Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

For all interested, it is imperative to watch the video presentation below entitled, "Creation as Science," in its entirety! You may have to view it in segments, as I did, for it is over an hour in length. This presentation was posted to introduce valid issues regarding the Evolution/Creation debate, which has manifested into a tug-of-war match. You may not agree with all that Hugh Ross states; but you will be "forced" to agree with the majority of his presentation. For all interested in the Evolution/Creation debate, this video presentation will stimulate your mind. Enjoy!

Creation as Science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Ross_(creationist)

Originally posted by ushomefree
For all interested, it is imperative to watch the video presentation below entitled, "Creation as Science," in its entirety! You may have to view it in segments, as I did, for it is over an hour in length. This presentation was posted to introduce valid issues regarding the Evolution/Creation debate, which has manifested into a tug-of-war match. You may not agree with all that Hugh Ross states; but you will be "forced" to agree with the majority of his presentation. For all interested in the Evolution/Creation debate, this video presentation will stimulate your mind. Enjoy!

Creation as Science

And those of this that are psychologically immune to hypnosis? What about us?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Ross_(creationist)

Actually he sounds like the kind of guy I'd like. His beliefs seem to lack a certain level of internal consistency though. If they had that it would make a great SciFi novel.

Shakyamunison-

Why don't you stay on topic and watch the presentation; and by the way, Hugh Ross--although Canadian--was not born an Old Earth Creationist. You would know such if you have read his books and/or watched his movies available on RTB. Really, let's keep on topic please.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Hugh Ross--although Canadian--was not born an Old Earth Creationist.

I imagine he was born without any opinion on either creation or evolution. Further I reject the notion that being from Canada might have an effect on that.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Shakyamunison-

Why don't you stay on topic and watch the presentation; and by the way, Hugh Ross--although Canadian--was not born an Old Earth Creationist. You would know such if you have read his books and/or watched his movies available on RTB. Really, let's keep on topic please.


Question: How was I off topic? Answer: I was not, off topic.

All I did was provide information.
Information about the person you are going to see is relevant to what the person has to say.

Thank you Shakyamunison.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Thank you Shakyamunison.

You should stay away from sarcasm.

Finished?

Originally posted by ushomefree
Finished?
What? So, you can be sarcastic at me, and I can't respond?

Originally posted by ushomefree
For all interested, it is imperative to watch the video presentation below entitled, "Creation as Science," in its entirety! You may have to view it in segments, as I did, for it is over an hour in length. This presentation was posted to introduce valid issues regarding the Evolution/Creation debate, which has manifested into a tug-of-war match. You may not agree with all that Hugh Ross states; but you will be "forced" to agree with the majority of his presentation. For all interested in the Evolution/Creation debate, this video presentation will stimulate your mind. Enjoy!

Creation as Science

This video presentation was well done. Hugh Ross showed that the Biblical record is indeed scientifically sound.

Why not post this in the creationism thread? Or any of the dozens of creationism threads you've made in teh past? Or was it time to meet your spam thread quota for the month?

Also, creationism isn't science. It's faith. Dur.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Why not post this in the creationism thread? Or any of the dozens of creationism threads you've made in teh past? Or was it time to meet your spam thread quota for the month?

Also, creationism isn't science. It's faith. Dur.

Creationism is very scientific just view Hugh Ross' presentation.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Creationism is very scientific just view Hugh Ross' presentation.

Since I'd rather not waste an hour of my life, let me ask you a couple simple questions:

Does he provide a scientific study by which we can empirically test for god's involvement in evolution? If so, briefly explain what the procedure is. Also, what are the criteria for the tests success, and is it a test that can be repeated and verified by testers of any belief? Again, why is this so?

If it doesn't provide those things in a scientifically valid way, free from bias and working only with observable data, it is not science.

Basically, if it is just a tired reiteration of the creationist propoganda I've heard countless times before (most of ushome's material just rehashes the same points) I don't want to watch it and be frustrated.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Since I'd rather not waste an hour of my life, let me ask you a couple simple questions:

Does he provide a scientific study by which we can empirically test for god's involvement in evolution? If so, briefly explain what the procedure is. Also, what are the criteria for the tests success, and is it a test that can be repeated and verified by testers of any belief? Again, why is this so?

If it doesn't provide those things in a scientifically valid way, free from bias and working only with observable data, it is not science.

Basically, if it is just a tired reiteration of the creationist propoganda I've heard countless times before (most of ushome's material just rehashes the same points) I don't want to watch it and be frustrated.

Here is Hugh Ross' hotline for those of you who have purchased his "Creation as Science" book or for those who have any questions at all about the presentation (i.e. creation or evolution).


science-faith hotline (everyday except Christmas):

626-335-5282

5-7 PM Pacific

or

Live webcast every Tuesday

11am-1pm

www.reasons.org

866-RTB-RADIO


At 1:04:55 in Hugh Ross' video presentation he explains how the creation model can be put to the test.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
At 1:04:55 in Hugh Ross' video presentation he explains how the creation model can be put to the test.

Creation can be falsified if: "scientists can prove that there is nothing unique about human creature's spirit attributes compared to other creatures of light."

1:05:10

Anything that reminds me of DavidIke deserves any and all ridicule it gets.

I like this quote too:

"We make predictions and then wait two or three years."


But really the entire thing is an infomercial, little more.

K, so I'm listening to snippets while I do more important stuff. Here's a running commentary as I listen...

- Hmm. He starts by, in essence, billing the Bible as a valid science book. Yet this fails to account for numerous interpretations, language and translation differences, and the fact that people can "find" supposedly correct cosmology in the Bible, but a fair number of other passages are way off. It's a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument....assigning meaning after the fact instead of as a predictive agent, which would lend it credibility. It's no better than the idiotic Nostradamus apologists, who claim success by reinterpreting things to predict past events. Also, he incorrectly asserts that the Christian god is the only mythological god said to create something from nothing, when in fact they are littered throughout mythology, both predating and post-dating Christianity.

- Second Law of Thermodynamics argument?! *yawn*

- Also ignores theories that account for the existence of matter by entirely causal forces.

- He likes throwing out buzzwords of theoretical physics. He must've claimed about a dozen times that "all evidence points to a creator" or "scientists agree..." without saying why, explaining how, or naming the scientists and evidence for such statements. I haven't even heard an argument yet other than explaining the history of our cosmological knowledge then finding a Bible passage that fits it loosely.

- Calling creation a "miracle" and stopping at that as a final explanation is horrible. This is the antithesis of scientific inquiry.

- Still trying to sell the Bible as a literal science book. Lots of Bible passages are cited, yet all are fairly vague stretches to meet the analogies he sees with modern physics. I could find plenty of these in any religious text, so long as I'm allowed to use such vague criteria to match them as "factual."

- Hey! I heard the words "fine tuning!" I was wondering when he'd pull out the anthropic argument. Seriously, he was dying with the Bible as literal science book schtick.

...I'm 25 minutes in. I'm stopping due to my brain feeling like it's dying. If anyone else besides the dynamic evangelical duo watches it (not recommended, btw), let me know if I missed anything.


....


P.S. JIA's post answered nothing that I asked. It's like he didn't even acknowledge that I spoke.

Just as an addendum: I'm a bit cynical and sarcastic toward ushome and JIA because they have a habit of ignoring the other side and only confirming their beliefs instead of seeking to challenge them. But for those who are genuinely interested in hearing discussion, evolutionary theory can and does offer elegant answers to any and all objections raised thus far in the creationist movement. Creationists also have no valid scientific theory of their own, but have irrational faith in spades to tell you otherwise and a gift for perverting science to meet their ends. If someone wants to discuss these things, rather than just post their side of the argument and ignore the rest, I and others are willing to debate. I don't both with lengthy rebuttals anymore, because I've said most of it before and am subsequently ignored or the point is dodged/changed. It's a waste of time unless someone is genuinely interested in engaging others.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Creationists also have no valid scientific theory of their own, but have irrational faith in spades to tell you otherwise and a gift for perverting science to meet their ends. If someone wants to discuss these things, rather than just post their side of the argument and ignore the rest, I and others are willing to debate.

No offense, but that isn't really the statement of a person looking for a debate (unless it's one on how stupid creationists are).

Originally posted by DigiMark007
K, so I'm listening to snippets while I do more important stuff. Here's a running commentary as I listen...

- Hmm. He starts by, in essence, billing the Bible as a valid science book. Yet this fails to account for numerous interpretations, language and translation differences, and the fact that people can "find" supposedly correct cosmology in the Bible, but a fair number of other passages are way off. It's a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument....assigning meaning after the fact instead of as a predictive agent, which would lend it credibility. It's no better than the idiotic Nostradamus apologists, who claim success by reinterpreting things to predict past events. Also, he incorrectly asserts that the Christian god is the only mythological god said to create something from nothing, when in fact they are littered throughout mythology, both predating and post-dating Christianity.

- Second Law of Thermodynamics argument?! *yawn*

- Also ignores theories that account for the existence of matter by entirely causal forces.

- He likes throwing out buzzwords of theoretical physics. He must've claimed about a dozen times that "all evidence points to a creator" or "scientists agree..." without saying why, explaining how, or naming the scientists and evidence for such statements. I haven't even heard an argument yet other than explaining the history of our cosmological knowledge then finding a Bible passage that fits it loosely.

