Poll: Dr. Ross is clearly unhinged
This poll is closed.
Insane 33.33% 1 33.33%
Moron 66.67% 2 66.67%
Total 3 votes 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Fellow Atheists scientific helped needed
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-09-2016, 01:47 PM
Fellow Atheists scientific helped needed




So this apostate Dr. Hugh Ross is mentally ill and should be put in crazy house? I had an argument with a theist and I am guessing this is the response? This is how our comrades dealt with these sort that smelled funny back in the good ol days. Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2016, 02:26 PM
RE: Fellow Atheists scientific helped needed
Don't even have to bother, his fellow Christians disagree vehemently with him:

Critique of Hugh Ross’s Creation Story

He's obviously indulging in a lot of post-hoc rationalization. He simply reinterprets scripture to fit his model of creation.

You can't use the day-age interpretation to get the Genesis myth to work, everything is out of order, but I'm sure he can come up with infinite rationalizations to shoehorn everything into his goofy myth.

He is an example of a damaged intellect subject only to his biases.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
13-09-2016, 04:08 PM
RE: Fellow Atheists scientific helped needed
(13-09-2016 02:26 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Don't even have to bother, his fellow Christians disagree vehemently with him:

Critique of Hugh Ross’s Creation Story

He's obviously indulging in a lot of post-hoc rationalization. He simply reinterprets scripture to fit his model of creation.

You can't use the day-age interpretation to get the Genesis myth to work, everything is out of order, but I'm sure he can come up with infinite rationalizations to shoehorn everything into his goofy myth.

He is an example of a damaged intellect subject only to his biases.

I wonder how his intellect was damaged? If I can prove that in an argument with theists that would be great.

Another insult from my theist friend is that she said this guy is an astro-physicist professor and how can I possibly be more scientific? So I say to her that science is atheism and I love the science and it just make me so angry I didn't know what to do so confusy you know?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2016, 04:25 PM
RE: Fellow Atheists scientific helped needed
1) He is an astrophysicist. That means he is competent to speak on the subject of physics. In the field in which he is an expert, he does not disagree with anyone else in his field (including the atheists)...

Ross believes in progressive creationism, which posits that while the earth is billions of years old, life did not appear by natural forces alone but that a supernatural agent formed different lifeforms in incremental (progressive) stages, and day-age creationism which is an effort to reconcile a literal Genesis account of Creation with modern scientific theories on the age of the Universe, the Earth, life, and humans. He rejects the Young Earth Creationist (YEC) position that the earth is younger than 10,000 years, or that the creation "days" of Genesis 1 represent literal 24-hour periods. Ross instead asserts that these days (translated from the Hebrew word yom) are historic, distinct, and sequential, but not 24 hours in length nor equal in length. Ross and the RTB team agree with the scientific community that the vast majority of YEC arguments are pseudoscience and that any version of intelligent design is inadequate if it doesn't provide a testable hypothesis which can make verifiable and falsifiable predictions, and if not, it should not be taught in the classroom as science."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Ross_...physicist)

2) What your friend is doing is called an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy. She is essentially saying, "This guy has a doctorate and works in science, therefore everything he says must carry weight" (That is, when he agrees with me, they mean-- ignoring that this guy is disagreeing with literally hundreds of thousands of experts in the field of biology, Christian and atheist alike.)

I am a biologist, and while I did take four semesters of physics on my way to my degree and thus have a better-than-average grasp of physics, I am wholly unqualified to speak about the subject of physics on more than the most basic level. Whether or not I got a PhD in biology, it would not matter with regard to that subject. Dr. Ross has an expertise in quasars and galaxies, and I would certainly listen to what he had to say on those topics.

So I'm not sure what point your Creationist friend is trying to make, with regard to Dr. Ross. Somehow I doubt your friend agrees with Dr. Ross that the universe is billions of years old. According to the video, he also believes in evolution over the course of those billions of years-- he simply thinks it was directed by God as the mechanism of Creation. He then tries to stuff those concepts into the Genesis story by... we'll say "bending it" a bit. He also bends what we know about biology quite a bit, in his little video, there (such as "we see no speciation occurring today"), so it's clear he hasn't really tried to learn the new subject on any serious level.

To all who ask about Christians who have a problem accepting evolution, however, I point them to the book The Language of God: A Scientists Presents Reasons for Belief by evangelical Christian and world-class biologist Dr. Francis Collins, former head of the Human Genome Project and current head of the National Institutes of Health. He quite eloquently explains that we know we evolved, how we know it happened naturally, and why this does not need to conflict with religion in any way.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
13-09-2016, 04:33 PM
RE: Fellow Atheists scientific helped needed
(13-09-2016 04:25 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  1) He is an astrophysicist. That means he is competent to speak on the subject of physics. In the field in which he is an expert, he does not disagree with anyone else in his field (including the atheists)...

Ross believes in progressive creationism, which posits that while the earth is billions of years old, life did not appear by natural forces alone but that a supernatural agent formed different lifeforms in incremental (progressive) stages, and day-age creationism which is an effort to reconcile a literal Genesis account of Creation with modern scientific theories on the age of the Universe, the Earth, life, and humans. He rejects the Young Earth Creationist (YEC) position that the earth is younger than 10,000 years, or that the creation "days" of Genesis 1 represent literal 24-hour periods. Ross instead asserts that these days (translated from the Hebrew word yom) are historic, distinct, and sequential, but not 24 hours in length nor equal in length. Ross and the RTB team agree with the scientific community that the vast majority of YEC arguments are pseudoscience and that any version of intelligent design is inadequate if it doesn't provide a testable hypothesis which can make verifiable and falsifiable predictions, and if not, it should not be taught in the classroom as science."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Ross_...physicist)

2) What your friend is doing is called an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy. She is essentially saying, "This guy has a doctorate and works in science, therefore everything he says must carry weight" (That is, when he agrees with me, they mean-- ignoring that this guy is disagreeing with literally hundreds of thousands of experts in the field of biology, Christian and atheist alike.)

