Five Reasons NOT to Believe Hugh Ross' Fine Tuning Argument

[krapptacular]

No he is right if the sun warms th earth it's vagina will get all hot. :) 

[krapptacular]

LOL We have evidence in the rock of, before life. What about all that time.

[hallie5309]

Looking at the back ground in this video. You must be a evolutionist. So you views are tainted.

[LithodidMan]

@hallie5309 My views are irrelevant. My acceptance of evolution (or creation for that matter) has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the five statements Ross makes here are scientifically meaningless. Please, don't take my word on it, search for any of these points in the published scientific literature and you will find that no one (Ross included) has published such correlations. And by the way, Hugh Ross is also an "evolutionist", he just believes that God directs it.

[hallie5309]

There are 200 things that must be present to support life on earth. Advice life. Humans 

[OsirisLord]

Even if I were to give Hugh Ross all of his points none of them lead me to creationism or Christianity. He still hasn't proven that there is an intelligence behind these coincidences, that this intelligence cares about us, that souls exist, that an afterlife exists, nothing that has to do with the central dogma of Christianity whatsoever.

[mollymu1]

Why does this clown and others care if someone else believes or not ? Cause they are jealous of what we have and they want it also. Otherwise they wouldn't be here. Why aren't they off telling people UFOs aren't real . Cause they know they aren't real and they aren't missing out on anything BUT they know we have something they want but won't let themselves have. And as far as published papers . Many believers can't cause they would lose their jobs .

[benthemiester]

#58 He didn't say it would be "different" he said it would be "destabilized"

#84 The fact that u dont understand this observation & which makes no sense to u even when briefly explained, is not falsification by any means. If u didn't understand statement, then why not contact him & ask before going public? Ross is well known even by his critics for being a gatherer and logger of scientific facts. What I'm basically saying is, the admitted ignorance on your part does not invalidate arguments.

[dubvishun]

b'der d'der b'der b'der b'der b'der got me stumped ..makes no sense to huh? know this know that know huh wha? b'der.

throw it in dayer ..yup.

really...okaythen.

[LithodidMan]

@dubvishun And what in the fuck is this supposed to mean? If the implication is that Ross is just so far over my that I don't understand his brilliance, then I challenge you to find one study, one paper, one abstract that demonstrates any connection between biomass and comet infall ratios. How about a single reference that dual-water molecules have anything to do with rainfall... and so on. I searched through multiple scientific databases looking for these keywords together and guess what? Zero.

[LoopQuantumGravity1]

Ross has PhD in astronomy , but that doesn't mean he has any expertise in geology or biology. Furthermore, not ONE peer-reviewed paper supports creationism. Sorry, but the scientific consensus is against Ross.

Plate tectonics affecting the Sun's luminosity? Nonsense. Now before YTubers start sending me emails, I DO have a PhD in Geophysics, teach physics and astronomy, and have published papers. Sorry, but Ross is simply WRONG.

[Imaginone]

go air your bogus knowledge somewhere else.... geez louise....

[LithodidMan]

@Imaginone Be specific, which of the points I mentioned are examples of bogus knowledge? Seriously, be constructive here. Where did I make a statement that is factually incorrect?

[James5877]

Hugh Ross has a PhD in astrophysics, but I don't think this bozo does.

[CombatMedic67]

Please don't be so disrespectful and condescending in a scientific debate....we must create an atmosphere of tolerance and critical analysis to forward our debates toward the truth.

[Maxlorad]

Hugh Ross has taken astronomy and merged it with the bible. Can he really be taken seriously about anything?

[CombatMedic67]

@Maxlorad I'm not quite following you. It appears that you can't take him seriously because you don't believe anything in the Bible. If I use the same logic with your comment...how can I take anything you say seriously?

[superdoobo]

Dude! you have not refuted one argument. You picked five points and essentially say "I don't get it". Well I'm convinced. There is no God. Then you conclude he is making it all up.