- Calling creation a "miracle" and stopping at that as a final explanation is horrible. This is the antithesis of scientific inquiry.

- Still trying to sell the Bible as a literal science book. Lots of Bible passages are cited, yet all are fairly vague stretches to meet the analogies he sees with modern physics. I could find plenty of these in any religious text, so long as I'm allowed to use such vague criteria to match them as "factual."

- Hey! I heard the words "fine tuning!" I was wondering when he'd pull out the anthropic argument. Seriously, he was dying with the Bible as literal science book schtick.

...I'm 25 minutes in. I'm stopping due to my brain feeling like it's dying. If anyone else besides the dynamic evangelical duo watches it (not recommended, btw), let me know if I missed anything.


....


P.S. JIA's post answered nothing that I asked. It's like he didn't even acknowledge that I spoke.



You hit it spot on. It's exactly what every pro-creationist video says. Didn't need a thread. These threads are getting more stupid with each passing day.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No offense, but that isn't really the statement of a person looking for a debate (unless it's one on how stupid creationists are).

Fair enough. If someone has legit questions, or something new to bring to the discussion, I am game and won't be hostile toward them. But Ushome angers me sometimes with his underhanded tactics in this forum, and I get carried away since I don't feel like he deserves that same promise from me anymore.

....

Anyway, I had fun with the first half. Second half commentary (sarcasm returns, btw).

- Directed panspermia. A fun theory, vaguely scientific. Aliens bringing life to earth. He enjoys destroying it as the straw man that it is, but then of course reverts to form and inserts god as the only other answer. Clearly he isn't versed with anything done in the past 25 years toward testing for the creation of the basic building blocks of life in earth's primordial atmosphere. I'll cite them if anyone's interested, since I don't want to be accused of saying things without evidence. His probability equations suffer from similar flaws, and the misunderstanding of natural selection that leads many people to see it as impossible (it is far from it).

- Thermodynamics again. Sheesh. Hasn't he read an evolution text in the past 50 years?! And of course, the only way to reconcile the law (to him) is the Bible's explanation. Not only was this dealt with, but it was explained a long time ago by a testable (and since confirmed) source.

- Bible as literal science again. Though he has to mire through metaphor in order to produce a ridiculous interpretation of passages to match our known history.

- Lulz at the "test" for creationism. It's a test to try to disprove evolution, which is what all creation "science" is. Ah, wait, maybe not....It attempts to find the point at which Adam and Eve were created. Yeah. Also, let's be clear, he is talking here about a variation on young earth creationism....Bible as literal fact, not metaphor, and is even further toward the extreme than ID. No one but the most religiously-blinded should ever listen to this man. He's a waste of time.

- Part of his "scientific" way that his theory could be falsified (which all science needs) is that if science showed that humans don't have "spirit attributes," and his other criteria actually have little to do with disproving a Christian god. The analogical gap between, say, the anthropic principle and believing the specifically Christian god are monumental.

- He ends by saying there's no reason for hostility in these debates. I disagree. When one pushes religious dogmatic faith as science, and perverts actual science, we should all be fearful and upset. This man, by the sounds of it, would not be opposed to handing out Bibles in classrooms. Creationists, IDers, crazy people....believe what you want, teach it to your kids, whatever. Just don't try to push your beliefs on the public.

Originally posted by ushomefree
For all interested

Being interested has rarely stopped the efforts of people like yourself; or from people like myself from responding.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Fair enough. If someone has legit questions, or something new to bring to the discussion, I am game and won't be hostile toward them. But Ushome angers me sometimes with his underhanded tactics in this forum, and I get carried away since I don't feel like he deserves that same promise from me anymore.

Sounds reasonable.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
He ends by saying there's no reason for hostility in these debates. I disagree. When one pushes religious dogmatic faith as science, and perverts actual science, we should all be fearful and upset. This man, by the sounds of it, would not be opposed to handing out Bibles in classrooms.

Actually I think that's the one part where he says something of merit. The sort of hostility produced in the evolution/creation conflict accomplishes nothing. Yes, it may be frightening to see people that believe things that are a bit absurd but getting angry at them is not a useful response, if anything it drives people away from the view point of the hostile person.

Arguments should be set up to let people make up their own minds (on both sides, of course, I'm perfectly aware that creationists distort things to their benefit) not pound a specific manner of thought into their heads. If people disagree, especially on this topic, berating them will never change their minds. In fact it has been pointed out that after a fanatic has his/her belief challenged it just becomes more firm.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Creationists, IDers, crazy people....believe what you want, teach it to your kids, whatever. Just don't try to push your beliefs on the public.

Technically aren't non-theists a minority trying to push beliefs on the public?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
This video presentation was well done. Hugh Ross showed that the Biblical record is indeed scientifically sound.

How can fiction be scientifically sound?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How can fiction be scientifically sound?

Step 1) The author thoroughly researches modern scientific knowledge.
Step 2) The author writes a story in which the setting cleaves to what he has learned.

Berating, no. That won't do any good. But debating passionately, and doing everything possible to keep religion out of schools, yes. But when that happens on both sides, tempers flare. It's basically inevitable. Unfortunate, but inevitable.

But as it applies to me and KMC, my comments berate the guy for shoddy science, and by proxy those who would agree with him. But I realize my audience. Most realize the video for what it is and ignore it. A few agree adamantly with him and will ignore me. My comments were so that a cogent counter-argument exists in the thread and also for humor value. When the arena I debate in is more serious, I'm far more careful to remove sarcasm and debate respectfully. But like I said, these constant spam threads from ushome are a joke (there's been about a dozen that are identical to this one so far), so they deserve the same at this point.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Technically aren't non-theists a minority trying to push beliefs on the public?

I realize this is mostly in jest, but I do want to respond. I don't recall endorsing any sort of agenda to have my religious beliefs taught in public schools. Nor would I. Creationists do. So no, not everyone wants others to believe what they do by force. And if by "my beliefs" you mean science, science is provisional, not dogmatic, and thus subject to falsification and change. And also based upon observable data. Creationism is not, on both counts. So it's not a "belief" in any sense of the word, just an empirical methological ideology that can be applied to any situation in order to objectively test theories.

Well I'm tapped out. Night.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Step 1) The author thoroughly researches modern scientific knowledge.
Step 2) The author writes a story in which the setting cleaves to what he has learned.

Step 3) Gets into a time machine and travels back to the time when the bible was written.

That's among my list of things to do when I get a time machine. Take a camcorder to about 30 AD and be like "yup. That's Jesus." Then follow him around a bit.

Then use it to bang hot famous chicks from different timelines. My progeny would cover millenia!

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Clearly he isn't versed with anything done in the past 25 years toward testing for the creation of the basic building blocks of life in earth's primordial atmosphere. I'll cite them if anyone's interested, since I don't want to be accused of saying things without evidence. His probability equations suffer from similar flaws, and the misunderstanding of natural selection that leads many people to see it as impossible (it is far from it).


Love to hear that citation, could be very interesting.
Thanks.

Not a problem. Not tonight though...almost bedtime, and it would take a little bit of digging into my collection to find the multiple sources.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
That Hugh Ross is or was an astronomer means little to me (notwithstanding that it has been shown he misunderstands some seminal concepts of physics.) If you're attempting an argumentum ad verecundiam then I'd suggest you choose a better subject. Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Hugh Ross has 5 peer reviewed publications to his name, the majority as co-author, the last dating three decades ago and as shown by Mark Perakh (PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics; Cal. State University, Fullerton... ZOMG!) in critique of his commercial publications he lacks understanding of some basic physical concepts.

His attempt at using anthropic principle was similarly shown flawed in a critique by Bill Jefferys (PhD, Professor Emeritus of Astronomy; University of Texas, Austin; Adjunct Professor of Statistics; University of Vermont... ZOMG!) and Michael Ikeda (PhD, Bureau of the Census... ZOMG!).

What people tend to do is break the argument down into 2 categories. These categories are atheist vs creationist. This is a false dicotomy. It's actually creationists and their ilk vs hundreds of thousands of other and varied sides that are realized by their varied proponents who all have their own personal interpretations and ideas about how A god might work or intend. The problem comes when it's organized as established, uniform religion v. the honestly-true reality that god, numbers, science and the pulpit are placed at odds. Somewhere in the middle must be the truth. And the middle isn't hating and fearing your neighbour, as well as condemning them with a fairly tale about hell or god's interest or his wrath. The middle is saying "I know some things, but also understand that I don't know it all. As well as saying that "I don't know everything."; and this is not the behaviour of folks like JIA or ushomefree or Jerry Falwell or Ted Haggard or George W. Bush or anyone! who claims to know, understand, interpret or speak-for or all-knowingly speak-for GOD!

So, any human being that walks up to another human being and profess they know better or well what a god who none of us can truely know, and tell them they personally know what and how god works in their own lives is FULL OF SHIT!

As usual, profound thanks to X. Though I'll still cite the studies I mentioned to appease Trans.

