I am watching a good video.
Astrophysicist and Christian Apologist Dr. Hugh Ross (Old Earther) in his customary civility discusses a number of interesting concept in this video.
Ie. The change in the New Athiests in recent years,
The source of the new aggressive form of atheism,
The most popular Atheist publication,
Three Humanist Manifestos,
Why Darwin developed his theories to comfort himself after his daugher's death,
His class with Carl Sagan,
Victor Stenger's book which Ross says is the "best" book out by the New Atheists - God the Failed Hypothesis (Ross apparently likes and has more respect for the science in this book than in Dawkins' best seller),
Dark Energy,
Ever expanding Universe,
Lawrence Krauss (author of "A Universe From Nothing" ),
"Six Cosmic Dooms",
Reasons for Optimism,
and many other interesting concepts
"Why The Universe Is The Way It Is"
My recommendation of the video is not necessarily a wholesale endorsement of everything Dr. Ross has ever said. I find him an intriguing lecturer on science and Christian apologetics.
(Yes, yes, I know that some YECs like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind have practically excommunicated him for not being YEC).
Originally posted by sonshipDr. Hugh Ross is definitely a decent scientist. However, his theology has serious problems because he continues to rely to the days of Genesis being long periods of time in order to compromise his science and the Holy Bible with the evolutionist's millions and billions of years.
I am watching a good video.
Astrophysicist and Christian Apologist Dr. Hugh Ross (Old Earther) in his customary civility discusses a number of interesting concept in this video.
Ie. The change in the New Athiests in recent years,
The source of the new aggressive form of atheism,
The most popular Atheist publication,
Three H ...[text shortened]... t some YECs like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind have practically excommunicated him for not being YEC).
Originally posted by C HessI think recent research is suggesting that a small proportion
Not all humans have a moral sense. It seems to be intimately connected to brain activity,
which means that a damaged portion of the brain can lead to sociopathy.
of sociopaths (/psychopaths) is actually beneficial to society.
Can we view that as "damage" ???
Originally posted by RJHindsI know all about your criticism on Day Age interpretation of Genesis.
Dr. Hugh Ross is definitely a decent scientist. However, his theology has serious problems because he continues to rely to the days of Genesis being long periods of time in order to compromise his science and the Holy Bible with the evolutionist's millions and billions of years.
Originally posted by C HessUh, yes, he probably did.
Uh, no he didn't.
1.) Doesn't mean his theory was necessarily wrong because it gave him comfort.
2.) Doesn't mean it was his only motivation.
3.) Darwin's struggles with theistic beliefs were influenced by personal tragedy.
Its arguable at least that he did take some comfort in his theory.
4.) Few scientists are totally above wanting to seek comfort in the face of personal tragedy in any way they may find useful.
Originally posted by sonshipSo as a debating point it's somewhat sophomoric.
[b] Uh, yes, he probably did.
1.) Doesn't mean his theory was necessarily wrong because it gave him comfort.
2.) Doesn't mean it was his only motivation.
3.) Darwin's struggles with theistic beliefs were influenced by personal tragedy.
Its arguable at least that he did take some comfort in his theory.
4.) Few scientists are tota ...[text shortened]... y above wanting to seek comfort in the face of personal tragedy in any way they may find useful.[/b]
Originally posted by JS357What is having some attention to me these few days is the surprising differences in attitudes among philosophers about the nature of what science is and does.
So as a debating point it's somewhat sophomoric.
I have a number of categories before me concernings schools of thought of the philosophy of science:
Rational Realism (or Scientific Realism)
Rational Nonrealism ( or Instrumentalism )
with subcatagories -
Rational Nonrealism - Constructive Empiricism
Rational Nonrealism - Phenomenalism
more subcatagories -
Instrumentalism - Pragmatism
Instrumentalism - Operationalism
Nonrational Nonrealism
Leave it to philosophers to analyze something to the Nth degree.
Originally posted by Suzianne"Let's go find out *how* He did it.
I agree. "God did it" is not good enough. Let's go find out *how* He did it. This is science's job. Evolution was a good start. Modern astrophysics answers other questions. Christians need not fear science. Science is the "how", after all. Teaching Creationism in schools doesn't do our kids any favors, it only teaches them that critical thinking, th ...[text shortened]... ly both sides can relax their "set in stone" mindsets, perhaps some true progress could be made.
Don't have to go far. The answer is right there in His Word.
By faith!
Originally posted by sonshipUh, no, he didn't. Charles worked his entire adult life on the theory
Uh, yes, he probably did.
of evolution, for many years before his daughter died. In fact, few people
seem to know that it was Erasmus, Charles grandfather who first presented
the idea of common descent in several of his writings. What was so
ingenious about Charles own work was the idea of natural selection. Before
his time, evolution was never taken seriously because it's unlikely that
random events alone could produce a stable form of speciation.