You're welcome Katie :)

keep up the great posts.

Pericles.. one reason you are kind of missing the mark here, is that without listening to the talk, you will not have a handle on the various positions, which is why your comments don't seem to connect at the moment.

The evidence is quite persuasive for an intelligent Creator, and it's based on science.. on the confession of atheists..not Creationists.
That seems to be the key bit ur missing.

You can allocate your time as you see fit, but if you come across any talk about Mosely, I'll happily find time to listen :) you see.. a lot of work I do requires only that my hands keep moving, and I often listen for a whole day to intersting subjects.

But this is hardly an unimportant issue... it regards your eternal destiny.. most worthy of some careful attention I'd say.
cheers anyway.

Oh, please!!

>>without listening to the talk, you will not have a handle on the various positions<<

It's true, Boaz, I haven't listened to the "talk". But the interesting thing is that you cannot actually present any coherent "takeaway" from it, in the form of a quote, or an example, or an insight, that has any bearing at all on your argument that it provides "a handle" of any kind.

Just a bit of blind adulation, as usual, lacking in any critical faculties whatsoever.

This rings the bells with me that say "Uh oh, another bit of rhetorical fluff, about as meaningful as that guy on the TV who purports to channel dead people to a live audience."

A charlatan spruiker, in other words.

But go ahead, prove me wrong. Search through the verbiage, and write down something that represents evidence for, or corroboration of, ID.

To save you the bother, here is a (written) article that provides a view of Dr Ross that is totally compatible with his ability to blind you with pseudo-science, and to blather inanities without regard for accuracy.

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/ross.cfm#non

>>The evidence is quite persuasive for an intelligent Creator, and it's based on science.. on the confession of atheists..<<

This is a contradiction in terms.

Atheists cannot "confess" to the existence of an intelligent creator, since in doing so they prove that they are not atheists. By definition, there is no such thing as a religious atheist, or an atheist believer.

Former atheist, I would accept. Just as in every election there is a bunch of floating voters, so there are atheists and religionists changing sides every day. Nothing to see here, move along.

>>But this is hardly an unimportant issue... it regards your eternal destiny..<<

Nope. It's just science versus religion again. Scientific theory versus religious beliefs.

No-one is going to "win" that argument, as they are different topics.

Science cannot determine whether or not there are gods. Religion cannot begin to explain how a flower grows.

Perilous.....

I'm trying to recall a large quantity of information from a 1 hour talk that I heard once, and then, you are interacting with my less than perfect recollection. So, rather than actually encounter the info first hand, you resort to offering a diatribe by a web site which has a vested interest in not accepting Ross's views. It amounted to systematic character assasination, and they had the gaul to criticize Ross for attacking arguments of his opponents ? :) quaint.

>>In particular, Ross indicates (page 103) that the argumentation of the young universe creationists involves the following fallacies: 1) Faulty assumptions; 2) Faulty data; 3) Misapplication of principles, laws, and equations, and 4) failure to consider opposing evidence.<<

Now.. come back with me for a moment please..to my statement about 'on the confession of atheists'.

I was not suggesting they had become Christians, I was saying that they viewed the evidence, and concluded (as atheists) that the evidence pointed to:

"The beginning occurred only a few billion years ago and places the cause of the universe outside, that is, independent of, matter, energy, space, and time.

Now..this was the point at which those 3 atheists decided on 'faith' grounds.. to deny that Dark Energy pointed to this conclusion.

2 DIFFERING CONCLUSIONS.

1/ ATHEIST. (Closed mind)
The 3 atheists decided, contrary to the evidence, to deny Dark Energy rather than accept the possibility of a Creator. One week later, Dark Energy was a proven fact, not a hypothesis.

2/ CHRISTIAN (closed mind?)
Theologically this means that the Cause of the universe is independent of and transcendent to the universe.

QUESTION.. if you have 2 closed minds, and one set of facts, perhaps it is wise to ask "which of the closed minded conclusions best fits the facts"?

SCIENCE WILL PROVE GOD? no.. I don't think so :) specially when you have scientists who are 'bigoted' (in the nicest sense of that word)..
It just underlines that scientists often 'begin' with the deliberate exclusion of some possible conclusions, and hence interpret all data in terms OF those presuppositions.

I think it's persuasive that the supposed evidence for the pretend-theories of ID and Creationism have captured the formidable mind of the learned Boazy.

Boazy expects us to sit through an hour long audio diatribe from a discredited idiot - sorry mate, ain't gonna happen. I'm not going to waste either the time or the bandwidth to listen to a preacher recommended by a nutter - but I am prepared to scan a concise document if one exists.

As usual, what this thread reveals is more evidence of Boazy's credulity, combined with his lack of formal education, than anything else.

No, Boaz, I'm sorry, but that simply doesn't wash.

>>I'm trying to recall a large quantity of information from a 1 hour talk that I heard once, and then, you are interacting with my less than perfect recollection.<<

But wasn't it you who started this thread? Your contention was that listening to Dr. Ross would "definitely shake [our] foundations."

Yet when challenged, you cannot recall a single salient point that he made. Not really a recommendation for me to spend an hour of my time listening to him, is it?

The funniest part though is the way you still can't work out your own contradictions.

>>The 3 atheists decided, contrary to the evidence, to deny Dark Energy rather than accept the possibility of a Creator. One week later, Dark Energy was a proven fact, not a hypothesis.<<

There are two problems with this.

The way you describe it, the existence of dark energy is itself sufficient proof of the existence of a "Creator". It clearly isn't. It is simply a theory that supports an observation on the nature of the universe.

Equally odd, under the circumstances, is your proposition that the existence of dark energy is somehow "a proven fact". One article doesn't constitute "proof", however hard you blow on it.

The truly craziest part though is that you insist on equating scientific conclusions with some kind of search for a deity.

For the umpteenth time, science and religion take entirely different paths.

Science formulates hypotheses about the nature and origins of the universe, and with any luck gets closer and closer to an understanding of how it all came to be.

Religion of course already knows the answers, and can't be bothered to look any further. As a result, religionists spend an unnecessary amount of time attempting to read into the scientific results, things that aren't there.

As I said in my last post, no-one is going to "win" this argument, as they are different topics.

Science cannot determine whether or not there are gods. Religion cannot begin to explain how a flower grows.