Sunday, 30 December 2012

Dr Hugh Ross - Lying for God

On the 23rd of June 2012, Premier Christian Radio broadcast the debate "Is there evidence for a cosmic creator?" on the Unbelievable radio show hosted by Justin Brierley.

The Theological combatants were:

Dr Hugh Ross Dr Hugh Ross - Astrophysicist - Astronomer, Christian Apologist
He has worked at Caltech, MIT, Yale, Fermi Labs, JPL
He is the founder of the "Reasons to Believe" Organization.
Prof Lewis Wolpert - Cellular Biologist
University College London
He is Vice President of the British Humanist Association

The debate was hosted by the Imperial College Christian Union and was moderated by Monya Zard of Imperial College.

Before the debate had started, Red Flags started to appear. In the proposition "Is there evidence for a Cosmic Creator" the word "Cosmic" is ambiguous but if we assume the definition "Pertaining to the the Cosmos", we have a problematic mismatch between debating participants. An Astrophysicist and a Cellular Biologist.... debating Cosmology???

Dr Hugh Ross opened with the claim that The Bible has 10 times more cosmology than all the other religion's holy books combined.

He presented an example of where the Bible clearly states the universe began from a Space/Time Singularity -  "In the Beginning God created the heavens and the Earth."  He goes on to explain that the Hebrew word for "Create" [bara] means: "to bring into existence that which did not exist before."

This is incorrect. The translation of [bara] can be: to Shape, Fashion, Create or Transform.

This is exactly what most bronze age cultures believed... that their particular God created everything. There is no mention of a Space/Time Singularity and there is no way this passage in the Bible predicts or describes (implicitly or explicitly) a Cosmic Singularity. In fact, if this is the standard of evidence required by a professional Astrophysicist then I propose that the story of Goldilocks predicts a singularity, Space/Time and the Holy Trinity with: "Once upon a time, there where three bears". Such an analogy my sound flippant but both interpretations are equally tenuous and contrived.

I would have liked to have asked Dr Ross for his scientific evidence as to why the first law of thermodynamics is not violated by his claim. Remembering that he is presenting Scientific evidence and not Supernatural evidence.

I let this pass, It is nothing more that the standard technique of re-interpreting scripture to match that which is known. Scripture supported a geocentric universe until science discovered we lived in a Heliocentric system. Now the same scripture supports a Heliocentric system.

Dr Ross then made his first extraordinary claim.

He held up a document, the document was a scientific paper by Roger Penrose and Steven Hawking entitled "The singularities of gravitational collapse and cosmology."

Dr Ross read out the conclusion of the paper from the final paragraph:
"If mass exists in the universe and if general relativity reliably predicts the movement of bodies in the universe then space and time must be created by a causal agent who transcends space and time."

This is either a deliberate Lie or he has been fooled into believing a document modified by Creationists containing that paragraph.

But, he was holding the document and apparently quoting verbatim from the final paragraph.

The paper he is referring to is archived at the Royal Society and is available free of charge to the public. It can be downloaded from here:

I have studied the paper in it's entirety. The document does not contain the paragraph quoted by Dr Ross or make any conclusion even vaguely resembling his quote.

Read the concluding paragraph yourself and see if you can crowbar in an interpretation that in any way resembles the quotation.

If Dr Ross really had that paper in his hand and had read the final paragraph, he would know what he was saying was not true.

There are only 2 possibilities.

  • Dr Ross deliberately and knowingly lied.
  • Dr Ross was deceived into believing a fake Creationist version.

If the former then he has some serious explaining to do. If the latter then he is incompetent and does not bother to fact-check anything that agrees with his preconceived beliefs.

This is epitome of intellectual dishonesty. Dr Ross knew Prof Wolpert (A Biologist)  would not have read that paper nor anyone else at the Christian Union. He knew Prof Wolpert could not rebut that quote because the quote does not exist and could not be verified during the debate.