I am a biologist, and while I did take four semesters of physics on my way to my degree and thus have a better-than-average grasp of physics, I am wholly unqualified to speak about the subject of physics on more than the most basic level. Whether or not I got a PhD in biology, it would not matter with regard to that subject. Dr. Ross has an expertise in quasars and galaxies, and I would certainly listen to what he had to say on those topics.

So I'm not sure what point your Creationist friend is trying to make, with regard to Dr. Ross. Somehow I doubt your friend agrees with Dr. Ross that the universe is billions of years old. According to the video, he also believes in evolution over the course of those billions of years-- he simply thinks it was directed by God as the mechanism of Creation. He then tries to stuff those concepts into the Genesis story by... we'll say "bending it" a bit. He also bends what we know about biology quite a bit, in his little video, there (such as "we see no speciation occurring today"), so it's clear he hasn't really tried to learn the new subject on any serious level.

To all who ask about Christians who have a problem accepting evolution, however, I point them to the book The Language of God: A Scientists Presents Reasons for Belief by evangelical Christian and world-class biologist Dr. Francis Collins, former head of the Human Genome Project and current head of the National Institutes of Health. He quite eloquently explains that we know we evolved, how we know it happened naturally, and why this does not need to conflict with religion in any way.

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. That is interesting indeed. What if the appeal is to your own authority? That may sound silly but in a way if we are not appealing to the authority of someone else we are saying our own minds have the real truth of the matter. Do you think that's a tad arrogant in some way?

She needs to be hitch slapped Bowing
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2016, 04:38 PM
RE: Fellow Atheists scientific helped needed
(13-09-2016 04:33 PM)ScientificTruth321 Wrote:  Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. That is interesting indeed. What if the appeal is to your own authority? That may sound silly but in a way if we are not appealing to the authority of someone else we are saying our own minds have the real truth of the matter. Do you think that's a tad arrogant in some way?

She needs to be hitch slapped Bowing

Appeal to your own authority is just as wrong as appealing to that of someone else. All facts must be demonstrably true, and all theoretical models must be testable and reproducible by anyone, or they are utterly worthless. The argument from authority is the opposite of science-- it's essentially a con-job: "Believe me, I really know what I'm talking about, because reasons!"

In the words of a minor hero of mine...

[Image: 0f0af6c5b5f5646b0098aa62cae546db.jpg]

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
13-09-2016, 05:19 PM
RE: Fellow Atheists scientific helped needed
(13-09-2016 04:38 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  In the words of a minor hero of mine...

[Image: 0f0af6c5b5f5646b0098aa62cae546db.jpg]

The experiments have to be done with proper scientific rigor.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2016, 05:25 PM
RE: Fellow Atheists scientific helped needed
(13-09-2016 04:38 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(13-09-2016 04:33 PM)ScientificTruth321 Wrote:  Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. That is interesting indeed. What if the appeal is to your own authority? That may sound silly but in a way if we are not appealing to the authority of someone else we are saying our own minds have the real truth of the matter. Do you think that's a tad arrogant in some way?

She needs to be hitch slapped Bowing

Appeal to your own authority is just as wrong as appealing to that of someone else. All facts must be demonstrably true, and all theoretical models must be testable and reproducible by anyone, or they are utterly worthless. The argument from authority is the opposite of science-- it's essentially a con-job: "Believe me, I really know what I'm talking about, because reasons!"

In the words of a minor hero of mine...

[Image: 0f0af6c5b5f5646b0098aa62cae546db.jpg]

Works great for science not so much for a debate on religion perhaps.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2016, 07:51 PM
RE: Fellow Atheists scientific helped needed
(13-09-2016 05:25 PM)ScientificTruth321 Wrote:  Works great for science not so much for a debate on religion perhaps.

A debate on religion, no, since most of the claims of religion are supernatural and thus by definition neither testable nor reproducible... and of course, in my view, completely bogus.

On the other hand, as soon as religion makes claims about the testable, natural world, as it so often does, then the scientific method of evaluating claims is indeed applicable.

If you'd like to learn about the basic rules of logic and of applying scientific rigor to your thought processes (something I think all people should be required to learn in school), I recommend Carl Sagan's "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection", excerpted from his book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. (Link below.)

http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/lehre/pmo/en...aloney.pdf

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
14-09-2016, 04:56 AM
RE: Fellow Atheists scientific helped needed
(13-09-2016 07:51 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(13-09-2016 05:25 PM)ScientificTruth321 Wrote:  Works great for science not so much for a debate on religion perhaps.

A debate on religion, no, since most of the claims of religion are supernatural and thus by definition neither testable nor reproducible... and of course, in my view, completely bogus.

On the other hand, as soon as religion makes claims about the testable, natural world, as it so often does, then the scientific method of evaluating claims is indeed applicable.

If you'd like to learn about the basic rules of logic and of applying scientific rigor to your thought processes (something I think all people should be required to learn in school), I recommend Carl Sagan's "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection", excerpted from his book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. (Link below.)

http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/lehre/pmo/en...aloney.pdf

So basically comrade. This is what I have to go on. One scientist telling me the claims are valid and you saying they are not? This is basically all we stand on?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: