Such Foolishness

Originally posted by googlefudge
Attempt at reason with dasa, probably futile...

The point of science, is to explain the world, and understand it, and be able to predict what will
happen in a given set of circumstances.

All scientific theories make predictions about the world, that we can both use to test the theories
and make use of for technological ends.
Prediction is thus ...[text shortened]... ay), any
explanation that includes god did it just isn't science.
It just isn't useful.

Probably futile? PROBABLY? If you say so. BTW, first you may have to define 'a priori' for him, he is not a noticeably educated sort.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Probably futile? PROBABLY? If you say so. BTW, first you may have to define 'a priori' for him, he is not a noticeably educated sort.

I doubt if googlefudge is either.

Astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross, a Creationist, talks about his book "Why The Universe Is the Way It Is"

YouTube


Ditto

Dr. Hugh Ross discusses book " More Than a Theory "

YouTube&feature=related

Hugh Ross updates some information taught by Carl Sagan dealing with Origin of Life issues.


YouTube&feature=related

Originally posted by jaywill
Astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross, a Creationist, talks about his book [b]"Why The Universe Is the Way It Is"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zWd_FuFWFM


Ditto

Dr. Hugh Ross discusses book " More Than a Theory "

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbtgIWoR9eU&feature=related[/b]

The disagreement I have with Dr. Hugh Ross is that he accepts the belief
of the old earth creationists. I don't see an old earth agrees with the
Holy Bible. I am in agreement with most of the young earth creationists.
I believe he is an intelligent man but he relies on man's view of how
God created the heavens and the earth too much rather what the Holy Bible
actually says on the matter. In other words, he tries to make God's view
fit man's view.

Originally posted by jaywill
Hugh Ross updates some information taught by Carl Sagan dealing with Origin of Life issues.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn8dcDOUVX8&feature=related

ross's theories are not consistent. he rejects scientific theories base on some false assumptions of his own, but fails to offer better theories on those he rejects, instead inserting a 'supernatural' element which is insufficient for any school of science.

aside from that, ross competence on the subject has been brought into question and falls apart in peer review.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v13/n2/hugh-ross

to his untrained audience, he may sound like he knows what he's talking about, but in actuality his statements don't stand up to scrutiny.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
ross's theories are not consistent. he rejects scientific theories base on some false assumptions of his own, but fails to offer better theories on those he rejects, instead inserting a 'supernatural' element which is insufficient for any school of science.

aside from that, ross competence on the subject has been brought into question and falls apart ...[text shortened]... knows what he's talking about, but in actuality his statements don't stand up to scrutiny.

I agree. While I was viewing jaywill's links these other videos came up
and I decided to look and discovered that the people agreed with me on
those videos I watched. I did not watch all, but the following or links
to the ones I did:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=hyKOBM8aHKU

YouTube&feature=related

YouTube&feature=related

YouTube&feature=related

YouTube&feature=related

Originally posted by Dasa
I can understand why an atheist can reject the false religions of the world to the likes of Islam, Christianity, Judaism and many others - which all present silly fabrications and and speculations from the minds of unqualified, ignorant, violent, cheating, fabricating, speculating and animal killing persons.

But I cannot understand how any person can reject ...[text shortened]... chance events....... is a liar to the greatest degree. (Phd or no Phd.)

And they know it.

dasa, nice to have you back, i missed you, here is a reply to your post (it might even be to the subject, i wouldn't know i never read your stuff anymore)

Read more: 5 Things That Make You Happier Than They Probably Should | Cracked.com http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-things-that-make-you-happier-than-they-probably-should/#ixzz1gJKA8SIl

#5. Competent Customer Service.

Horrible customer service is almost expected. It's one of those things we have such diminished expectations for that we grade it on a curve. Like drinking Hamm's canned beer or losing your virginity: you don't expect it to be good; you just want to get it over with and get what you need. Outsourcing doesn't help as most foreigners don't magically obtain a perfect grasp of the English language by pretending their name is Steve instead of Sanjay. Also problematic are the built-in layers of bureaucracy all designed to force consumers to rise higher and higher through the ranks of incompetence until you reach a supervisor with the actual authority to help you. And lastly, global corporations still seem to think customers will be happy if their employees can do nothing more than say,"Sir," "Madame," "please," and "thank you." But most customers aren't concerned with these niceties. Frankly, I don't care if you call me Senor Fckwad just as long as you promptly take care of my stuff. (Actually, I care a little. I mean, Senor Fckwad? That's just hurtful. Why would you say that? Are you some kind of jerk?)