Dr Ross claims the Bible shows us that God is the author of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics in the following verse:-
NIV Romans 8:21 - "that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God."
Call me Mr Pedantic but everyone else I know interprets Romans 8 as an explanation of salvation from death if you live in accordance with the Spirit and do not follow a sinful nature which leads to death. It takes a major effort of self deception to interpret this passage as Gods promulgation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.  Why would Paul be writing to the Romans explaining the gift of salvation freely given to all... and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?

Things now go from bad to worse.

Dr Ross states that the Bible gives us a testable numeric entropy curve for the cooling of the universe. He displays a classic entropy curve supposedly predicted by the Bible overlaid with 13 data points representing temperatures measured by scientific observation. The Biblically predicted entropy curve precisely matches the curve measured by modern science.

During the Q&A period Dr Ross was asked to state where in the Bible this precise, quantified entropy curve was defined. Dr Ross attempted to sidestep this question, he evaded the question, tried to answer a different question and pretended not to understand the question even though it was re-phrased clearly and succinctly by the moderator.

I too would like to challenge Dr Ross' assertion that the Bible quantifies the temperature of the Universe over 14 Billion Years and that these Biblical Measurements correlate with modern scientific measurements. Dr Ross has gone to the effort of extracting enough of these measurements from the Bible to be able to plot an accurate entropy curve. It should be no problem for him to indicate which verses he used for his calculations.

Just when I thought Dr Ross' arguments had hit rock bottom... Things declined even further.

Dr Ross quotes 3 statements from a paper by 3 un-named Atheist Physicists entitled "Disturbing implications for a cosmological constant". The original paper can be downloaded from:

The 3 un-named Atheist Physicist are: L. Dyson , M. Kleban and L. Susskind  of the Department of Physics at Stanford University.

The 3 quotes Dr Ross read from the paper are:-

Quote 1. 
"Arranging the universe as we think it's arranged, that is, governed by dark energy would have required a miracle."
This statement does not appear anywhere in the paper. The closest I can find to this statement is in Ch6 p19 which discusses a hypothetical universe where the temperature  of the CMB is 10 degrees K instead of 2.7 degrees K.  The paper states that such a scenario would generate vastly more possible worlds but:
 "In all of these worlds statistically miraculous (but not impossible) events would be necessary to assemble and preserve the fragile nuclei that would ordinarily be destroyed by the higher temperatures. However, although each of the corresponding histories is extremely unlikely, there are so many more of them than those that evolve without “miracles,” that they would vastly dominate the livable universes that would be created by Poincare recurrences."
If the quotation does refer to this paragraph, Dr Ross has fabricated the quote, applied it to a hypothetical scenario and attributed it as a conclusion of the authors. This is a gross misrepresentation of the authors.

Quote 2. 
"An external agent, external to space and time, intervened in cosmic history for reasons of its own."
This is a deliberate alteration to what was actually stated in the paper. The full text of the statement reads:
"Another possibility is an unknown agent intervened in the evolution, and for reasons of its own restarted the universe in the state of low entropy characterizing inflation. How-ever, even this does not rid the theory of the pesky recurrences."

  • This is presented as a hypothetical.
  • It does not mention an "External" agent.
  • It does not say the hypothetical agent was "External to Space and Time".
  • He fails to mention that this hypothetical scenario is rejected.

This is a complete fabrication and misrepresentation by Dr Ross or perhaps Dr Ross was again deceived by a fraudulent Creationist version of the paper and he failed to do any fact checking.... like actually read the original paper.

Quote 3. 
"the only reasonable conclusion is that we do not live in a world with a true cosmological constant."
A minor point, Dr Ross omitted the first word of the conclusion: "Perhaps".

He also forgot to mention that the conclusion is given on the assumption that the scenarios discussed in the paper assume:

  • There is a fundamental cosmological constant.
  • We can apply the ideas of holography and complementarity to de Sitter space.
  • The time evolution operator is unitary, so that phase space area is conserved.

