The problem with Hugh Ross is that he is a Mathematician and Physicist, not a Biologist. His understanding of evolution is not going to be on the level of an evolutionary biologist (or any good biologist for that matter) and his predictive model hasn't stood up to peer review.

I don't think his model would stand up to review if he knew how quickly scientists have observed the formation of simple biomolecules essential for life for instance (it's both tested and observed in early Earth-like conditions and incredibly rapidly). Or that simple RNA molecules are capable of catalysing a vast array of biological reactions.

That's like saying biologist doesn't know anything about engineerring, physics or math thus they just make up all  those evolution stories. Not only have rotary motors have  been found in living cells but pistons and coupling rods as well.

What experiments are you talking about? I know there has recently been a change in the general consensus concerning where life originated. It is generally accepted that life originated beneath the Earth's surface, so experiments that do not take this into account are likely to be inaccurate. Needless to say, there is also a difference between producing the building blocks of life in a laboratory and these building blocks developing in nature. The big difference is that experiments obviously have an intelligent component to them.

    Life is a lot bigger than the small man-made box man tried to put life in (ToE).This is why scientist are continuely being surprised as life continue busting out of their  boxes. Evolution box has gotten so big it now covers everything including contradictions which mean it explains nothing.

There is more to "Life" than science.  This is true in so many ways.

As with anything in science, these studies have been improved upon over time. They've been conducted for a very long time so there is a wealth of knowledge out there. I've tried to find some free articles for you. The first one has a decent intro covering most relevant studies as well as the group's own findings on RNA formation:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1664692/pdf/rstb20061903.pdf

A paper looking at the bioenergetics of early life:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2828274/pdf/cshperspect-ORI-a004929.pdf

Paper on RNA catalysis and the role in an early RNA world:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2709566/pdf/gkp271.pdf

Study on highly conserved RNA sequences as molecular "fossils":

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2812825/pdf/ijms-10-03420.pdf

A lightly older review paper on the topic (2006):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1664691/pdf/rstb20061909.pdf

Another review from last year from a systems biology perspective:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2725996/pdf/embor2009117.pdf

If you have access to Nature than this paper is also quite interesting:

http://www.nature.com/nchem/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nchem.827.html

Like I said, Ross is a mathematician with not enough knowledge (from what I've read) on all the variables. His historical thinking is also flawed if his wiki page is anything to go by:

"Ross holds that Noah's Flood was local yet believes it killed all humans except for those on the ark"

Considerring the origins of the Noah's ark story is derived from the Mesopotamian myths 'The Epic of Gilgamesh' and the story of 'Atrrahsis', at a time when there were thousands if not millions living in Asia, Africa, Europe and the Americas, I'm not sure how he thinks this flood killed everyone except those on the ark.

I'm less inclined to believe him with his model which has yet to be peer reviewed, than over 100 yrs of peer reviewed study.

Lol, you really have no idea what you're talking about. You have a knack for comming out with ridiculous and ignorant statement, I'll give you that. An evolution box?! Since when have scientists confined anything to a "box". Science is open to new studies and is always looking to improve the knowledge base.

The only man-made box life has been put in is that of the Creationists. If everything was designed and nothing can change, how is that not a box? In evolution, everything is open, chaotic, with amazing niches of life constantly popping up providing a wealth of new information to add to our growing database of knowledge.

And there is far more to life than the Creationists would have you believe. Scientific evidence for one thing!

Compared to an engineer, physicist or mathematcian, they don't. If they're a Biophysicist, Biochemical Engineer, Bioinformatician, then maybe they'll understand more of each individual area.

You obviously read science material but don't understand or grasp it fully.

Thanks for the articles. I glanced at them and will eventually get to reading them. From the articles, I learned I was referring to the Stanley Miller experiments and the bottom-up approach. From what I read, my point was that the chemical composition of early Earth was not as scientists originally assumed, and this chemical compostition was not as conducive with the production of the building blocks of life. This has caused scientists to look for alternatives such as life originating below the Earth's surface. I had forgotten about the whole comet theory. I was simply saying experiments will need to show that the building blocks of life can form in these settings rather than in the Stanley Miller setting. My understanding of biology comes more from mass publsihed books than scholarly articles, and it seems these books are always referencing the Miller experiment. That is why I was referring to that experiment.

I also do not support Ross's theory. I thorougly believe in evolution and think it will eventually supply the answers for how life originated on Earth, but I do not think it has gotten there yet.

No problem. If you want to read more journal papers then Pubmed Central has a range of free articles available on the NCBI website:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/

Pubmed has plenty more articles but you have to pay for them or be part of an instituition that has paid the subscription/license costs.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2812825/pdf/ijms-10-03420.pdf

"Abstract: A number of small RNA sequences, located in different non-coding sequences
and highly preserved across the tree of life, have been suggested to be molecular fossils, of
ancient (and possibly primordial) origin."

 So they assume since this RNA are highly preserved across the tree then it must be ancient , thus in the beginning.  This reasoning also applies to other highly preserved part of life, for example ATP Synthase. There is no  physical life known to man that doesn't require ATP Synthase (which scientist are learning more all the time just how complex this machine is).
Living cells without ATP Synthase is like a gasoline engine car with no gas. So even if you had all the part ot build a cell they would be totally worthless without fuel. The only known way for nature to produce ATP is by ATP Synthase which happen to only be produced by living cells.

 Conclusion: there has to be life outside the known realm of science, some put their faith in a nature god (mini-god) while some put  faith in a spiritual one.