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.
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 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.
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.
And for you...
Originally posted by Da Pittman
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 Da Pittman
Correct me if I'm wrong but at the base of all "life" is made up of non living material? 😕
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 TransfinitumIf 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.
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.
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.
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?
Originally posted by ushomefreeI only count 3 but you do it in the middle of an argument that you are having with the person at the time.
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 TransfinitumThat 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.
>>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 ushomefreeHe 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.
Are you actually speaking for DigiMark007?!
Originally posted by King KandyI'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.
You know, Digimark is the only person who actually watched the video. He's the last person you should accuse of going off topic.