Finally, Dr Ross argued earlier in his presentation that God created the universal constants and the laws of cosmology. He now cites a paper that speculates there is no cosmological constant.

Dr Ross claims he has studied all the major religions and they all get cosmology wrong and The Bible gets it all correct. He says that Islam states the stars are closer than the planets and that Christianity does not make this mistake.

I would like to see Dr Ross' professional opinion as an Astronomer regarding the orbital trajectory of the Star of Bethlehem which moved across the sky and then hovered over Bethlehem.
Also - Mark 13:25 - The stars will fall from the sky.
And - Revelation 6:13 - and the stars in the sky fell to earth.

I'm disappointed with Premier Christian Radio for practically making Dr Ross their poster boy on the DVD for this lecture/debate series, even titling the DVD "Reasons to Believe" after Dr Ross' Mission. At very best this debate was technically and intellectually questionable at worst, it was a showcase for dishonest debate tactics, fabricated facts and misrepresentation.

If you have a claim for Truth, that Truth will stand firm on it's own merit. Truth relishes scrutiny and examination because honest scrutiny can only make Truth stronger. If you have to resort to lies and misrepresentation to promote your claim of Truth, you don't have Truth, you only have an empty claim.

When Truth becomes inconvenient and optional for a belief, it gives me Fewer Reasons to Believe.

The Ross/Wopert Debate - Is there evidence for a cosmic creator?

Premier Christian Radio - Unbelievable


  1. Thanks so much for this perspective and these links. A friend asked me to listen to a Ross video, which I did. I was intuitively concerned about his 'space-time theorem' references. This helped me find the all important 'paper' of Penrose and Hawking, which he repeatedly makes as the crux of his argument. This pretty much invalidates Ross's credibility for me.

    1. You might want to read what Ryan wrote 3 comments down from here!

  2. Thanks for doing the homework here, Paul. As a Christian who listened to the debate, I was rather dismayed at how Ross argued. Knowing what I know about the work of Hawking and Penrose I knew something was off about how Ross discussed that paper, but I hadn't taken the time to look it up.

  3. Thanks Honzo,
    As an Atheist, I was disappointed that Premier Christian Radio are using Ross' organisation for their promotional masthead. I value Premier and I value what Justin Brierley is doing to generate lively, reasonable discussion between our two world-views.

    But, I'm horrified that they keep jumping into bed with big money American style evangelism. When the debate becomes dishonest or when money and publicity overrides truth, I shake my head in despair.

    The previous year turned into the William Lane Craig glorification show. I know he's a big name but he's also well known for being a skilful but intellectually dishonest debator and an advocate of religious genocide.

    I'm sure most of the listeners to Premier Radio never bother to fact-check any of the arguments on either side of the debate. If the guy is in their own camp, everything he says is true, the other guy is wrong and is either lying or is deceived. They entrench deeper into their own beliefs without any consideration for truth.

    The American evangelical lecture circuit is big money and truth is always a casualty when it interferes with profit. It worries me that this kind of evangelism is spilling over onto our shores. A British Creflo Dollar or Peter Popoff could cause so much damage to credulous individuals. I see the thin end of the wedge forcing it's way in. This isn't the kind of traditional Christianity I grew up with, it's razzmatazz roadshow extravaganzas, pure theatre in spectacular Mega-Churches with multi millionaire preachers. Ross and W.L.C. are the thin end of that wedge.

    I wonder what Jesus would have to say about that.