Originally posted by Devil King
What people tend to do is break the argument down into 2 categories. These categories are atheist vs creationist. This is a false dicotomy. It's actually creationists and their ilk vs hundreds of thousands of other and varied sides that are realized by their varied proponents who all have their own personal interpretations and ideas about how A god might work or intend. The problem comes when it's organized as established, uniform religion v. the honestly-true reality that god, numbers, science and the pulpit are placed at odds. Somewhere in the middle must be the truth. And the middle isn't hating and fearing your neighbour, as well as condemning them with a fairly tale about hell or god's interest or his wrath. The middle is saying "I know some things, but also understand that I don't know it all. As well as saying that "I don't know everything."; and this is not the behaviour of folks like JIA or ushomefree or Jerry Falwell or Ted Haggard or George W. Bush or anyone! who claims to know, understand, interpret or speak-for or all-knowingly speak-for GOD!

So, any human being that walks up to another human being and profess they know better or well what a god who none of us can truely know, and tell them they personally know what and how god works in their own lives is FULL OF SHIT!

Agreed. Except for the part where you claim that somewhere in the middle must be the truth. Yet evolutionists claim nothing about a god or that god's workings, nor do most take evolution to mean that there is no god. Simply that one is not needed for life to have occurred on our planet. In any case, only one side is dealing with the workings of an unknowable god. The other deals only with hard data.

In any case, in belated response to Trans' request:

Stanley Miller and ___ Urey (don't have the first name) first generated amino acids in 1953 using conditions that were set up to be similar to what we believe to be Earth's atmospheric conditions before the advent of life on the planet. The study has fallen in and out of favor in subsequent years as our estimates of earth's atmosphere become more and more refined.

Since that time, amino acids have been developed in a wide array of tests, all with varying but similar atmospheric conditions to what we believe to be earth's primordial atmosphere.

Notably, protein microspheres were spontaneously produced in such an experiment by biochemist Sydney Fox ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_W._Fox ) in the 50's and 60's, which is the next logical step beyond amino acids toward the creation of life.

Even beyond this, 74 types of amino acids have been discovered on meteorites that have landed on earth, which tells us that these building blocks of life can be formed in a wide variety of atmospheric conditions, and survive the rigors of space.

Probably the only remaining creationist objection to such findings is that we have not yet created "life" (defined conveniently enough for them that very little in earth's early history would be considered life). But this of course ignores the fact that evolution deals with hundreds of millions of years. We discovered DNA a little over 50 years ago. I'd say we're doing alright for half a century. The fact that we don't have life in a lab actually supports the gradual process of evolution, rather than seeing it as a failure and labeling life a divine miracle.

...

My source for most of the information (other than the Urey/Miller and Fox findings) is Donald Prothero's book Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters, which goes into far more detail on these matter (and others) than I have time to here.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
As usual, profound thanks to X. Though I'll still cite the studies I mentioned to appease Trans.



Agreed. Except for the part where you claim that somewhere in the middle must be the truth. Yet evolutionists claim nothing about a god or that god's workings, nor do most take evolution to mean that there is no god. Simply that one is not needed for life to have occurred on our planet. In any case, only one side is dealing with the workings of an unknowable god. The other deals only with hard data.

and on Mr. Dawkins atheist scale (1 to 7, 7 being certain there is absolutely not a god) most scientists place themselves between 1 and 6. Even mr. Dawkins places himself at a 6.

I found this and wonder what JIA and ush would have to say about all these Christian Evolutionist

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/evolution/christian_evolutionists.html

Originally posted by DigiMark007
In any case, in belated response to Trans' request:

Stanley Miller and ___ Urey (don't have the first name) first generated amino acids in 1953 using conditions that were set up to be similar to what we believe to be Earth's atmospheric conditions before the advent of life on the planet. The study has fallen in and out of favor in subsequent years as our estimates of earth's atmosphere become more and more refined.

Since that time, amino acids have been developed in a wide array of tests, all with varying but similar atmospheric conditions to what we believe to be earth's primordial atmosphere.

Notably, protein microspheres were spontaneously produced in such an experiment by biochemist Sydney Fox ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_W._Fox ) in the 50's and 60's, which is the next logical step beyond amino acids toward the creation of life.

Even beyond this, 74 types of amino acids have been discovered on meteorites that have landed on earth, which tells us that these building blocks of life can be formed in a wide variety of atmospheric conditions, and survive the rigors of space.

Probably the only remaining creationist objection to such findings is that we have not yet created "life" (defined conveniently enough for them that very little in earth's early history would be considered life). But this of course ignores the fact that evolution deals with hundreds of millions of years. We discovered DNA a little over 50 years ago. I'd say we're doing alright for half a century. The fact that we don't have life in a lab actually supports the gradual process of evolution, rather than seeing it as a failure and labeling life a divine miracle.

...

My source for most of the information (other than the Urey/Miller and Fox findings) is Donald Prothero's book Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters, which goes into far more detail on these matter (and others) than I have time to here.
Ah, well I was hoping for a new study, not just a rehashed Urey/Miller and Fox.
Well nonetheless, lets get to it:

There are three main parts of the Urey-Miller experiment that invalidate the results they received, I will go through each one as briefly as possible.

1- By using a mechanism called a "cold trap," Miller isolated the amino acids from the environment as soon as they were formed. Had he not done so, the conditions in the environment in which the amino acids were formed would immediately have destroyed these molecules. In Miller's previous experiments (in which he used the same materials) he did not produce the same results without the "cold trap". The chemist Richard Bliss expresses another contradiction by observing that "Actually, without this trap, the chemical products, would have been destroyed by the energy source." (Richard B. Bliss, Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P. Publications, 3rd ed., California, 1990, pp. 14-15.)

2- The primordial atmosphere that Miller attempted to simulate in his experiment was not realistic. In the 1980s, scientists agreed that nitrogen and carbon dioxide should have been used in this artificial environment instead of methane and ammonia.

So why did Miller insist on these gases? The answer is simple: without ammonia, it was impossible to synthesize any amino acid.

3- At the end of Miller's experiment, many organic acids had also been formed with characteristics detrimental to the structure and function of living things. If the amino acids had not been isolated, and had been left in the same environment with these chemicals, their destruction or transformation into different compounds through chemical reactions would have been unavoidable.

Moreover, Miller's experiment also produced right-handed amino acids. (Richard B. Bliss & Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P. Publications, 3rd ed., California, 1990, p. 16.) The existence of these amino acids refuted the theory even within its own terms, because right-handed amino acids cannot function in the composition of living organisms. To conclude, the circumstances in which amino acids were formed in Miller's experiment were not suitable for life. In truth, this medium took the form of an acidic mixture destroying and oxidizing the useful molecules obtained.

As we can see, the Urey-Miller experiment is unusable because of the many problems it had in the execution and results of the tests taken.

Moving on to Fox,

1- Fox made his "microspheres" (more accurately protenoids)"under very special conditions," by heating them in a dry environment. The amino acids combined, but still no proteins were obtained. What he actually ended up with were simple and disordered loops of amino acids, arbitrarily combined with each other, and these loops were far from resembling any living protein. Furthermore, if Fox had kept the amino acids at a steady temperature, then these useless loops would also have disintegrated.

2- Fox did not use the useless end products obtained in Miller's experiment; rather, he used pure amino acids from living organisms. This experiment, however, which was intended to be a continuation of Miller's experiment, should have started out from the results obtained by Miller. Yet neither Fox, nor any other researcher, used the useless amino acids Miller produced.

Needless to say, Fox and Urey-Miller are not even remotely close to proofs for abiogenesis, and this STILL does not address the absurdly monumental probability AGAINST the self-assemblance of proteins in the "primordial soup",

(http://origins.swau.edu/papers/life/chadwick/default.html pg 3)

I was really hoping for a new study, but alas, once again I see Urey-Miller and Fox.

C'mon have some originality people!

Though I thank you for bringing this up, most people never have a chance to see these facts.

Bravo!

This would have been faster:
http://sikku.blogspot.com/2007/08/invalidating-miller-ureys-experiment_10.html

There we go . . . wait that's the same thing, word for word. Having to plagiarize an argument makes you look foolish.


The information also seems out of date. What do we care about what science thought in the 1980s anyway?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This would have been faster:
http://sikku.blogspot.com/2007/08/invalidating-miller-ureys-experiment_10.html

There we go . . . wait that's the same thing, word for word. Having to plagiarize an argument makes you look foolish.

...and can get you banned.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This would have been faster:
http://sikku.blogspot.com/2007/08/invalidating-miller-ureys-experiment_10.html

There we go . . . wait that's the same thing, word for word. Having to plagiarize an argument makes you look foolish.


The information also seems out of date. What do we care about what science thought in the 1980s anyway? OUCH and total burn

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This would have been faster:
http://sikku.blogspot.com/2007/08/invalidating-miller-ureys-experiment_10.html

There we go . . . wait that's the same thing, word for word. Having to plagiarize an argument makes you look foolish.


The information also seems out of date. What do we care about what science thought in the 1980s anyway?
I apologize,
I thought I had cited the source at the beginning; apparently i did not.
I will admit that this is a blunder, and thank you for pointing that out.
The actual source was from http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_10.html
Thank you for pointing this out and once again I apologize.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This would have been faster:
http://sikku.blogspot.com/2007/08/invalidating-miller-ureys-experiment_10.html

There we go . . . wait that's the same thing, word for word. Having to plagiarize an argument makes you look foolish.Indeed, though it does not necessarily falsify the information plagiarized.

Originally posted by Acrosurge
Indeed, though it does not necessarily falsify the information plagiarized.

That is true, but it does not reflect well on the person who plagiarized.