[LithodidMan]

@superdoobo Hmmm, I did not say "I don't get it", those five claims are scientifically meaningless. My argument centered around if he would use 5 absolutely nonsensical arguments to prove a point, how much faith can you have in the veracity of his other claims? To make a claim that life on Earth depends on the ratio of A to B being exact, there at least needs to be a study somewhere showing the significance of that ratio. Those studies do not exist for the claims he makes. Search it yourself.

[superdoobo]

@LithodidMan Look I'll be honest I am a beliver. But this whole argument is sort of a waste of time. I believe God created everything including time at the big bang. For this to be brought in to existance something had to be out side our universe to bring all of it in to exsistance. We are not going to get to some point where we see a man with a beard (as athiest always like to describe God when bashing believers.) and say A ha Found you finally. where have you been hiding.

[CombatMedic67]

@LithodidMan "scientifically meaningless?" i will not try and underestimate your education or knowledge, but Hugh Ross is most likely just as interested and critical in the scientific method as any reputable scientist. You are obviously trying to refute in a thoughtful way, but I think you need to rethink your approach. Saying you can't find the answer in your textbooks or online is not providing any real reason "NOT" to believe another scientists' findings. I look forward to hearing back.

[LithodidMan]

@CombatMedic67 Thank you for your reasoned responses. I do appreciate what you are saying but cannot answer in the 500 character blocks, so will make a video response to this video that (I hope!) will address your points and several others on the same topic. I will try to do this as soon as possible, but cannot guarantee expediency on this. It is not that I cannot find answers in textbooks, but cannot find answers in the published scientific literature. Please check back!

[blazereef]

@CombatMedic67 i will say that i do think hugh is smart, probably as smart as lith but he is dishonest, either you are a dumbass creationist, a dishonest creationist or most likely a mix of both, NO educated and honest person supports creationism, not ONE person

[ErosCicco]

I absolutely agree, and feel that Dr. Ross would as well, that schoolyard name calling is a poor approach to this issue that in the end does discredit to us as thinking, reasoning creationists. That being said, it seems that you are overfocusing on this "word salad" as the basis for your arguement. "Word Salad" which is ultimately just a pair of words that you chose to put together. Correct?

[LithodidMan]

@ErosCicco I am using the term to refer to words and phrases put together that ultimately are meaningless. There is simply nothing that ties comet infall with SS biomass. Once can certainly calculate a ratio, but it is meaningless.

[ErosCicco]

While you do bring up valid and well thought out concerns, it just doesn't seem to be a strong arguement. And it certainly doesn't seem to discredit Dr. Ross as appears to be your intent. Wasn't the term "irreducible complexity" very recently coined by Micheal J. Behe? Not saying that this is Dr. Ross' goal, if it were, how would this be any different?

[logicCplusplus]

Dude you are a crackpot compared to Hugh Ross, whatever your field may be.

[LithodidMan]

Please - be constructive! Specifically what am I incorrect or 'crackpot' about? Which specific claim do I make that fits this description? I will gladly re-look and check my sources. So let me know.

[Youlube32]

I clicked on the link to the side and it said the page could not be found. Does it still exist or did someone on the website take it down?

[LithodidMan]

It is gone! Holy shmokes, I found it about a month ago when I sent an email to Dr. Ross about the 5 points in this vid (see response to 7bambam7 below). I will search for a mirror when I have time and change the description. Thanks for pointing it out!

[Youlube32]

No problem! Hey, maybe they wised up when they read your question and took it down.

[1unbiased]

To be honest, you seem to make some interesting points, but at the end, it was all a bit minimalized by the comments suggesting that Hugh Ross, and his entire staff is F***ing with theists, and that his whole organization is based on creating "jokes" just to see how well they will be spread around. I will take this rationalness into condsideration as I study these points.

