Linkage? How exactly does that overcome the problem Ross posits?

Quote:

Sure. And you find an even more radical departure from what you heard here when you look into AnswersInGenesis - and the most radical departure when you listen to Kent Hovind.

All I'm saying is that I have been lead to believe over here that the materialist position was a lot stronger than it seems to me to now be. I heard people over here talk very confidently about creating universes in laboratories and such. You guys almost had me convinced that naturalism had good answers for everything, but with the two most fundamental issues of scientific observation, the origin of life and the origin of the universe, science has drawn a blank. I was really interested in whether or not sci-girl or any such person would like to comment on the origin of life statements particularly the 40 million year window and this statment by Robert Shapiro:

"the sythesis of RNA under prebiotic conditions is essentiall impossible..." Shapiro then published his case against RNA synthesis in the journal Origin of Life and Evoltion of the Biosphere, a case that remains unchallenged to this day"

luvluv · 07-09-2002, 05:27 PM

I found some chapter excerpts:

<a href="http://www.reasons.org/resources/books/creatorandthecosmos/catc14.html?main" target="_blank">This one is in reference to the anthropic principle:</a>

<a href="http://www.reasons.org/resources/books/creatorandthecosmos/catc11.html?main" target="_blank">This one is in regards to "A Brief History of Time"</a>

<a href="http://www.reasons.org/resources/books/creatorandthecosmos/catc11.html?main" target="_blank">And this one giving proofs of the Big Bang:</a>

Sakpo sez: luvluvluv, please type titles in for your links, don't just paste the address twice, as it messed up the formatting of the thread! Thanks

[ July 10, 2002: Message edited by: Sakpo ]

wordsmyth · 07-09-2002, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:
This one is in regards to "A Brief History of Time"

[Quoted stretching URL removed by Sakpo]

It appears as though his only reason for critiqing Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" is because Hawking does not resort to Goddunnit as a possible explanation for unanswered questions. He also appears to have little more than a highschool level understanding of quantum physics.

Quote:

[qb]
The uniformity, homogeneity, and mass density of the universe all must be precisely as they are for human life to be possible at any time in the universe�s history

This claim is completely absurd and I'm certain he cannot produce any evidence of a single practical theory from any respected scientist to support this.

He seems to be writing specifically to an audience who won't question or attempt to verify the validity of his claims.

[ July 10, 2002: Message edited by: Sakpo ]