That's why on those rare occasions where competent people in a functioning system actually do their job and take care of me, I seriously consider sexually satisfying them. (Regardless of gender or sexual orientation.) I'm just that happy. Such was the case at the Apple store recently. (Yes, Mac fanboys, take a moment to ejaculate in the corner.) My son's Nano stopped working. Simple matter. The on/off switch was stuck in the depressed position. Some sort of internal spring malfunction. I made an appointment online, drove over to the Apple store, and then proceeded to wait 40 minutes past the time of my appointment while overhearing the obnoxious inhabitants of the Genius Bar shower i-Intelligence down upon the masses. It was quite irritating actually.


This is an actual pic of the Genius bar with identities obscured (for legal reasons) by PCs. Why PCs? Because fck those Mac guys.

BUT, when my turn did come, a nice young lad with hipster glasses took my name, punched his iPad, saw the Nano defect, and replaced the unit with a new one in literally two minutes. My wife was so happy that even though she'd been bitching about using our Mac laptop while her ASUS desktop was in the shop, she instantly converted to a Mac user for life, and I felt a little guilty for making that Steve Jobs joke last month.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
ross's theories are not consistent. he rejects scientific theories base on some false assumptions of his own, but fails to offer better theories on those he rejects, instead inserting a 'supernatural' element which is insufficient for any school of science.

aside from that, ross competence on the subject has been brought into question and falls apart ...[text shortened]... knows what he's talking about, but in actuality his statements don't stand up to scrutiny.

ross's theories are not consistent. he rejects scientific theories base on some false assumptions of his own, but fails to offer better theories on those he rejects, instead inserting a 'supernatural' element which is insufficient for any school of science.

aside from that, ross competence on the subject has been brought into question and falls apart in peer review.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v13/n2/hugh-ross

to his untrained audience, he may sound like he knows what he's talking about, but in actuality his statements don't stand up to scrutiny.

1.) Are you aware that the website that you sited is itself written by theists, probably Christians ? Read the sidebar on the left.

Mission Statement:

Vision

Answers in Genesis is a catalyst to bring reformation by reclaiming the foundations of our faith which are found in the Bible, from the very first verse.

Mission
■We proclaim the absolute truth and authority of the Bible with boldness.
■We relate the relevance of a literal Genesis to the church and the world today with creativity.
■We obey God’s call to deliver the message of the gospel, individually and collectively.

Core Values
■We resourcefully equip believers to defend their faith with excellence.
■We willingly engage society's challenges with uncompromising integrity.
■We sacrificially serve the AiG family and others.
■We generously give Christian love.

2.) The criticism you site could easily be leveled equally at any number of atheistic advocates utilizing science talk. Ie, they are out to impress the untrained layman.

3.) To say Dr. Ross said some incorrect things is no need to dismiss everything and all things he may have proposed.

I think Carl Sagan's overall view is wrong. There are, though, things Sagan taught which I think are valid.

4.) The last book by Ross is extensively appendexed. The appendex notes are more voluminous than the text of the book itself.

This is important because, while you may disagree, you cannot say he is not professionally referencing support for his research. He properly and extensively sites the scientific and theological liturature in an appendex , in the case of "More Than A Theory", virtually longer than the text of the book.. Tricksters do not do this.

When Carl Sagan offers his metaphysical / philosophical opinion that the Universe is all that ever was and ever will be, did you respond with a similar complaint ? Why is a material universe that has always existed not supernatural , especially since consensus of science community agrees that the universe seems to have had a beginning ?

Where was your cautionary posture when Carl Sagan branches somewhat out of his discipline to pronounce philosophical grandstands of truth ?

Anyway, I like some of the things I have read in Dr. Ross's books. I have no intention to dismiss in total, even if some other Christian science writers, like the website you linked to, disapprove of Ross.

I have read from Ross The Creator and the Cosmos, some of The Genesis Question .

Originally posted by RJHinds
The disagreement I have with Dr. Hugh Ross is that he accepts the belief
of the old earth creationists. I don't see an old earth agrees with the
Holy Bible. I am in agreement with most of the young earth creationists.
I believe he is an intelligent man but he relies on man's view of how
God created the heavens and the earth too much rather what the Ho ...[text shortened]...
actually says on the matter. In other words, he tries to make God's view
fit man's view.

The disagreement I have with Dr. Hugh Ross is that he accepts the belief of the old earth creationists.

I believe in an Old Earth also. By that I mean that the Bible does not state the age of the universe and we cannot calculate it from anything written in the Bible.

My reasons for accepting an Old Earth are probably more theological than scientific. But the science of an old earth, I think, would agree with the theological revelation of the Bible.

The book which mostly caused me to adapt an old earth view was G.H. Pember's - Earth's Earliest Ages.

But I have read criticisms of Old Earth in a book called The Early Earth by Whitcomb. Needless to say, his critique left me unconvinced of Young Earth. I'm glad I read it though.

"We know in part and prophesy in part."

That is all I can write right now.

