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!
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.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
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.
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.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
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?
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).
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.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
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.
KMC Community Forums
May 11th, 2008 10:26 PM
So, you can be sarcastic at me, and I can't respond? 