Originally posted by Acrosurge
Indeed, though it does not necessarily falsify the information plagiarized. Even if you disprove all theories all that leads to is "We don't know the answer" not that ID is valid.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is true, but it does not reflect well on the person who plagiarized.
Unless it was an honest mistake, as was the case here. In such circumstances, it would not reflect well on the person who ignores apologies and explainations, namely, you.

Originally posted by Acrosurge
Indeed, though it does not necessarily falsify the information plagiarized.

I didn't make that claim.

However the fact that we're in 2008 and the articles used stop around 1991 really makes one wonder. I'm not well versed enough in the actual science to refute the article but it seems to make a number of assumptions.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Unless it was an honest mistake, as was the case here. In such circumstances, it would not reflect well on the person who ignores apologies and explainations, namely, you.

I believe that was a statement and a true one at that, did he say that he didn't accept your apology? It could also be construed that you came up with this after the fact to order to cover your self, both are valid and just statements.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Unless it was an honest mistake, as was the case here. In such circumstances, it would not reflect well on the person who ignores apologies and explainations, namely, you.

Should I check to see if plagiarizing is a pattern with you?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Should I check to see if plagiarizing is a pattern with you?
Feel free, I have nothing to hide.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I didn't make that claim.

However the fact that we're in 2008 and the articles used stop around 1991 really makes one wonder. I'm not well versed enough in the actual science to refute the article but it seems to make a number of assumptions. What assumptions are you referring to?

Has their been a successful, laboratory duplication of primeval protein structures and amino acids since the 80s?

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Feel free, I have nothing to hide. I'm sure I've heard that before

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Feel free, I have nothing to hide.

This makes it look like you do.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Unless it was an honest mistake, as was the case here. In such circumstances, it would not reflect well on the person who ignores apologies and explainations, namely, you.

I wasn't even talking to you at the time.

Hey Trans, I mentioned that the results have been duplicated numerous times in settings with much more refined atmospheric conditions to match our current knowledge. Hell, I stated myself that the Miller study had fallen out of favor in subsequent years. So props for being able to defeat the already-identified straw man, but you, like Ross, are living about 50 years in the past.

You also ignored anything in my post besides what you had a copy/paste article on. At least don't insult our intelligences like that.

Read Prothero's book that I mentioned. I summarized the findings, but he really just blows all of this to holy hell. And, in a nutshell, the numerous studies conducted show that life could easily have developed in earth's early atmosphere. The fact that we can't go back and time and see exactly how it happened doesn't invalidate that we've proven that it is very likely to have happened.

But a hearty "lulz" at your "Pfft! Just another Miller/Fox citation?! Come on, be original." Are your quotations from scientific peer reviews, or Christian websites? Do you continue the scientific inquiry or do you just declare them failed theories and decide that god is the winner? And the objections against Fox also betray a less than full understanding of evolution. Mutation is random, so it makes sense that initial experiements would yield arbitrary and unorganized protein chains. Were you expecting perfectly ordered chains that would lead us directly to more complex forms? Hell, if that happened, it would actually hurt evolution and strengthen the case for ID because of how absurdly unlikely it is.

And stop posting the big numbers. They mean nothing. Figure out how natural selection works, and how it negates your probability equations. It's Hoyle's 747 analogy re-packaged, and equally as invalid.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Hey Trans, I mentioned that the results have been duplicated numerous times in settings with much more refined atmospheric conditions to match our current knowledge. Hell, I stated myself that the Miller study had fallen out of favor in subsequent years. So props for being able to defeat the already-identified straw man, but you, like Ross, are living about 50 years in the past.

You also ignored anything in my post besides what you had a copy/paste article on. At least don't insult our intelligences like that.

Read Prothero's book that I mentioned. I summarized the findings, but he really just blows all of this to holy hell. And, in a nutshell, the numerous studies conducted show that life could easily have developed in earth's early atmosphere. The fact that we can't go back and time and see exactly how it happened doesn't invalidate that we've proven that it is very likely to have happened.
>>What I was hoping for Digi, was a citation to a new study on this topic. I already knew all about Fox and Urey-Miller; I was interested only in a new study. If you can produce this, it would be interesting.

And even if I take your word for it that proteins could have been formed in the early Earth atmosphere (which has yet to have any merit), the argument of sheer probability remains. Once again from http://origins.swau.edu/papers/life/chadwick/default.html


So Digi, even if you can produce a new study complete with citation (what I was interested about in the first place) you still have to answer to the immense probability AGAINST your position.

And, for the record, Natural Selection has no effect on inanimate objects such as proteins. The mere idea that it does is laughable at best.

Originally posted by DigiMark007


But a hearty "lulz" at your "Pfft! Just another Miller/Fox citation?! Come on, be original." Are your quotations from scientific peer reviews, or Christian websites? Do you continue the scientific inquiry or do you just declare them failed theories and decide that god is the winner? And the objections against Fox also betray a less than full understanding of evolution. Mutation is random, so it makes sense that initial experiements would yield arbitrary and unorganized protein chains. Were you expecting perfectly ordered chains that would lead us directly to more complex forms? Hell, if that happened, it would actually hurt evolution and strengthen the case for ID because of how absurdly unlikely it is.


I know how you hate copy/paste answers, but this one is just too good to refuse. Quoting again from that same brilliant paper: http://origins.swau.edu/papers/life/chadwick/default.html



I couldn't have put it better myself.

Because you don't know what it actually means. That's why you have to quote it rather than explain it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because you don't know what it actually means. That's why you have to quote it rather than explain it.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
And, for the record, Natural Selection has no effect on inanimate objects such as proteins. The mere idea that it does is laughable at best. Correct me if I'm wrong but at the base of all "life" is made up of non living material?

If no one has the capacity and/or interest to view the presentation by Hugh Ross, than we are at a loss! If you have not viewed the presentation, than you are without foundation to argue (or even agree for the matter). Hugh Ross, is not only an Astronomer, be he is a humble man. Anyone--and I mean anyone--who has read his books and/or viewed his movies would agree with me; and the video presentation I posted, only enforces my stance! I have a friend back home that--although he disagrees with him on certain points--found him respectable! He is not out to force his perspective down people's throats. Knowing so, I thought a few of you (on the forum) would acknowledge that fact and listen to the man; but many of you--if fact, all of you--have done none other than make a mockery out of this scientist, if not Creationists in general. I really do not understand. The man holds an "Old Earth" view, for crying out loud! Most of you should respect that at the least!! Hugh Ross, in his presentation talks about current information concerning Cosmology, and how it impacts mankind, not mention science. I do not understand the negative attitude--to stone-wall the man, as if information (or a different view) is somehow going to make you melt! NONE OF YOU HAVE EVEN WATCHED HIS PRESENTATION!! And yet, you have an opinion? Are you kidding?? Amazing....

May we all please, take a deep breath and focus on Hugh Ross's presentation? That was the point of this thread--for all to watch the presentation, in its entirety, and discuss all contained within. But, that did not happen. Instead, literally, 5 minutes after I posted the thread, Shakyamunison posts a hyperlink--to Wikipedia of all things!--defining Hugh Ross (in black and white fashion) as a Creationist. Later, Shaky claimed that he was simply providing "additional information." AND THEN ALL HELL BROKE LOSE! The focus of my thread, at that point, was no longer taken seriously.

Shaky... what in the world are you trying to accomplish??!

May we all get back on track and view the presentation? If not, please, keep your opinions to yourself. All you are doing to getting ahead of yourself and/or distorting the foundation of this thread. You simply must view the presentation to have any opinion!! Makes sense, right?!

C'mon guys... I do not think I am being unfair; reason with me.

Actually I think it broke down when we found out he thought "spirit attributes" were a valid scientific concept. He does seem like a nice and probably pretty reasonable person, sadly it doesn't make him right.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
I couldn't have put it better myself.

No, I doubt you could have.



...

Anyway, what Pitt said. But basically, natural selection affects all of this rather elegantly, and cuts your seemingly insurmountable probability down to size. See, it retains positive change and eliminates the bad over a gradual process that takes millions of years. So once even the simplest amino acid is formed, it can be built upon and adapted slowly. Life begins, though not the way you define it.

Imagine this rather classic analogy: 1000 monkeys each at a typewriter, and we're trying to get Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet. Leave the monkeys in the room for 1000 years and you'll never get Shakespeare. That's your number that you're attempting to sell as the likelihood of evolution.

Now take those monkeys and retain each correct letter. So a monkey is randomly typing and hits a "t" (the first letter of the play). Maybe 15 minutes later he types a "w" then an "o" a few minutes after that. Many other letters are in between, but they are eliminated. To make the analogy fit natural selection, all we have to do is insert the discarded letters for "negative survival mutation" and the letters we keep as "positive survival mutation." In a few years, at most, we'll have our play. Or, a few hundred generations or so later, we'll have a simple organism. Now extrapolate the monkeys few years to the first few hundred million years of evolution and we're complete. This is far more apt a viewpoint on natural selection. And makes it so that once you have a few basic amino acid/proteins, it becomes not only possible but likely that more and more complex strains would occur, eventually leading to "life" as it is commonly understood.