Originally posted by jaywill
[quote] ross's theories are not consistent. he rejects scientific theories base on some false assumptions of his own, but fails to offer better theories on those he rejects, instead inserting a 'supernatural' element which is insufficient for any school of science.

aside from that, ross competence on the subject has been brought into question and fal ead from Ross [b]The Creator and the Cosmos, some of The Genesis Question .[/b]

I repost a link to astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross. VoidSpirit talks about the "untrained audience," ironically. And in his haste to discredit any Christian who happens to be a scientist, links me to another Christian / Science website critical of Hugh Ross.

The "untrained audience" might have fallen for VoidSpirit's kneejerk "peer review" denouncing of Ross. I wasn't.

"Answers in Genesis" is an orginization of "Young Earth Creationism" in rivalry with "Reasons to Believe" "Old Earth Creationist" organization of Hugh Ross.

I say, "Prove all things and hold fast to that which is good." I'd like to glean whatever truth I can derive from either site.


Dr. Hugh Ross discusses book " More Than a Theory "

YouTube&feature=related

Originally posted by jaywill

The disagreement I have with Dr. Hugh Ross is that he accepts the belief of the old earth creationists.

I believe in an Old Earth also. By that I mean that the Bible does not state the age of the universe and we cannot calculate it from anything written in the Bible.

My reasons for accepting an Old Earth are probably more theologica hough.

"We know in part and prophesy in part."

That is all I can write right now.

I am a Young Earth Creationist because I believe what the Holy Bible says.
That means when it says, "the evening and morning was the first day" that
is a day equal to the other days described in the same way. And these days
were determined by using the sun and moon just as we do today. So that
means they are 24 hour days and not prophetic days of years. This means
that mankind and other living creatures have been living on the earth only
a few thousand years, not millions or billions of years. The Holy Bible makes
no reference at all that would indicate the earth could be millions or billions
of years old.

There is even scientific evidence that testify of a young earth, however Dr.
Ross ingnores this evidence in favor of evidence that seems to indicate the
earth is billions of years old. Why?

I do agree that we can not calculate back exactly to the creation day due to
the way the days were recorded that indicated possible short gaps in the
record, but I see no way one can turn thousands of years into billions.

Originally posted by RJHinds
...a day equal to the other days described in the same way. And these days
were determined by using the sun and moon just as we do today. So that
means they are 24 hour days and not ...

Again you are talking rubbish. you do not know what a day is today let alone then! If you are going to define a day as 24 hours you must define hours (I assume hours are not defined in the bible) And what has the moon got to do with defining a day?!?! (Or maybe even the sun?)

WHAT IS A DAY?

Originally posted by jaywill

1.) Are you aware that the website that you sited is itself written by theists, probably Christians ? Read the sidebar on the left.

of course i'm aware. i intentionally posted a christian source since christians generally have a distrust of non-christian sources. to be sure, he's also been criticized by his peers.

the source itself is not in question, their criticisms are valid and you have not dispelled any of them.

2.) The criticism you site could easily be leveled equally at any number of atheistic advocates utilizing science talk. Ie, they are out to impress the untrained layman.

most of such talks are aimed at the untrained layman, that's why the untrained layman is easy to take into confidence and mislead.

3.) To say Dr. Ross said some incorrect things is no need to dismiss everything and all things he may have proposed.

when his core assumptions are incorrect, what follows based on those assumptions will also be incorrect. that's not to say every thing he says is incorrect, it does however disqualify his conclusions.

I think Carl Sagan's overall view is wrong. There are, though, things Sagan taught which I think are valid.

his overall view concerning what? and are you drawing from the later things carl sagan said or just his earlier work?

out of curiosity, which of carl sagan's books and/or papers have you read?

4.) The last book by Ross is extensively appendexed. The appendex notes are more voluminous than the text of the book itself.

no claim was made that he does not draw upon scientific principles.

This is important because, while you may disagree, you cannot say he is not professionally referencing support for his research.

i didn't say so.

He properly and extensively sites the scientific and theological liturature in an appendex , in the case of "More Than A Theory", virtually longer than the text of the book.. Tricksters do not do this.

you don't know tricksters.

When Carl Sagan offers his metaphysical / philosophical opinion that the Universe is all that ever was and ever will be, did you respond with a similar complaint ? Why is a material universe that has always existed not supernatural , especially since consensus of science community agrees that the universe seems to have had a beginning ?

Where was your cautionary posture when Carl Sagan branches somewhat out of his discipline to pronounce philosophical grandstands of truth ?

like hoss points out, the sagan he is quoting is over 30 years old. how about comparing him to contemporary theorists?

Anyway, I like some of the things I have read in Dr. Ross's books. I have no intention to dismiss in total, even if some other Christian science writers, like the website you linked to, disapprove of Ross.

i'm sure he has some good things to say. the question is, do you agree with his conclusions? if so, then you have to justify the false information from which he draws to come up with those conclusions.