  4. A response from Dr. Ross to this post can be found here:

    Paul, it's one thing to disagree with a man's conclusions and claims; it's another to impugn his character and integrity based on the kind of reasoning you use in this post. You are right to raise the questions you raised, but you left no room for the benefit of the doubt. You assumed (incorrectly) that Dr. Ross was directly quoting from the Hawking/Penrose paper; and, based on that assumption, concluded that he was either lying or had been duped into using a fabricated quote. I have to ask, does either option really seem likely? I've listened to Dr. Ross extensively in the recent past, and while I'm skeptical of much of what he says, it's clear that he's not foolish enough to fabricate or neglect to fact-check his quotes. When I read that part of your post, I immediately began to suspect that he was drawing an inference from the paper, not quoting from it. As it turns out, that's exactly what he was doing.

    See the document linked above for Dr. Ross's responses to other points made in this post.

    1. Ryan, your link no longer works from what I can tell. Is this document somewhere else that we can read it? Thanks.

    2. Thanks for this link. It worked fine for me, although not sure why it is in word format.

    3. The link does not work for me. Did you happen to save the Word file? Could you email it to me?

  5. Many Thanks Ryan,

    I was recently made aware that Dr Ross had responded but I was not aware of the content of the response. Thank you for the Word Doc. I will of course study it with interest and respond accordingly.

  6. Hi, Thomson, i am somewhat discouraged reading your article. Actually you seems to have lied for what you believe, perhaps not deliberately but by ignorance. I hope you will find yourself true with Prof. Ross's response. Looking forward for more interaction on this matter! Thanks.

  7. I want to thank you for this article, and I just wish that I had seen it before wasting so much time. I disagree with the Anonymous poster posting May 30th who is discouraged by your article. I have absolutely no axe to grind on this, by the way; I am simply a seeker after truth and found myself discouraged by the Hugh Ross video that I saw. I had got the impression that as a real scientist he would use scientific method properly and would be efficient in his citations.

    In the video that I have just been watching, He picks up an article and waves it around as he says "I actually have that first space-time theorem with me if you wanna come up and look at it afterwards. This is the paper that launched Stephen Hawking into worldwide fame: Singularities of gravitational collapse and cosmology. Now, it ends with a paragraph that everyone can understand. This is the conclusion of the space-time theorem." He puts the paper down and we see on the screen the following words: "Space-Time Theorems. If the universe contains mass and general relativity reliably describes cosmic dynamics, then space and time must be created by a Causal Agent who transcends space and time."

    At this point I froze the video and went looking for the document; I had to google for it but found it easily. I spent ages lookign through it and could not find the paragraph mentioned. I re-ran that part of the video and made sure that I had it exact. Well, I was feeling somewhat frustrated, I decided to do some more googling and finally found this page of yours, and I wish that I had found it sooner!

    I see (in that docx file that someone in these comments refers to) that Hugh Ross replies to this particular point "Here is the third possibility: I was not quoting from the paper at all. The slide that was visible to the live audience made clear that my statement was my own inference, not a quotation" I do not know if the specific show that you are both talking about is the same as the one that I saw, but it is obviously the same point in his talk. The video that I saw is "Scientific Evidence for the Christian Faith - Hugh Ross, PhD" youtube watch?v=GKGFezN0Cd4 and he starts talking about this at around 10:10. It may be that in later presentations and debates he changed the way he presents it such that it is clearly his inference and not a quote, but in this one it appears to be a totally unambiguous quote from the paper. I can see no possible chance that it could have been his own inference.

    1. You are exactly right. I watched the same video. I think anyone's interpretation would be the same as yours.

      And again with Victor Stenger, Ross said,
      "In particular we have the Space-Time Theorems of General Relativity which state that if the universe contains mass and if general relativity reliably describes cosmic dynamics, then space & time must be created by
      (verbal) some cause beyond matter, energy, space & time.
      (slide text) a Causal Agent transcending space and time."

      And in:
      Age of Creation - w Ken Ham, Ray Comfort, and others:
      When I teach at a secular college I lay out the same evidence that I do at a Christian college.
      What I find is my secular peers are well aware of just how compelling the evidence is for a causal agent beyond space and time. This is common knowledge.

      He's clearly trying to get his audience to think that Penrose & Hawking in the Space Time Theorem said that there is a causal agent outside of space and time. If he does/did not realize that's the way it appeared, he's not as bright as I think he is.

      After reading the actual paper which I found linked to on here, it was clear there was no such conclusion in the paper.

      I emailed RTB and asked was the 'conclusion' that of the paper or was it an interpretation that Ross made up. I got a response from an underling that proceded tell me why that conclusion must be so, but not answering my question. I emailed back and point blank asked him to either cite me the page number of the conclusion or to tell me if Ross simply made it up. He answered: "You are correct that “the Ross's 'conclusion' or 'corollary' something he himself has inferred from this paper”.

      Why did he not answer that in the first place?

      It's slick when you can carefully choose your words, knowing that certain inferences will be made, do it consistently, then blow smoke when asked about it. But - what an honest gentleman - then when cornered directly (or as it appears - when attacked by so many now calling him on it) answer 'it is his own inference' or "I wasn't reading..."

      Sorry, but his honesty quotient isn't inspiring me.

  8. Why would anyone spin their wheels with Hugh Ross when Creation Ministries and the Institute for Creation research take an accurate biblical view and conduct research and build the case for creation from what scripture actually conveys? Ross is a double minded man, trying to appease both sides of the creation/evolution debate. I concur with some of the posts here: he would give a person reasons not to believe. Both sides of this can discussion should be able to concur on the point made in these reviews and in scripture: "A double minded man is unstable in all his ways."

    1. He doesn't believe in naturalistic evolution, nor is he a theistic evolutionist. If you did an ounce of research, you might know this. Also you must see the irony that you think that science could be at "war" with the bible. The creation is God's work and therefore it does not require someone to be double minded to see the correlations between the Bible and science.

  9. When is John going to respond or is he satisfied with Dr Ross"s explanation? " I will of course study it with interest and respond accordingly."

  10. Dear Sir,
    I only make one request/invitation to any of the skeptics on this crucial matter. Please bring your specific scientific, theological, personal supported conclusions that you feel strong enough to question Dr. Ross' research and disclosures and most important, his integrity to his attention and request a personal response or better yet a debate with him. It's so easy to question someone's integrity from afar, but what would Jesus say to this?! Eph.1:13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise...

  11. Dear Anonymous (27 Nov 2013),

    This post was made 18 months ago, In that time, this post has been brought to the attention of Dr Ross.
    He has responded with an unsatisfactory account of why the text he claimed was in the Hawking/Penrose paper was completely different to the text that is actually in the Hawking/Penrose paper.
    He chose not to respond on this blog but to the Premier Christian Radio station on which his claims were broadcast.
    I have since responded to his response on the Skepricule podcast Episode #47. The show notes also link to a video where he clearly states what he was reading was the final paragraph of the Hawking/Penrose paper.

    I have provided a link to the original Hawking/Penrose paper and it is completely different to the claims of Dr Ross. Not one sentence of Dr Ross' reading is contained in the original paper.

    How do you explain this Mr Anonymous?

    Try reading:-

    Deuteronomy 18:20 ESV
    But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.’

    Jeremiah 23:26 ESV
    How long shall there be lies in the heart of the prophets who prophesy lies, and who prophesy the deceit of their own heart,

    Matthew 24:24 ESV
    For false Christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.

    Mr Anonymous, You do realise that if you follow a false prophet, you will follow him straight to Hell. Even the Bible says you must test these prophets (1 John 4:1). I've tested this one and he has failed the test.

    You can keep following him if you want, but I don't want to burn in Hell with you.

    1. Why are you calling Hugh Ross a prophet?

      It seems you have no idea. You can't even distinguish between prophet and teacher? Really, this blog started out interesting and ended up sucking on many levels.

    2. Dear Anonymous,
      Perhaps this will help...

      Pronunciation: /'pr?f?t/
      1a. person regarded as an inspired teacher or proclaimer of the will of God:
      [Oxford Dictionary]

      proph·et [prof-it]
      5. a person regarded as, or claiming to be, an inspired teacher or leader.
      [© Random House, Inc. 2013].

      The special ability God gives to some to proclaim the Word of God with clarity and to apply it fearlessly with a view to the strengthening, encouragement, and comfort of believers and the convincing of unbelievers.

      A prophet is a teacher.
      [Church of the Latter Day Saints].

      A prophet is a teacher.
      [A. Theodore Tuttle, “What Is a Living Prophet?,” Ensign, Jul 1973, 18]

      prophet [präf'it]
      The definition of a prophet is someone who teaches or spreads the word of God,

      2. a religious teacher or leader regarded as, or claiming to be, divinely inspired
      [Websters Dictionary]

    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    4. I've read Dr Ross response to your post.
      To your paragraph:
      >>>He presented an example of where the Bible clearly states the universe began from a Space/Time Singularity - "In the Beginning God created the heavens and the Earth." He goes on to explain that the Hebrew word for "Create" [bara] means: "to bring into existence that which did not exist before."

      This is incorrect. The translation of [bara] can be: to Shape, Fashion, Create or Transform.

      Dr Ross responded:
      >>>Context is the key. Bara can mean “create” in a broader sense, but in the context of Genesis 1, centuries of biblical scholarship confirm this narrower ex nihilo (our of nothing) sense, especially as contrasted with other Hebrew verbs (asa and haya, for example) used in the passage for “shape” or “fashion.”

      Could Dr. Ross substantiate his claim of "centuries of biblical scholarship confirm this narrower sense"?
      What are his references? Can he reference the consensus resulting from those centuries of biblical scholarship?
      Well, Dr Ross is wrong, and he should/must know better.
      As a starter, let him read:
      1. Was the Cosmos Formed out of Water? Response to Rev. Juan Valdes by Hector Avalos:
      2. The Solid Sky in Genesis: A Response to Rev. Juan Valdes b y Hector Avalos:

      Seriously, Dr Ross response proves beyond reasonable doubt that he is not interested in truth and that he will lie, mislead, forge, distort, misrepresent and do everything possible to advance his agenda.
      Note: I haven't even listened to your podcast in which you respond to his response.

    5. Not sure how in the world you derived this nonsense from his responses. Just because he didn't write an essay paper with MLA references doesn't mean he didn't adequately respond to the concerns posed in this article. The only thing misleading is your worthless response.

  12. I've listened to much of Dr. Craig's reasoning, and while I occasionally wonder if he's misinterpreted his understanding of the findings of others, I think you're taking a bold and unfounded leap when calling him dishonest. Furthermore, I've heard him speak on a number of issues and posit much that could be misinterpreted, but I think you're going to have to provide some strong data to show how he's an advocate of religious genocide. I came here looking for information on Dr. Hugh Ross, but this one comment from you casts your entire site in a questionable light.

    1. Oh, scratch that. Given your somewhat careful approach to details in this article, I had assumed you were delving into the issue from an objective point of view (at least partially). Then I found this: where you call Dr. Craig's books part of the Fantasy Genre. Honestly, I'm a little disappointed. My first impression was that you were more open-minded than that. But your mockery leads me to infer that you lack reason for your beliefs and subsequently cling to the reasoning of established figures, only venturing out for a cautious jab when you feel it can't be easily refuted. This leaves me wary of any of your writing or views. I would hope this changes, as I believe your opinion (rationally given) is valuable.


    Author proves the creation/evolution debate was predicted by the Bible 2000 years ago...

    Very interesting...

    1. this link works only with lower case

  14. I would like to see Paul Thompson debate Dr. Ross and William Lane Craig if he is up to it. Dr. Ross' responses adequately answered the assertions for anyone not on a "witch hunt". I'll be looking for those debates.

  15. Dear or dear, way to alienate yourself Thompson.

    1. Baylis,
      Ah yes, but I am only alienating myself from the advocates of intellectual dishonesty.
      That is no great loss.
      In fact it's a valuable bonus.

  16. Update:
    I was tickled to see that even the Creationists think Dr Ross is twisting and distorting facts:-

    AIG accusing you of twisting the facts is like the Westboro Baptists accusing you of hate speech.

    1. Ross is a self-serving prick. And remind us why you want us to take you serious when you act like an ass?

  17. Paul,

    My problem with your analysis is you make too many assumptions.

    1. Your analysis of my assumptions has too many problems.

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. Paul,

      Thank you for your response.

      1) It's important to remember that Christianity goes beyond science - science is simply the best way humans analyse the world we find ourselves in.

      2) Your response perfectly demonstrated the problem with some scientists - ad hoc explanations - because of human limitations and lack of information. In that I mean you have very limited information on how I came to the conclusion above, but you JUMPED TO THE CONCLUSION that my analysis has too many problems.

      3) Science is not about being proven to be correct, it's about getting to the point. Unfortunately again, human limitations are evident.

      4) I love scientists and the work they do.

    4. Ian,
      Unfortunately, Dr Ross was fabricating the conclusions of other scientists to substantiate his own Christian claims.

      If Christianity is really True then is would be able to stand on real evidence. The fact that he is using misinformation, fabrication and deception indicates that he has no real evidence to support his claims. If he did, he should have presented it.

      He does Christianity a huge disservice when he presents false proofs. The paper he read from is in the public domain, anyone can go and read it. When they do they will see it does not contain anything remotely resembling the text he quoted... Why would he do that?

    5. Paul,

      Is it a possibility that he was presenting a different opinion?

      Maybe he made a genuine mistake?

      Can you really say you know beyond reasonable doubt that he was up to something sinister?

  18. Here is my favourite tool for A/B testing:
    It't much easier than your would think. Just upload a datafile and every information will be mined from its core, so you will get correlations, outliers and more.

  19. I dont know if the subject of this article is willfully misleading people or just not bothering to fact check. I just watched a video where he claims that the Quran says that the stars are closer than the planets and a womans gestation period is 6 months. As someone who studies the Quran i know there is not a shred of truth to either of those claims. I can understand why a bad translation may suggest the former, but where he got the latter from i cannot fathom at all. It didnt inspire confidence to say the least, so ended up giving it a miss.

  20. In man's limited view of reality, the things he "sees" today, may be proven to be false tomorrow. The fact that God has the ability to change the "laws" of physics at His whim flies in the face that things have continued from the beginning as they are now. Simply, God changed the laws of physics to do His bidding.

    1. "The fact that God has the ability to change the "laws" of physics at His whim..."

      This is not an established fact.

  21. OK, now all you have to do is actually demonstrate that-you know, with that pesky "evidence" thing. Then we're all set.

  22. OK, now all you have to do is actually demonstrate that-you know, with that pesky "evidence" thing. Then we're all set.

  23. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. I would not base my decisions re: Christianity or Creation on what the wolf in sheep's clothing has to say. He's very intelligent, but also very clever and deceptive.

      Those here might be interested in how Dr. Ross avoids the firmament here
      And Dr. Ross' Race mixing agenda here:

      As for this:
      If Christianity is really True then is would be able to stand on real evidence. The fact that he is using misinformation, fabrication and deception indicates that he has no real evidence to support his claims. If he did, he should have presented it.

      Plenty of evidence, but Dr.Ross, despite his credentials and appearances, is not one I'd be getting information from. He's as deceptive as the devil.

    2. Dr Ross (and W.L.Craig and others like them) represent the best Christianity has to offer - intelligent, well educated, knowledgeable in a range of subjects. If they fail to make Christianity convincing, the whole religion should be abandoned.