Originally posted by ushomefree
If no one has the capacity and/or interest to view the presentation by Hugh Ross, than we are at a loss! If you have not viewed the presentation, than you are without foundation to argue (or even agree for the matter). Hugh Ross, is not only an Astronomer, be he is a humble man. Anyone--and I mean anyone--who has read his books and/or viewed his movies would agree with me; and the video presentation I posted, only enforces my stance! I have a friend back home that--although he disagrees with him on certain points--found him respectable! He is not out to force his perspective down people's throats. Knowing so, I thought a few of you (on the forum) would acknowledge that fact and listen to the man; but many of you--if fact, all of you--have done none other than make a mockery out of this scientist, if not Creationists in general. I really do not understand. The man holds an "Old Earth" view, for crying out loud! Most of you should respect that at the least!! Hugh Ross, in his presentation talks about current information concerning Cosmology, and how it impacts mankind, not mention science. I do not understand the negative attitude--to stone-wall the man, as if information (or a different view) is somehow going to make you melt! NONE OF YOU HAVE EVEN WATCHED HIS PRESENTATION!! And yet, you have an opinion? Are you kidding?? Amazing....

May we all please, take a deep breath and focus on Hugh Ross's presentation? That was the point of this thread--for all to watch the presentation, in its entirety, and discuss all contained within. But, that did not happen. Instead, literally, 5 minutes after I posted the thread, Shakyamunison posts a hyperlink--to Wikipedia of all things!--defining Hugh Ross (in black and white fashion) as a Creationist. Later, Shaky claimed that he was simply providing "additional information." AND THEN ALL HELL BROKE LOSE! The focus of my thread, at that point, was no longer taken seriously.

Shaky... what in the world are you trying to accomplish??!

May we all get back on track and view the presentation? If not, please, keep your opinions to yourself. All you are doing to getting ahead of yourself and/or distorting the foundation of this thread. You simply must view the presentation to have any opinion!! Makes sense, right?!

C'mon guys... I do not think I am being unfair; reason with me.

Actually, I watched it. Though I'm not surprised that you ignored my responses. Seriously, do you have me on ignore by now or is it just a particular skill of yours?

Anyway, the guy's a quack. He's not even advocating ID. He's positing that the Bible is the most scientifically accurate book known to man.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Correct me if I'm wrong but at the base of all "life" is made up of non living material?
True, but natural selection would only effect living organisms as per the nature of the process.
For example, natural selection is based on the hypothesis that all life is a competition to survive and create offspring. In the theory, certain mutations allow an organism to survive more efficiently, and thusly that mutation gets passed on to offspring.

Here's why it wouldn't effect non-living material:

With "non living material" there is no competition for survival, since inanimate objects are not alive in the first place. Furthermore they cannot produce offspring, and because of the fact that there is no competition, there would be no "driving force" or natural selection at play. And remember, with no natural selection at play, that insurmountable number stands.

And Digi, you're analogy with the monkeys is flawed inherently (though it did make me chuckle at the absurdity) based on the fact that proteins cannot produce offspring, and are NOT ALIVE. because of this there would be no "positive mutation" or "negative mutation" to discern the letters typed, for THERE IS NO SURVIVAL FOR A MUTATION TO BE BENEFICIAL OR NEGATIVE TO!

Originally posted by Transfinitum
True, but natural selection would only effect living organisms as per the nature of the process.
For example, natural selection is based on the hypothesis that all life is a competition to survive and create offspring. In the theory, certain mutations allow an organism to survive more efficiently, and thusly that mutation gets passed on to offspring.

Here's why it wouldn't effect non-living material:

With "non living material" there is no competition for survival, since inanimate objects are not alive in the first place. Furthermore they cannot produce offspring, and because of the fact that there is no competition, there would be no "driving force" or natural selection at play. And remember, with no natural selection at play, that insurmountable number stands.

And Digi, you're analogy with the monkeys is flawed inherently (though it did make me chuckle at the absurdity) based on the fact that proteins cannot produce offspring, because of this that "T" the monkey randomly typed would be instantaneously erased after it was typed, as per the analogy. If we are made of non-living material then we are non-living material, we are what we are made of. If there is natural selection then it does affect non-living material, seems pretty simple to me. It only become “living” when the sum is greater than the parts but at the base all things that make up everything are non-living.

DigiMark007-

You and this "ignoring me" nonsense! I cannot keep up with 2, 4, 6 or 8 people posting comments on this thread, or even threads in the past. What is your question and/statement that needs to be addressed? And further more, what does it have to do with the presentation of Hugh Ross?

Originally posted by Da Pittman
If we are made of non-living material then we are non-living material, we are what we are made of. If there is natural selection then it does affect non-living material, seems pretty simple to me. It only become “living” when the sum is greater than the parts but at the base all things that make up everything are non-living.
>>Your argument is a logical fallacy.
It is akin to saying that if cars are made from metal, and metal cannot move by itself, then all cars must be motionless.

Originally posted by ushomefree
DigiMark007-

You and this "ignoring me" nonsense! I cannot keep up with 2, 4, 6 or 8 people posting comments on this thread, or even threads in the past. What is your question and/statement that needs to be addressed? And further more, what does it have to do with the presentation of Hugh Ross?
I would very much like to know, after watching the video, how Hugh Ross comes up with a "always expanding" and "always cooling" universe from the Bible. I heard nothing of this throughout the whole presentation, and it sickened me a little to hear someone ascribe the "Big Bang" to the Bible, a tragic flaw in its own right.

Originally posted by ushomefree
DigiMark007-

You and this "ignoring me" nonsense! I cannot keep up with 2, 4, 6 or 8 people posting comments on this thread, or even threads in the past. What is your question and/statement that needs to be addressed? And further more, what does it have to do with the presentation of Hugh Ross? I only count 3 but you do it in the middle of an argument that you are having with the person at the time.Originally posted by Transfinitum
>>Your argument is a logical fallacy.
It is akin to saying that if cars are made from metal, and metal cannot move by itself, then all cars must be motionless. That would be incorrect. You statement that it doesn't affect non-living material would be incorrect because everything is made of non-living material. When you combine many different non-living material you will get a "living" thing which then becomes governed to natural selection, what you want to do is take a part of the "living" thing and say it is not. That would be the same using your analogy saying that a motor is not a car. As I stated that it is the sum that makes it greater than the parts so that is why it is not a logical fallacy.

Are you actually speaking for DigiMark007?!

Originally posted by ushomefree
Are you actually speaking for DigiMark007?! He can speak for him self but since I have said the same thing to you many times I figured that it was only right since you have used the same reason for me as well. And yelling with big text isn't helping people take you seriously I might add.

You know, Digimark is the only person who actually watched the video. He's the last person you should accuse of going off topic.

Originally posted by King Kandy
You know, Digimark is the only person who actually watched the video. He's the last person you should accuse of going off topic. I've asked ush to post the sections that he wants us to watch but no reply, it is only the polite thing to do. It is a bit much to ask someone to watch an hour video, if you have specific questions then post them.

Da Pittman-

Shut the f--k up!

Digimark thrashed the hell out of this video. The thread is pointless.

In what way, knowing that he has not watched the entire presentation?

See... this goes back to the core of my statement(s). If you have not watched the entire presentation, for lack of a better word, "Shut the f--k up!" You have no opinion worth interpreting.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Da Pittman-

Shut the f--k up! Talk about being rude, I would expect some type of civility from you.

Reported Originally posted by ushomefree
In what way, knowing that he has not watched the entire presentation? He has so just just for you. Again the whole ignoring part again.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Fair enough. If someone has legit questions, or something new to bring to the discussion, I am game and won't be hostile toward them. But Ushome angers me sometimes with his underhanded tactics in this forum, and I get carried away since I don't feel like he deserves that same promise from me anymore.

....

Anyway, I had fun with the first half. Second half commentary (sarcasm returns, btw).

- Directed panspermia. A fun theory, vaguely scientific. Aliens bringing life to earth. He enjoys destroying it as the straw man that it is, but then of course reverts to form and inserts god as the only other answer. Clearly he isn't versed with anything done in the past 25 years toward testing for the creation of the basic building blocks of life in earth's primordial atmosphere. I'll cite them if anyone's interested, since I don't want to be accused of saying things without evidence. His probability equations suffer from similar flaws, and the misunderstanding of natural selection that leads many people to see it as impossible (it is far from it).

- Thermodynamics again. Sheesh. Hasn't he read an evolution text in the past 50 years?! And of course, the only way to reconcile the law (to him) is the Bible's explanation. Not only was this dealt with, but it was explained a long time ago by a testable (and since confirmed) source.

- Bible as literal science again. Though he has to mire through metaphor in order to produce a ridiculous interpretation of passages to match our known history.

- Lulz at the "test" for creationism. It's a test to try to disprove evolution, which is what all creation "science" is. Ah, wait, maybe not....It attempts to find the point at which Adam and Eve were created. Yeah. Also, let's be clear, he is talking here about a variation on young earth creationism....Bible as literal fact, not metaphor, and is even further toward the extreme than ID. No one but the most religiously-blinded should ever listen to this man. He's a waste of time.

- Part of his "scientific" way that his theory could be falsified (which all science needs) is that if science showed that humans don't have "spirit attributes," and his other criteria actually have little to do with disproving a Christian god. The analogical gap between, say, the anthropic principle and believing the specifically Christian god are monumental.

- He ends by saying there's no reason for hostility in these debates. I disagree. When one pushes religious dogmatic faith as science, and perverts actual science, we should all be fearful and upset. This man, by the sounds of it, would not be opposed to handing out Bibles in classrooms. Creationists, IDers, crazy people....believe what you want, teach it to your kids, whatever. Just don't try to push your beliefs on the public.

And you have said nothing.

Originally posted by ushomefree
See... this goes back to the core of my statement(s). If you have not watched the entire presentation, for lack of a better word, "Shut the f--k up!" You have no opinion worth interpreting. I have asked you to post the specific sections that you would like me to comment on, I don't think that is to much to ask for. You want an answer then ask a question. The same can be said to you, have you read the books that Digi and others have posted for you and others to read? If not then you are doing the same that you are accusing others of. tick-for-tat.
Originally posted by ushomefree
And you have said nothing.
See above

Originally posted by ushomefree
In what way, knowing that he has not watched the entire presentation?
BECAUSE DIGIMARK WATCHED THE ENTIRE PRESENTATION!

Originally posted by ushomefree
See... this goes back to the core of my statement(s). If you have not watched the entire presentation, for lack of a better word, "Shut the f--k up!" You have no opinion worth interpreting.

And you are supposed to be a man of god?

Originally posted by ushomefree
Da Pittman-

Shut the f--k up!

It's only the internet

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It's only the internet But it makes people so brave and tuff

Originally posted by Da Pittman
But it makes people so brave and tuff

Yeah, on the internet 40 something graphic designers suddenly become huge musclebound monsters that thrive on pain. Who knew?



On a completely tangiental note how much does a graphic designer make on average? I'm writing a story and looking for a realistic figure.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yeah, on the internet 40 something graphic designers suddenly become huge musclebound monsters that thrive on pain. Who knew?



On a completely tangiental note how much does a graphic designer make on average? I'm writing a story and looking for a realistic figure.

So, are we done with this thread?

...and can we talk about your story?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And you are supposed to be a man of god?
He is such a joke.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yeah, on the internet 40 something graphic designers suddenly become huge musclebound monsters that thrive on pain. Who knew?



On a completely tangiental note how much does a graphic designer make on average? I'm writing a story and looking for a realistic figure. You got me

As for your question what type of designer? Web, corporate, small business, logo designer? I can give you a better answer but it is about 40 to 90 a year, most make between 40 to 60 a year.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, are we done with this thread?

...and can we talk about your story?

Dunno, what's your position on BDSM?

Originally posted by Da Pittman
You got me

As for your question what type of designer? Web, corporate, small business, logo designer? I can give you a better answer but it is about 40 to 90 a year, most make between 40 to 60 a year.

The character is a web designer but even the 40 to 60 is more than accurate enough.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The character is a web designer but even the 40 to 60 is more than accurate enough. If he just designs the site and doesn't build it then that would be in the range, if he builds it like I do then you would want to go more of the 60 to 90 range depending on the type of build.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
If he just designs the site and doesn't build it then that would be in the range, if he builds it like I do then you would want to go more of the 60 to 90 range depending on the type of build.

Thanks.

Ushome -

Lulz at the large font and angry tirades. You sound like you're about 12 with your recent comments. Grow a spine and realize that discussions go in different directions once a thread is made, and not everyone is willing to watch an hour-long presentation....yet they still have the right to post, and you CERTAINLY don't have the right to tell anyone to shut the *f* up.

Anyway, you accuse us that no one watched the video then get mad at me when I tell you that I did and I refer you to my earlier comments. Not really sure how you'd be pleased in this situation, but I'm thrilled that you're going off the hook for no apparent reason. In any case, they've been reposted since you initially asked, but is it really so hard to browse 2-3 pages for my posts?


...

To others: I really want to start making my own threads in this forum for a change, only because we end up spending 90% of our time explaining why the latest creationist on youtube is wrong. It's enough to turn me off from the forum...but at the same time, there's more intelligent pursuits to be had than this endless bickering. So if anyone has any good ideas, I'd encourage you to either bump old threads or post new topics so that we finally have something different to discuss. If I think of anything, I'll follow my own advice, but as of right now I've been drawing a blank for a week or two.

BRB!

My thread was posted to comment of a "specific" video presentation! When members of the forum chose not to watch the video presentation--and still make comments about the video they never watched--their points are shortsighted, not to mention ignorant! It ain't rocket-science material to grasp my point.

But yes, telling members of the forum to "Shut the f--k up," was (and is) totally uncalled for; I lost my cool.



Digi... you never watched the entire video. Be honest.



Easy for you to say; never, in any thread, has the entire forum been against you! Moreover, tracking back to previous pages does not end the former! The replies are posted like clock-work. It is too much to manage.



Oh... I agree with bickering; no doubt.



Right... all this over a video I posted. Amazing!

C'mon Digi! You haven't said one remark about the video "itself!!"

Now I guess I’m arrogant? I asked you to post the sections that you wanted me to view and comment on, is that to much to ask for?

Da Pittman-

I only provided a hyperlink to the video on "Google video." I cannot break it down into segments until I download it. Give me a break, man.

Originally posted by ushomefree
My thread was posted to comment of a "specific" video presentation! When members of the forum chose not to watch the video presentation--and still make comments about the video they never watched--their points are shortsighted, not to mention ignorant! It ain't rocket-science material to grasp my point.

But yes, telling members of the forum to "Shut the f--k up," was (and is) totally uncalled for; I lost my cool.

Yet it's the same arguments as we've all seen before (most, at least). And not everyone has an hour to waste like this. You could easily throw us a bone and summarize the major points, so as to facilitate discussion. As it is, you've posted about a dozen threads identical to this one. It's "the boy who cried wolf" syndrome...so don't be shocked when most people don't give you the time of day when you routinely gloss over important counter-arguments to your points.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Digi... you never watched the entire video. Be honest.

You're right. I didn't. You have correctly found me out to be an ignoble man who lacks integrity. I mean, it's not like I have responses to the video that specifically show that I know what he's talking about at various points in the video. If I had that it would, ya know, totally prove this unfounded accusation wrong. So it's a good thing I don't. Otherwise you'd look pretty foolish here.



Originally posted by ushomefree
Easy for you to say; the never, in any thread, has the entire forum been against you! Moreover, tracking back to previous pages do not end the former! The replies are posted like clock-work. It is too much to manage.

You asked for someone to watch it. I did, and said as much. You blew up. Clockwork or not, you had about 3-4 people telling you "uh. Digi watched it and responded" and somehow you A. don't believe me, and B. didn't even bother to browse a few pages to confirm it. That would take, what, 5 minutes at most? My heart bleeds for you. It's like you're trying to be the martyr here, when you really just need to grow up and learn to debate properly.

What is your question, Da Pittman?

Originally posted by ushomefree
What is your question, Da Pittman? The only question that I have asked you in this thread is what you would think of Christian Evolutionist but that was more off topic than anything else (sorda)

Originally posted by ushomefree
Da Pittman-

I only provided a hyperlink to the video on "Google video." I cannot break it down into segments until I download it. Give me a break, man. There is a time code on the video, you look at the current running time and say go to 12:50 into the video or what ever.

That is not what I did; hence the (more than) 1 hour presentation! And you didn't watch it!!



That is beside the point; you didn't watch the video presentation. Period. (What exactly, "specifically," are you arguing about regarding the video presentation?) You do not know!



You did not watch the video presentation; you said so yourself.

Just stop, Digi!

Originally posted by ushomefree
That is beside the point; you didn't watch the video presentation. Period. (What exactly, "specifically," are you arguing about regarding the video presentation?) You do not know!

If only he had made a point by point, specific analysis of his thoughts on the video. Maybe it would look like this and be found on pages one and two:

- Hmm. He starts by, in essence, billing the Bible as a valid science book. Yet this fails to account for numerous interpretations, language and translation differences, and the fact that people can "find" supposedly correct cosmology in the Bible, but a fair number of other passages are way off. It's a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument....assigning meaning after the fact instead of as a predictive agent, which would lend it credibility. It's no better than the idiotic Nostradamus apologists, who claim success by reinterpreting things to predict past events. Also, he incorrectly asserts that the Christian god is the only mythological god said to create something from nothing, when in fact they are littered throughout mythology, both predating and post-dating Christianity.

- Second Law of Thermodynamics argument?! *yawn*

- Also ignores theories that account for the existence of matter by entirely causal forces.

- He likes throwing out buzzwords of theoretical physics. He must've claimed about a dozen times that "all evidence points to a creator" or "scientists agree..." without saying why, explaining how, or naming the scientists and evidence for such statements. I haven't even heard an argument yet other than explaining the history of our cosmological knowledge then finding a Bible passage that fits it loosely.

- Calling creation a "miracle" and stopping at that as a final explanation is horrible. This is the antithesis of scientific inquiry.

- Still trying to sell the Bible as a literal science book. Lots of Bible passages are cited, yet all are fairly vague stretches to meet the analogies he sees with modern physics. I could find plenty of these in any religious text, so long as I'm allowed to use such vague criteria to match them as "factual."

- Hey! I heard the words "fine tuning!" I was wondering when he'd pull out the anthropic argument. Seriously, he was dying with the Bible as literal science book schtick.

...I'm 25 minutes in. I'm stopping due to my brain feeling like it's dying. If anyone else besides the dynamic evangelical duo watches it (not recommended, btw), let me know if I missed anything.

....

Anyway, I had fun with the first half. Second half commentary (sarcasm returns, btw).

