Originally posted by jaywilli have shown with evidence that the man tells 2 lies/minute. i don't have the time, nor inclination to go into every single one of the lies he's written or tables he has formulated from his imagination. i'm not even qualified to catch all his lies and distortions.
The RTB Testable Creation Model comes out very well in its predictive power in comparison to the other models. So Ross's Fine Tuning view of his Creation science model is worth serious consideration. At least he's doing the real work and has a straight foward method that the few different science theories can fairly compete with each other.
hugh ross has a pattern of the kinds of lies i exposed in the 3 minute analysis.
here is a scientist exposing more ross lies:
http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2008/03/hugh-ross-shocking-fairy-tale.html
the information presented by steve matheson can be verified. hugh ross has no shame in the falsifications and distortions he invents to defend his failed pet model.
he has zero credibility with me, and with pretty much all the scientific community.
Originally posted by VoidSpiritOne can not expect an astronomer, like Ross, to understand all the research in biology, numbnuts. But I agree he is a false teacher. 😏
i have shown with evidence that the man tells 2 lies/minute. i don't have the time, nor inclination to go into every single one of the lies he's written or tables he has formulated from his imagination. i'm not even qualified to catch all his lies and distortions.
hugh ross has a pattern of the kinds of lies i exposed in the 3 minute analysis.
here ...[text shortened]... model.
he has zero credibility with me, and with pretty much all the scientific community.
Originally posted by RJHindsMany of these types of organizations are a TEAM effort.
One can not expect an astronomer, like Ross, to understand all the research in biology, numbnuts. But I agree he is a false teacher. 😏
Other team members have expertise in biology.
http://www.reasons.org/about/who-we-are
Originally posted by VoidSpiritConcerning Freeman Dyson - It has been hard for me ascertain his beliefs. I am trying to get hold of some lectures he gave on Natural Theology.
i have shown with evidence that the man tells 2 lies/minute. i don't have the time, nor inclination to go into every single one of the lies he's written or tables he has formulated from his imagination. i'm not even qualified to catch all his lies and distortions.
hugh ross has a pattern of the kinds of lies i exposed in the 3 minute analysis.
here ...[text shortened]... model.
he has zero credibility with me, and with pretty much all the scientific community.
I found only this characterization of his beliefs being, according to him, enfluenced by Pantheism and Panentheism:
, Dyson also examines some political concerns, illuminated by his theme of diversity. Throughout the lectures, he makes reference to his theological position, suggesting a pantheist or panentheistic view of God and partly informing his faith in the unboundedness of human destiny.
If you have a quotation from Freeman Dyson clearly indicating a Theistic belief that is not in any gray area of uncertainty, I'd like to see it.
I have no problem with informing Dr. Ross that "Atheist / Agnostic" is an incorrect portrayal of Dyson's personal beliefs if such a quotation from Dyson proves his personal Theistic belief.
Pantheism and Panentheism are a long way from any biblical theism in a personal God. But Dyson's ethical writings and writings on Natural Theology could be apologetics of religion in a broad sense.
1 edit
Originally posted by VoidSpiritDid you fail to notice the Note of the Author in the article ?
i have shown with evidence that the man tells 2 lies/minute. i don't have the time, nor inclination to go into every single one of the lies he's written or tables he has formulated from his imagination. i'm not even qualified to catch all his lies and distortions.
hugh ross has a pattern of the kinds of lies i exposed in the 3 minute analysis.
here ...[text shortened]... model.
he has zero credibility with me, and with pretty much all the scientific community.
IMPORTANT NOTE: this post, seeking to be harshly critical of Hugh Ross, refers to some of his statements as "lies." Please read the rest of this post in conjunction with a more recent post, "On folk science and lies: back to the basics." There I respond to some very important criticism, and agree that "lie" is not a useful or appropriate term here.
So we're back to Dr. Ross saying some things with which you and others are in strong disagreement. This author said "lies" is a misstatement. You want to do the same ?
Originally posted by jaywillhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson#Views
Concerning Freeman Dyson - It has been hard for me ascertain his beliefs. I am trying to get hold of some lectures he gave on Natural Theology.
