Originally posted by DigiMark007
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.
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.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
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.
Elaborate, please.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Second Law of Thermodynamics argument?! *yawn*
What kind of argument is this?! Are you kidding?!! Elaborate, please.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Also ignores theories that account for the existence of matter by entirely causal forces.
Elaborate, please.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
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.
Elaborate, please.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Calling creation a "miracle" and stopping at that as a final explanation is horrible. This is the antithesis of scientific inquiry.
Elaborate, please. And you think I am ignoring you? What am I suppose to address with this (and other statement you have made)??!
Originally posted by DigiMark007
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."
This is not true; this issue was addressed in short fashion at the beginning of this post. In any case, elaborate! Present your case!!
Originally posted by DigiMark007
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.
No. But why do you think such? Elaborate, please.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
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.
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.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
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.
What objections? Elaborate, please.
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.
How?! You have said nothing! Elaborate, please.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
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.
Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? Is it stuffy in here?
Originally posted by DigiMark007
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.
Finally, light at the end of the tunnel. Please, cite them! And also provide the significance of such.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
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).
Elaborate, please.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
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.
What was the source? Elaborate, please. Do you see the pattern here DigiMark007?!
Originally posted by DigiMark007
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.
Elaborate! Elaborate! Elaborate! Have you ever attended college?
Originally posted by DigiMark007
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.
Why??!
Originally posted by DigiMark007
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.
What??!
Originally posted by DigiMark007
He ends by saying there's no reason for hostility in these debates. I disagree.
What??!
Originally posted by DigiMark007
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.
Unsubstantiated. Elaborate, please. And stick to Hugh Ross.
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 DigiMark007
Lulz. I have a life for a few days. Maybe I'll respond eventually.
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?
Originally posted by DigiMark007
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.
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)?
Originally posted by DigiMark007Also note how he never once addressed anything I said. He simply demanded more.
What was to address? I had ideas, but was I supposed to assume?! I course I demanded more!!
Originally posted by DigiMark007
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.
Oh... so very true DigiMark007! Are you kidding?!
Originally posted by ushomefreeI have asked you several times for the time code of the sections you want me to watch.
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?
Originally posted by ushomefreeYes I do because for one I’m not commenting on the video but mostly your responses to the debate and how you are conducting your self and this I do not need to watch the video. Just because I have not watched this one particular video means nothing, I have watched countless videos and shows on ID and unless this one provides any new evidence to the contrary (which I have asked you) then there is no difference in this video. It is just the same information put forth in a different way, so if there is specific sections that you want me to watch that is new information then please tell me the time in the video you would like me to watch.
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?
And for the note it is not “horseplay”, that is a specific question and a legitimate one to boot. Digi posted specific references to theories and other already fully debated topics.
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
Originally posted by Da Pittman
I have asked you several times for the time code of the sections you want me to watch.
Watch the entire presentation; that has been the central theme.
Originally posted by Da Pittman
Yes I do because for one I’m not commenting on the video but mostly your responses to the debate and how you are conducting your self and this I do not need to watch the video.
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?
Originally posted by Da Pittman
Just because I have not watched this one particular video means nothing, I have watched countless videos and shows on ID and unless this one provides any new evidence to the contrary (which I have asked you) then there is no difference in this video. It is just the same information put forth in a different way, so if there is specific sections that you want me to watch that is new information then please tell me the time in the video you would like me to watch.
What would "new" information look like to you?
Originally posted by Da Pittman
And for the note it is not “horseplay”, that is a specific question and a legitimate one to boot. Digi posted specific references to theories and other already fully debated topics.
Which ones?
Originally posted by ushomefreeRe-read Digi’s post
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?
New information would be scientific method to prove the ID theory and not referencing the Bible or trying to disprove other theories, this has been done thoroughly to death. The Bible uses terms that have been translated over and over and doesn’t give any specific or validated information, all of which are subject to speculation by the reader and an example of which would be the creation in 7 days. The Bible is not and never will be scientific but more of a history book than anything else. Even if you can prove that evaluation is wrong that doesn’t mean that ID is right but that the theory of evaluation is incorrect which is the nature of the scientific method.
OK, so I’m playing the video in the background and painting just so I’m not completely board out of my skull and right off the bat in the first 7 minutes I hear a major flaw. This guy says that the Bible supports the Big Bang Theory by the scripture that God created the universe which as he stated was to bring something new into existence. One major flaw with that is that with the Big Bang implies that the universe always existed.
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 laughableit'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."