Who to believe , Ham or Ross?

I've caught a few of Ross's shows but have yet to spend much time at Reasons to Believe website. Most of my impressions were from a recording of Ross vs Scott in a radio debate. I appreciate any insight as to his philosophy.It is interesting that he considers God knowable. It seems that some YEC's consider God unknowable through the physical world and treat some parts of earth history as a mystery. Ross has fewer problems with time constraints, but I seem to remember more than a few clinkers in regards to mainstream evolutionary thought. I will look for that radio audio in my link list.ABB

quote:

---

So, my advise is to stop the blather, debate in good faith, or quit.

---

WHOSE blather? Here the evos are all programmed robots who spout sophomoric definitions of "evidence" and issue snotty demands for the production of same on cue -- or demands that one take refuge in "belief" -- whatever, it's all orders, commands, demands. Demands to kowtow to their standards, which are shallow trivial standards dressed up to impress. All accompanied by heel clicks and genuflections to the great god Science, and enforced by a totally obtuse Admin who violate the rules of the site themselves and never notice all the violations by anybody but the creationists (except when an evo has the occasional overt snit fit instead of the usual covert kind).Treating this adolescent Crashfrog's crass puerile "test" as anything worthy of attention or response finally exposed the absolute hopelessness of having an actual discussion at this place.Why don't you rename this place Evolution Gulag and make it clear up front that nothing will be tolerated but your views? Lay them all out in advance so everybody can learn how to toe the line. No need to pretend to an evenhandedness you have no intention of honoring -- and perhaps no idea even of how to go about it. Declare your tyrannical intentions honestly. That would be only fair.In other words, take your self-important lecture on proper behavior and stuff it.

They did. They're called "the forum guidelines", and you agreed to them when you registered your username.If it were possible for creationism to be defended according to those guidelines, I suspect I would have seen someone do it during the eight thousand posts I've posted here.

So you say that I should be banned because you don't know what you are talking about. What an interesting idea.Instead of ranting and raving you could simply have admitted that the scroll of Isaiah has very little to tell us and that you were wrong to tout it so highly. After all you don't know of a single proposed change to the Bible that the scroll DOES rule out.At the least you were unaware of the fact that the alleged major changes to Isaiah are dated to long before the scroll was written - to the point where you didn't even feel the need to restrict your calim of "proof" to changes later than that date - even after it has been mentioned.And if that wasn't enough your insistance that Bibe scholars are "BLITHERING IDIOTS" for NOT accepting that the scroll disproves the claim that the Bible has changed at all badly undermines your claim that you meant the date restriction at all.BTW there is no need to insult me over the point that NT documents are not found at Qumran - firstly because you are wrong to say there is no overlap in the dates, but more importantly because the point is that the Isaiah scroll is NOT proof that there have been no changes to NT documents, nor is there any other document at Qumran that supports such idea.Oh by the way if you hate being shown to be wrong so much that you respond with such anger and venom it would be much better for you to open your mind and learn what you are talking about. If you are going to throw tantrums whenever your ignorance and irrationality are exposed it would be far better for you to respect the limits of your knowledge and learn to argue rationally.

Ross isn't that much better than the YECs whenever the subject gets outside astronomy and an Old Earth and not always that good when astronomy is relevant.Ross for instance argued that the declining lifespans in Genesis were the result of cosmic rays from a relatively nearby supernova, based solely on the idea that they would have reaced the Earth during the range of dates where he thinks his version of the Flood happened (a period of 10,000 years so there's a big margin there). No actual biological evidence of this claimed effect was produced at all.

Hi Faith,I think it might be a good idea if you to focused your attention and energy on the Deposition and Erosion of Sediments thread. I've temporarily restricted your access in the Main Topic Forums to [forum=-8] forum.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

quote:

---

I don't play idiot games about serious subjects,

---

How is this an "idiot game"? Please explain.

quote:

---

and if you don't grasp that it is an idiot game you are challenging me with, I am very sorry for you.

