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 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? 😛
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.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hugh Ross: Creation as Science
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.
😆
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).
[/B]
Love to hear that citation, could be very interesting.
Thanks.
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!).
[/crappy ushomefree infomercial thread]
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 [i]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 [b]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! [/B]
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 ushomefreeIn stead of me wasting an hour of my time, how about you post the parts that you want us or me to view or the time code in which it appears? So far what I have read in response to your post that there is nothing new and trying to form the old arguments in a different way without providing any new “scientific” information.
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!
Originally posted by Da Pittman
In stead of me wasting an hour of my time, how about you post the parts that you want us or me to view or the time code in which it appears? So far what I have read in response to your post that there is nothing new and trying to form the old arguments in a different way without providing any new “scientific” information.
I want a transcript.
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.