07-07-2002, 08:18 AM	#1
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	The Creator and the Cosmos, 3rd Edition Is there any link to a review of this edition? The only one I find of the book is of the second edition, and many of it's complaints are cleared up in the third edition. I'd also like to discuss this book with anyone willing. Some points: 1) I was led to believe around this site that natural explanations have a 100% success rate against the supernatural. If what Ross has said in his book is true, this isn't the case with the Big Bang. Ross seems to suggest that most scientists were very much philosophically opposed to a Big Bang for two reasons: a) It suggests a supernatrual (meaning outside nature, outside the universe) Beginner, b)it severely limits the time allowed for the origin of life. I have been led to believe (perhaps unintentionally) on this site that there are unresolved issues about the big bang that necessitate alternative theories that do not involve some sort of super-natural Begining. But Ross's book seems to suggest that most of the alternative theories are entirely superflous: they are being proposed without evidence and without neccesity simply because scientists do not like the implications of the big bang. He states that there was never any impetus behind the hypothesis for the bouncing universe, oscilating universe, steady state universe, quantum tunneling (as on origin of the universe), etc except to find a way around an extra-natural origin of the universe. There has never been any evidence for any of the alternative cosmologies and there has never been any unexplained phenomenon to suggest the need for them: they have been errected solely as a defense against the implications of the big bang. I was particularly suprised to hear what he had to say about quantum tunnelling. I wonder if anyone can dispute this claim: "...the appeal to quantum mechanical space-time foam as a source of an infinite or near infinite number of universes radically violates the laws of quantum mechanics. One law of quantum mechanics states that the smaller the time interval, the smaller the probablity for a quantum event. The singularity theorems establish that at the cosmic creation event for our universe the time interval is zero (time is created at the creation event). With a zero time interval the probablity for a baby universe to pop into existence through a quantum event would be zero. Another quantum mechanical law stipulates that the bigger the mass brought into existence through a quantum fluctuation in the space-time fabric, the faster that mass must be returned to the space time continuum. For something as massive as our observable universe, the return time must be breifer than 10^-103 seconds (less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a tirllionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second). Clearly, our universe is a wee bit older." Hugh Ross Creator and the Cosmos 3rd edition p. 170. He goes on to say that the appeal to different quantum mechanical laws when the universe is younger than 10^-34 seconds old, while possible (in that it is impossible to disprove), is extraneous. There is no reason to believe that the quantum laws are different in that one (INCREDIBLY) brief momment from all over observable momments in the universe history. To state that they were outside of evidence, simply because the converse cannot be proven, is bad science. He also says that string theory "demonstrates how gravity and quantum mechanics can successfully coexist all the way back to the cosmic creation event, to that moment when time begins." (ibid, pg 171) Also particularly daunting were the massive odds against a purely natural origin of life. I found this to be particularly telling: "The ratio of carbon 12 to carbon 13 found in ancient sediments also indicates a plenitude of life on Earth for the era between 3.5 and 3.86 billion years ago. Now, the earth's crust remained molten until 3.9 billion years ago. Life obviously could not survive on or in a molten curst. That leaves just 40 million years between the earth's molten state and the first definitive evidence for life. But the era between 3.86 abd 3.5 billion years ago also had its grave dangers for lilfe....The earth and other bodies close to the sun experienced heavy bombardments by meteors, comets, asteroids, and dust in their early history....From 3.9 until 3.5 billion years ago, the bombardment gradually decreased to its present omparatively low level. But during those 400 million years at least 35 life exterminating impactst must have occured. These findings have enormous significance to our theories about the origin of life. They show that life sprang up on Earth (and re-sprang) in what could be called geologic instants, periods of 10 millions years or less (between devestating impacts." He uses published articles from Manfred Schidlowski ("A 3,800-million-year Isotopic Record of Life from Carbon in Sedimentary Rocks" NATURE, 333 (1988) pages 313-318), S.J. Mojzsis (Evidence for Life on Earth Before 3,800 million Years Ago" Nature 384 (1996) pages 53-59), kevin A. Maher and David J. Stenvenson ("Impact Frustration on the Origin of Life" Nature 331 (1988) pages 612-614), Verne R. Oberbeck and Guy Fogleman "Impacts and the Origin of Life" Nature, 339 (1989) page 434) and Norman H. Sleep ("Annihilation of Ecosystems by Large Asteroid Impacts on the Early Earth" Nature 342 (1989) pages 139-142. He also states, in regard to RNA synthesis, that Robert Shapiro demonstrated "...that the sythesis of RNA under prebiotic conditions is essentiall impossible... Shapiro then published his case against RNA synthesis in the journal Origin of Life and Evoltion of the Biosphere, a case that remains unchallenged to this day" So I'd like to hear all the responses to this. This is certainly a radical departure from what I have been hearing over here.

07-07-2002, 10:13 AM	#3
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	Here is what Ross had to say about that issue: "The universe and everything in it is confined to a single, finite dimension of time. Time in that dimension proceeds only and always forward. The flow of time can never be reversed. Nor can it be stopped. Because it has a begining and can move in only one direction, time is really just half a dimension. The proof of creation lies in the mathematical observation that any entity confined to such a half-dimension of time must have a starting point or point of origination. That is, that entity must be created. This necessity for creation applies to the whole universe and ultimately to everything in it. The necessity for God to be created, however, would apply only if God, too, were confined to half a dimension of time. He is not. Again, by our defintion, time is that realm or dimension in which cause-and-effect phenomena take place. According to the space time theorems of general relativity, such effects as matter, energy, length, height, six other space dimensions, and time were caused independent of the time dimension of the universe. According to the New Testament (2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2) such effects as grace and hope were caused independent of the time dimension of the universe. So both the Bible and general relativity speak of at least the equivalent of one additional time dimension for God. In the equivalent of two or more dimensions of time, an entity is free from the necessity of being created. If time were two-dimensional, for example, both a time length and a time width would be possible. Time would expand from a line into a plane. In a plane of time, an infinite number of lines running in an infinite number of directions would be possible. If God were to so choose, He could move and operate along an infinite time line that never crosses or touches the time line of our universe. As John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17, and Hebrews 7:3 say, He would have no begining and no end. He would not need to be created" Other theists have been saying that on this site for a while. Only beings operating in this universe need to be created. That is the dilema with starting with the premise that the universe is all there is and all there was and all there ever will be. [ July 07, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