- Directed panspermia. A fun theory, vaguely scientific. Aliens bringing life to earth. He enjoys destroying it as the straw man that it is, but then of course reverts to form and inserts god as the only other answer. Clearly he isn't versed with anything done in the past 25 years toward testing for the creation of the basic building blocks of life in earth's primordial atmosphere. I'll cite them if anyone's interested, since I don't want to be accused of saying things without evidence. His probability equations suffer from similar flaws, and the misunderstanding of natural selection that leads many people to see it as impossible (it is far from it).

- Thermodynamics again. Sheesh. Hasn't he read an evolution text in the past 50 years?! And of course, the only way to reconcile the law (to him) is the Bible's explanation. Not only was this dealt with, but it was explained a long time ago by a testable (and since confirmed) source.

- Bible as literal science again. Though he has to mire through metaphor in order to produce a ridiculous interpretation of passages to match our known history.

- Lulz at the "test" for creationism. It's a test to try to disprove evolution, which is what all creation "science" is. Ah, wait, maybe not....It attempts to find the point at which Adam and Eve were created. Yeah. Also, let's be clear, he is talking here about a variation on young earth creationism....Bible as literal fact, not metaphor, and is even further toward the extreme than ID. No one but the most religiously-blinded should ever listen to this man. He's a waste of time.

- Part of his "scientific" way that his theory could be falsified (which all science needs) is that if science showed that humans don't have "spirit attributes," and his other criteria actually have little to do with disproving a Christian god. The analogical gap between, say, the anthropic principle and believing the specifically Christian god are monumental.

- He ends by saying there's no reason for hostility in these debates. I disagree. When one pushes religious dogmatic faith as science, and perverts actual science, we should all be fearful and upset. This man, by the sounds of it, would not be opposed to handing out Bibles in classrooms. Creationists, IDers, crazy people....believe what you want, teach it to your kids, whatever. Just don't try to push your beliefs on the public.

Originally posted by ushomefree
You did not watch the video presentation; you said so yourself.

Just stop, Digi!

Were you really so dense as to miss him making a joke or is it just brain damage?

Okay dude, now I KNOW you're playing some kind of joke on us. Just admit it. No man can be so ignorant. This is some kind of bizarre prank.

duuuh

...I'll admit I was hoping for it a bit, but I didn't honestly expect him to take it literally.

You can tell someone can't counter your points when they are reduced to saying you never made them.

Assuming for a moment that he isn't yanking our chain, this means that despite about a page of discussion between himself and others, he never once bothered to go back and even look for my posts (or the times they were reposted for ushome's benefit). It confirms everything I've said about him and his debating "strategy"...or it just means his laziness toward reading anything but his own words is epic.

...I'm still chuckling at this, but it just boggles my mind. For the first time, I'm actually starting to feel kinda bad for him if this is how he operates and this is an example of how his mind functions in a debate setting.

Guys, guys, guys... group hug? C'mon! hug

I'm starting to think that ush is a sock account for JIA, he just asked me to watch the video.

No hug. Learn to debate.

But you realize now that I did watch the video, right?

And no one has watched it! C'mon, bro!!

blowup

Bed time; take care, all.

Originally posted by ushomefree
And no one has watched it! C'mon, bro!! Really how old are you? You just have to be a troll like King said.

Seems weird, WD shows up and he goes bye bye

I'm convinced that he still thinks I didn't. So rather than poking the dead horse for a few more laughs, I'll spell it out for him.

I have 2 posts on page 1 and 2 with specific comments on the video. It is detailed to the extent that it is obvious I watched the video. We have referenced them numerous times, and they've also been reposted for your benefit numerous times (most recently on this page by Sym). I watched it, I responded, I have proof. The post where I called myself ignoble and junk was clearly a joke. You ignored the probably dozen+ times you had where we spelled out the proof.

You need to learn to actually read peoples' posts, then respond to their points specifically with your own...not just ignore parts of it (or all) while you talk about whatever you want. You convince no one of anything, unless they already agree with you. It's the opposite of good debating, and is what you do most of the time I see you post.

....

Now, either you're really stupid, really lazy, or a troll. Each seems equally as likely to me at this point, but I got some laughs out of it so no hard feelings...except when you were rude to me and Pitt. That was just uncalled for. Though your "F*CK YOU, now let's hug" comments are bizarre on a new level. Again, either troll behavior or something bordering on bi-polar disorder. So either grow up, learn to debate and/or act respectfully, or seek help.

Originally posted by ushomefree
And no one has watched it! C'mon, bro!!

No one? Not being suddenly agreed with doesn't sit well with you?

Just think of Jesus and the whipping and the bleeding and the sudden condemnation of god, it'll help you.

Originally posted by Devil King
No one? Not being suddenly agreed with doesn't sit well with you?

Just think of Jesus and the whipping and the bleeding and the sudden condemnation of god, it'll help you.

Oh the stupidity.

This thread is painful to read. Goodness UsHomeFree...You could at least admit that you're incapable, or not knowledgeable enough to counter-argue Digi's post, instead of ignoring what he already posted.

Three things:

1) Hugh Ross does not claim that the Bible is a scientific book; instead, Hugh Ross has made statements correlating to the "accuracy" of the Bible in regard to scientific knowledge,

2) Scriptural passages that Hugh Ross presents are not taken out of context for the betterment of his presentation. For example, in the section dealing with "Cosmic Singularity Beginnings"--the first section in which Scripture is introduced--Hugh Ross presented 10 passages! The most famous is Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth." This passage speaks of the Heavens (the Cosmos) and Earth, coming into existence a finite time ago--a singular beginning--just as Big Bang cosmology states, and

3) please provide examples of Scripture to support your case.



Elaborate, please.



What kind of argument is this?! Are you kidding?!! Elaborate, please.



Elaborate, please.



Elaborate, please.



Elaborate, please. And you think I am ignoring you? What am I suppose to address with this (and other statement you have made)??!



This is not true; this issue was addressed in short fashion at the beginning of this post. In any case, elaborate! Present your case!!



No. But why do you think such? Elaborate, please.



Not true, and I will use your statements in this post as an example. You have merely made empty statements--you've provided nothing to substantiate your claims! In lieu of such habits, what am I supposed to respond to?! I am not ignoring you, and furthermore, you are not the only member of the forum that I must entertain.



What objections? Elaborate, please.



How?! You have said nothing! Elaborate, please.



Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? Is it stuffy in here?



Finally, light at the end of the tunnel. Please, cite them! And also provide the significance of such.



Elaborate, please.



What was the source? Elaborate, please. Do you see the pattern here DigiMark007?!



Elaborate! Elaborate! Elaborate! Have you ever attended college?



Why??!



What??!



What??!



Unsubstantiated. Elaborate, please. And stick to Hugh Ross.

What is it with the big bold text?

Originally posted by ushomefree
Three things:

1) Hugh Ross does not claim that the Bible is a scientific book; instead, Hugh Ross has made statements correlating to the "accuracy" of the Bible in regard to scientific knowledge,

2) Scriptural passages that Hugh Ross presents are not taken out of context for the betterment of his presentation. For example, in the section dealing with "Cosmic Singularity Beginnings"--the first section in which Scripture is introduced--Hugh Ross presented 10 passages! The most famous is Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth." This passage speaks of the Heavens (the Cosmos) and Earth, coming into existence a finite time ago--a singular beginning--just as Big Bang cosmology states, and

3) please provide examples of Scripture to support your case.



Elaborate, please.



What kind of argument is this?! Are you kidding?!! Elaborate, please.



Elaborate, please.



Elaborate, please.



Elaborate, please. And you think I am ignoring you? What am I suppose to address with this (and other statement you have made)??!



This is not true; this issue was addressed in short fashion at the beginning of this post. In any case, elaborate! Present your case!!



No. But why do you think such? Elaborate, please.



Not true, and I will use your statements in this post as an example. You have merely made empty statements--you've provided nothing to substantiate your claims! In lieu of such habits, what am I supposed to respond to?! I am not ignoring you, and furthermore, you are not the only member of the forum that I must entertain.



What objections? Elaborate, please.



How?! You have said nothing! Elaborate, please.



Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? Is it stuffy in here?



Finally, light at the end of the tunnel. Please, cite them! And also provide the significance of such.



Elaborate, please.



What was the source? Elaborate, please. Do you see the pattern here DigiMark007?!



Elaborate! Elaborate! Elaborate! Have you ever attended college?



Why??!



What??!



What??!



Unsubstantiated. Elaborate, please. And stick to Hugh Ross.

Lulz. I have a life for a few days. Maybe I'll respond eventually. Though once again, half the stuff he's asking for I've either answered in other posts in this thread or in other threads in response to ushome (like the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which has been beaten into the ground like a rusty nail by both sides) so I see no reason to repeat myself in most instances.

Also note how he never once addressed anything I said. He simply demanded more. I was typing as I listened so doing anything too in-depth wasn't possible, but it's not like I didn't give him enough to respond to in many cases.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What is it with the big bold text?