---

That's nice, but irrelevant.

quote:

---

I fervently hope that this sort of needling

---

How is it "needling"? Please explain.

quote:

---

ditsy

---

How is it "ditsy"? Please explain.

quote:

---

trivia is not respected by Admin as "science." Good grief.

---

Look, you can throw around all the bombast and drama queen stuff all you want, but we know your game now Faith, we can't be baited into losing our focus.I explained all of this to you in another thread last month.You make very, very definitive, specific factual claims.What you describe as "needling" or asking many annoying questioning is exactly what science-minded people do. We pick apart claims and examine them from every angle in order to see if they have any flaws.Why you expect people to just nod and accept everything you say as "obviously true" is a mystery to me, and to most of the rest of us I think.We could just ignore you, you know, and you could just leave, since you seem to get so angry, agitated, and upset. Nobody is forcing you to do anything at all.

quote:

---

Schraf is one of the stupidest people at this site, and I am responding to you because you insisted that her demand was relevant and it is you to whom I am responding.

​

Please ban me.

---

Well, you're a dum dum poopy head! So there!ROTFLMAO!

People, when I'm marvelling at the ridiculousness of a flamewar, it's officially time for an intervention.

---

"You can't expect him to be answering your prayers when he's not real, can you? That's like writing to the characters of a soap opera and expecting a reply, Mr. Silly Sausage!"
-Jane Christie

After reading a number of Faith's old posts this morning, I believe Faith is trying very hard to focus on the main topic of the various threads in which she participates, but when her positions are challenged Faith usually offers the Bible as her supporting evidence. Naturally, the veracity of the Bible is immediately challenged and the discussion then turns off-topic and onto Biblical accuracy and inerrancy.For this reason, I'm going to immediately restore Faith's posting privileges in the forums where the Bible's value as an evidenciary source can be discussed:

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hi Faith,Here are some suggestions for threads where I think you could make some valuable contributions:

• Construction of the Bible and infallibility
  
• Is the Bible Totally reliable ? The Nativity
  
• Is Genesis to be taken literally Part II
  
• The lack of empirical evidence for the theory of evolution, according to Faith.

If it helps, let me describe how well you're doing from my own perspective. I'll use a close analogy. Let's say that as part of a class back in high school you were assigned a position you had to support as best you could in a one-on-one debate with another student in the class. The proposition under consideration: Smoking is bad for your health. You've been assigned the con position (in other words, you have to argue that smoking is not bad for your health). You enter the debate defending this hopeless position and nearly, by the judgment of the teacher, win. And he gives you an A+!And that's the way your various discussions here at EvC Forum look to me. Naturally I'm biased toward the scientific viewpoint, and no doubt from a Creationist perspective you're kicking ass, but I just wanted you to know that even among those who most strongly disagree with you (which includes me), you're probably granted a great deal of respect for sincerity and honesty, for strong and well-reasoned argumentation, and for original thinking. I'm sure my saying this will bring some replies noting your occasional howler or some possibly illogical positions, but when one engages in as much original thinking as you do then I think that's to be expected.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Faith is, indeed, the most impressive creationist opponent to materialize in a good long while. I'm still impressed by her very first thread, and that discussion resulted in a new way for me to think about evolution.I think her stance on the Bible is a hilariously enormous mental blind spot, as I imagine she holds the same view about me, but nonetheless, she's one hell of an opponent, and she has much reason to be very, very proud of her contributions so far. Perfect? No. But pretty damn good.

I dunno.On the one hand, I agree with you.On the other hand, she just called me the stupidest person on EvC.This from a woman who has abandoned every discussion she has started with me once she gets backed into a logical or evidence-requiring corner.

[nomex]
Which is simply false. You're remarkably intellegent for a woman.
[/nomex] If you use the HTML literals for square brackets, you can avoid the need for white space after the first square bracket. --AdminThis message has been edited by Admin, 04-07-2005 08:28 AM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Schraf..can I hold him while you beat him with your wit?

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"select * from USERS where CLUE > 0http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com