I found only this characterization of his beliefs being, according to him, enfluenced by Pantheism and Panentheism:
[quote] , Dyson also examines some political concerns, illuminated by his theme of diversi ...[text shortened]... ritings and writings on Natural Theology could be apologetics of religion in a broad sense.
if you want actual quotes, you may have to purchase and read some of his books.
3 edits
Originally posted by jaywillno, i'll still call them lies. the only reason he recanted to "folk science" is due to political correctness. he considers what was said by ross lies. i go a step further and call ross a liar.
Did you fail to notice the Note of the Author in the article ?
[quote] IMPORTANT NOTE: this post, seeking to be harshly critical of Hugh Ross, refers to some of his statements as "lies." Please read the rest of this post in conjunction with a more recent post, "On folk science and lies: back to the basics." There I respond to some very important cri reement. This author said "lies" is a misstatement. You want to do the same ?
Now let me be clear: I will continue to refer to certain examples of RTB's behavior as misconduct, and I will not hesitate to identify the promulgation of falsehood by Ross and Rana as irresponsible, indefensible, and even dishonest. I will not hesitate to question Hugh Ross' intellectual integrity, and I think he should not be considered trustworthy as long as he persists in the reckless dissemination of fabricated nonsense that serves only to direct Christians away from basic facts of biology. The fabricated fable about the "team of physicists" is deeply troubling to me, and it should be troubling to anyone who claims the name of Christ. If I knew Hugh Ross, I would urge him to do whatever is necessary to change course, and I would encourage RTB to invest in mechanisms designed to establish and maintain basic integrity. But I won't call him a liar, or refer to his falsehoods as lies, and I won't assume that he seeks only to mislead or misinform Christians.
yep. still a liar. just a more diplomatic way of saying it.
Originally posted by VoidSpiritYou think as you want. I will not stop reading his material nor dismiss everything out of hand just because of your exaggerated charge.
no, i'll still call them lies. the only reason he recanted to "folk science" is due to political correctness. he considers what was said by ross lies. i go a step further and call ross a liar.Now let me be clear: I will continue to refer to certain examples of RTB's behavior as misconduct, and I will not hesitate to identify the promulgation ...[text shortened]... rm Christians.
yep. still a liar. just a more diplomatic way of saying it.
Anyway the real bottom line is that many theists and non-theists have come to recognize that there is a fine tuning in the univese for advanced life to exists.
Ross predicts that this will be an encreasing discovery and realization. I think he is right. This is only the beginning of 21rst Century man acknowledging that entirely too coincidental tuning of the cosmos.
Somehow the universe seems to have known that we were coming.
Originally posted by jaywillGod knew that we were coming.
You think as you want. I will not stop reading his material nor dismiss everything out of hand just because of your exaggerated charge.
Anyway the real bottom line is that many theists and non-theists have come to recognize that there is a fine tuning in the univese for advanced life to exists.
Ross predicts that this will be an [b]encreasing di ...[text shortened]... cidental tuning of the cosmos.
Somehow the universe seems to have known that we were coming.[/b]
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!
Originally posted by jaywillfine tuning is a logical non-starter no matter how many people "believe" the universe is fine tuned for life.
You think as you want. I will not stop reading his material nor dismiss everything out of hand just because of your exaggerated charge.
Anyway the real bottom line is that many theists and non-theists have come to recognize that there is a fine tuning in the univese for advanced life to exists.
Ross predicts that this will be an [b]encreasing di ...[text shortened]... cidental tuning of the cosmos.
Somehow the universe seems to have known that we were coming.[/b]
fine-tuning can be viewed two ways. you can claim that the universe is fine tuned for life. but the other side of the argument is that life is fine-tuned for the universe.
there are factors which support that life is fine tuned rather than the other way around. first, it took billions of years before conditions were right for our kind of life even became possible. if the universe was fine tuned for life, it would've been good from day one.
second, since life evolves and adapts it is the more logical to say that life is fine tuned to exist in this universe.
and finally, ross is a proven liar, nothing he says can be trusted and everything he says must be closely scrutinized. you certainly are not one to closely scrutinize what ross says. you even go to lengths to support his lies after they've been exposed.