I got this as a PM:

crylaugh

DigiMark007... putting all differences to the side! You have called me out time and time again on this thread, not to mention others, but let us stick to the most current--this thread. Point is, I took the time to reference the thread and overlook (and consider) your posts; but you have provided nothing but "blanket statements!" I understand, that taking the time to digest (and respond to) all that I posted requires time and commitment! If, for all intensive purposes, you decided not to respond (and substantiate your claims), I would understand. Really... who has the time for that?! I do not! Nonetheless, you made the statements, but you further claimed that I am "ignoring" you, which warrants an explanation. Don't act like you are the biggest thing since sliced bread--"Be away from me... you Creationist slug!" Fact is, you made claims, and yet, you did nothing to substantiate them. And for reasons unknown to me, you are deemed victorious! I guess people hear what they want to hear. Case closed!! End of story!! I am just a whacko Creationist. He simply must not have anything to question (for good reason)!! "It's the Bible I tell you! It's the Bible!! It has distorted science; naturalism has all the answers," is the common remarks that I receive, and you know that is unfair. Let us be civil, please. Step off the "pride wagon." You know, to substantiate your claims, you have much homework to do, and that is the primary reason you stated, "Maybe I'll respond eventually." I know this, and you know this! But, there is no reason to be arrogant towards me. I am just trying to level with you, bro. Just let me ask you this:

Did you think Carl Sagan's overlook and/or theory of "the origin of life," was expectable, in light of Hugh Ross's presentation?



Again, I am not trying to be a prick, but you have said absolutely nothing! You made the statement; re-read it! What have you said--or rather, what have you said to "substantiate" your claim(s)?



What was to address? I had ideas, but was I supposed to assume?! I course I demanded more!!



Oh... so very true DigiMark007! Are you kidding?!

Did you not understand any of the specific terms that he used? If you don't understand the term then look it up, pretty simple if you ask me.

Da Pittman-

May we subside with the horse-play for a moment? This entire thread is completely off topic. Did you watch Hugh Ross's presentation (in its entirety)? If so, what do you think?

Da Pittman-

If you didn't watch the presentation (in its entirety), it is no big deal; but you have no foundation to participate in this thread. Do you think that is ridiculous, to make such a statement?

i'm only up to 10 minutes and already it has simply been ridiculous conjecture equating passages from the bible to the big bang which are so overly stretched as to be utterly laughable

it's also failed to take into account modern physics theories which are going some way to explaining what happened before the big bang...

it's notable only by it's lack of proof of a creator...again

i shall watch more tomorrow

Watch the entire presentation; that has been the central theme.



Fair enough. But don't you understand that members of the forum (who have not watched the presentation in its entirety) could be arguing under a false, not to mention, a shortsighted premise? Hence, invalidating your argument? Don't you understand the importance of watching the presentation for yourself?



What would "new" information look like to you?



Which ones?

Originally posted by ushomefree
DigiMark007... putting all differences to the side! You have called me out time and time again on this thread, not to mention others, but let us stick to the most current--this thread. Point is, I took the time to reference the thread and overlook (and consider) your posts; but you have provided nothing but "blanket statements!" I understand, that taking the time to digest (and respond to) all that I posted requires time and commitment! If, for all intensive purposes, you decided not to respond (and substantiate your claims), I would understand. Really... who has the time for that?! I do not! Nonetheless, you made the statements, but you further claimed that I am "ignoring" you, which warrants an explanation. Don't act like you are the biggest thing since sliced bread--"Be away from me... you Creationist slug!" Fact is, you made claims, and yet, you did nothing to substantiate them. And for reasons unknown to me, you are deemed victorious! I guess people hear what they want to hear. Case closed!! End of story!! I am just a whacko Creationist. He simply must not have anything to question (for good reason)!! "It's the Bible I tell you! It's the Bible!! It has distorted science; naturalism has all the answers," is the common remarks that I receive, and you know that is unfair. Let us be civil, please. Step off the "pride wagon." You know, to substantiate your claims, you have much homework to do, and that is the primary reason you stated, "Maybe I'll respond eventually." I know this, and you know this! But, there is no reason to be arrogant towards me. I am just trying to level with you, bro. Just let me ask you this:

Did you think Carl Sagan's overlook and/or theory of "the origin of life," was expectable, in light of Hugh Ross's presentation?



Again, I am not trying to be a prick, but you have said absolutely nothing! You made the statement; re-read it! What have you said--or rather, what have you said to "substantiate" your claim(s)?



What was to address? I had ideas, but was I supposed to assume?! I course I demanded more!!



Oh... so very true DigiMark007! Are you kidding?!

Actually, half of what you asked for I've given you in other posts. Like those citations you demanded vehemently, I've posted already and extrapolated upon them for Trans. Or the refutations to creationist "problems" with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which is cited in any major evolutionist answer-to-creationism since I can remember, and which have been posted as nauseum in various threads, most of which are of your own making. Of course, I expect an angry tirade about how you can't be expected to read them or some nonsense, but it just shows my point that you're awful at this.

At this point it's probably not even possible to talk to you given the fact that you seem nigh-delirious with rage and/or righteous passion. Which it is I can't tell.

You falsely claimed I didn't watch the video, I had and proved you wrong. I actually didn't want to "debate" with you beyond that, due to the idiotic game we both seem to play each time we try to discuss something. Go play in your sandbox or something.

Originally posted by jaden101
i'm only up to 10 minutes and already it has simply been ridiculous conjecture equating passages from the bible to the big bang which are so overly stretched as to be utterly laughable

it's also failed to take into account modern physics theories which are going some way to explaining what happened before the big bang...

it's notable only by it's lack of proof of a creator...again

i shall watch more tomorrow

Congrats. I could only get 5 minutes out of that video.

I stopped watching it after his example of "proof" that miracles happen and almost spit my drink out of my nose from laughing.

So ush after just 15 minutes into this video I see no redeeming quality and it is yet again the same debate with a different persons and different words, I would like my 15 minutes back please in the form of something interesting or simply just send money.

I think this sums it up...

"Just a few of the incorrect and untrue statements of Hugh Ross have been explored. The concentration here has been on scientific issues. Others, such as Van Bebber and Taylor,10 and Kelly,18 have documented many of Ross’s outrageous biblical assertions, which demonstrate that Ross’s poor scholarship extends to biblical studies as well."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/hugh_ross.asp

WD just posted this and thought that it was also good for this thread.

The Bible "is not a science book," Funes said, adding that he believes the Big Bang theory is the most "reasonable" explanation for the creation of the universe. The theory says the universe began billions of years ago in the explosion of a single, super-dense point that contained all matter.

--Rev. Jose Gabriel Funes, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory

"Claim CF001:
The second law of thermodynamics says that everything tends toward disorder, making evolutionary development impossible.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 38-46.
Response:

1. The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because

* the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
* entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000).
* even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.
In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.

2. The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution (Demetrius 2000).

Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy (McShea 1998). Some see the information content of organisms subject to diversification according to the second law (Brooks and Wiley 1988), so organisms diversify to fill empty niches much as a gas expands to fill an empty container. Others propose that highly ordered complex systems emerge and evolve to dissipate energy (and increase overall entropy) more efficiently (Schneider and Kay 1994).

3. Creationists themselves admit that increasing order is possible. They introduce fictional exceptions to the law to account for it.

4. Creationists themselves make claims that directly contradict their claims about the second law of thermodynamics, such as hydrological sorting of fossils during the Flood."

Also; "Watch my propaganda, or don't post." How deluded are you?

A critique of Hugh Ross, by Mark Perakh.
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/ross.cfm#crusade
Read it or shut the **** up. Apparently.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
"Claim CF001:
The second law of thermodynamics says that everything tends toward disorder, making evolutionary development impossible.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 38-46.
Response:

1. The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because

* the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
* entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000).
* even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.
In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.

2. The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution (Demetrius 2000).

Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy (McShea 1998). Some see the information content of organisms subject to diversification according to the second law (Brooks and Wiley 1988), so organisms diversify to fill empty niches much as a gas expands to fill an empty container. Others propose that highly ordered complex systems emerge and evolve to dissipate energy (and increase overall entropy) more efficiently (Schneider and Kay 1994).

3. Creationists themselves admit that increasing order is possible. They introduce fictional exceptions to the law to account for it.

4. Creationists themselves make claims that directly contradict their claims about the second law of thermodynamics, such as hydrological sorting of fossils during the Flood."

Also; "Watch my propaganda, or don't post." How deluded are you?

A critique of Hugh Ross, by Mark Perakh.
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/ross.cfm#crusade
Read it or shut the **** up. Apparently.



This part reminds me of someone else on this forum.

A fart?

wish X would comment on geocentrism he obviously knows his shit. btw GOOD JOB! stick it to ushomefree. great propoganda vids ushomefree. i seriously doubt you'll convince ANYONE short of a 8th grader of anything. grats on that bro

This thread lacks value to KMC.

Especially the way its being debated.

Originally posted by queeq
Especially the way its being debated.

We can't debate until we see the movie, and no one can get through the movie.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
wish X would comment on geocentrism he obviously knows his shit. btw GOOD JOB! stick it to ushomefree. great propoganda vids ushomefree. i seriously doubt you'll convince ANYONE short of a 8th grader of anything. grats on that bro I'm not one for physics also while I'm relatively well versed in evo-bio the "Claims and responses" are from the Index of creationist claims from talkorigins; a compilation of cdesign propentsists "greatest hits" thus the quotation marks. The very fact that there's a giant list of claims that I can push CTRL+F and find refutations to indicates that this thread is of zero value.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We can't debate until we see the movie, and no one can get through the movie.

A mystery wrapped in an enigma.

But this thread has been going on for pages now...