07-09-2002, 05:27 PM	#9
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	I found some chapter excerpts: <a href="http://www.reasons.org/resources/books/creatorandthecosmos/catc14.html?main" target="_blank">This one is in reference to the anthropic principle:</a> <a href="http://www.reasons.org/resources/books/creatorandthecosmos/catc11.html?main" target="_blank">This one is in regards to "A Brief History of Time"</a> <a href="http://www.reasons.org/resources/books/creatorandthecosmos/catc11.html?main" target="_blank">And this one giving proofs of the Big Bang:</a> Sakpo sez: luvluvluv, please type titles in for your links, don't just paste the address twice, as it messed up the formatting of the thread! Thanks [ July 10, 2002: Message edited by: Sakpo ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-07-2002, 07:14 PM	#4
eh Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Canada Posts: 624	Wow, where do I start? I never read this book, but I'll add my comments on the quotes. 1) I was led to believe around this site that natural explanations have a 100% success rate against the supernatural. If what Ross has said in his book is true, this isn't the case with the Big Bang. Ross seems to suggest that most scientists were very much philosophically opposed to a Big Bang for two reasons: a) It suggests a supernatrual (meaning outside nature, outside the universe) Beginner, b)it severely limits the time allowed for the origin of life. What is Ross smoking? And more importantly, can I have some? Seriously, the Big Bang like any theory, wasn't instantly accepted by scientists because it lacked the evidence to back it up. When evidence started to come in (the cosmic background radiation being the biggest) the theory quickly gained acceptance. But to suggest that the BB suggest a supernatural creator, is just plain wrong. In fact, modern Big Bang theories (inflation) make the idea extremely unlikely. In other words, what exact role could a God have in creating a universe via inflation? So this claim is just plain silly. As for the origins of life, this too sounds a little far stretched. 15 billion years seems to be a long amount of time for life to evolve, and I don't ever recall reading about any scientists opposing the BB for this reason. Maybe in creationist la-la land, but not here. ....But Ross's book seems to suggest that most of the alternative theories are entirely superflous: they are being proposed without evidence and without neccesity simply because scientists do not like the implications of the big bang And he is proposing a supernatural being as a creator without evidence, and without neccesity simply because he wants to believe in a God. Fair enough. While I agree that most alternatives to the BB don't seem to measure up, they are still more likely to be true than the explaination that magic created the universe. He states that there was never any impetus behind the hypothesis for the bouncing universe, oscilating universe, steady state universe, quantum tunneling (as on origin of the universe), etc except to find a way around an extra-natural origin of the universe. There has never been any evidence for any of the alternative cosmologies and there has never been any unexplained phenomenon to suggest the need for them: they have been errected solely as a defense against the implications of the big bang. This is complete nonsense. The big bang is widely accepted among cosmologists. Yet, the majority of these scientists are non theists. Why do you suppose this is? The answer is that the big bang in no way implies a magical origin to the universe as Ross is proposing. I was particularly suprised to hear what he had to say about quantum tunnelling. I wonder if anyone can dispute this claim: I don't wonder at all. Nor do I wonder why peer review and creationists don't seem to go hand in hand. It's much easier to write books to audiences where most of your claims will go unchallenged. Really, did you find anything about this book that was convincing?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.