[7bambam7]

Thank you for responding LithodidMan. As a marine biologist and oceanographer, your credentials are respected here. I would like to see your next video including the results regarding Dr. Ross' answers.

[7bambam7]

Ha, "He's just makin' it up."He knows better" It's just pulled out of his ass..." - Highly doubtful. You sir, are ego driven and without point. He has all the credibility and now you have none. I can't believe I wasted my time watching your video.

[LithodidMan]

Without point? Have you looked at some of these claims? How do biomass and planetary input ratio have the first thing to do with greenhouse gas accumulation? Dual water molecules affecting rainfall? His points simply do not make any sense, I have taught Geologic History of Earth and Oceanography for many semesters and his combined terms are meaningless.

[mollyconpapas]

You should have titled this video, "Five discoveries by Hugh Ross which are too complex for me to understand". You yourself stated several times, "I don't even know what that means". Have you read his books?

[LithodidMan]

Um, nothing he says is too complex for me to understand, what I mean by "do not not know what that means" is that he pairs to mechanisms which are completely decoupled and claims that their interaction is somehow critical. My point stands, it is nonsense. Pick one and research it, you will see.

[7bambam7]

I would like to see LithodidMan make these points to Dr. Ross directly rather than just snipe via YouTube. Dr. Ross seems to have a much larger understanding and working knowledge about the earth than LithodidMan does. Please do so and post the results. Thank you.

[LithodidMan]

Dr. Ross is an astronomer, I am a marine biologist and oceanographer. Many of his points fall under my realm, not his. I will gladly submit my questions on these to him, and will make a video about the result. Thanks for the suggestion!

[1unbiased]

I will subscribe, and keep my eyes open for this particular video.

[LithodidMan]

Don't hold your breath! It has been four weeks since I submitted my questions (diplomatically and polite) to Dr. Ross, no response yet.

[1unbiased]

LOL, well let me know if and when you do, thanks!

[logicCplusplus]

duh, gee I wonder why. Its cause youre a crackpot, he probably has thousands of messages from crackpots such as yourself in his e-mail queue. He will get to them shortly, NOT.

[LithodidMan]

Okay, I see. You mean I am a crackpot because I disagree with the claims he makes that are supposed to be based in science. Disagreement with claims is what drives science. I am not challenging him because I believe aliens living in a volcano told me to, I am disagreeing with the facts he claims.

I am a published scientist. I have numerous disagreements from fellow researchers on my conclusions, some valid, some not. I answer them all and even concede defeat when valid.

[logicCplusplus]

@LithodidMan

I agree, I take back the crackpot part, sorry' bout that.

You are a published scientist thus disagreeing with Hugh Ross must mean you are correct.

You are free to disagree, I will not bother you.

[LithodidMan]

No, being published doesn't mean I am correct. I am right or wrong based upon an interpretation of the facts.

I am incorrect on many things, these points could be some of them. So I ask you again, which of the points I brought up were wrong? Which were so out there as to be described as 'crackpot'? I really want to know.

[Bigstubby1]

1) Everything, in retrospect, appears "fine-tuned" and completely improbable.

2) So I'll propose a force that would presumably perform the "fine-tuning".

3) This 'force' appears "fine-tuned" and completely improbable.

4) Go to Step 1

[ghostwriter511]

I love the dialog here between LithodidMan and phillynotebook. When all else fails, quote scripture. (Probably also lifted from a quote site, and out of context.)

Priceless.

[phillynotebook]

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them" (Romans 1:18-19).

[LithodidMan]

LOL!!! I see, so you got nuttin'.

Funny thing is that if 'the Word' is so manifestly true why do defenders like Hugh Ross have to make up fabricated 'proofs' to support it? Why doesn't it stand under its own examination? I do not care what your belief, there is no denying Ross' list contains absolute nonsense arguments, made up processes, etc. Why would he have to do that?

[phillynotebook]

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenominal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of invrstigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanantions, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover that materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.

Richard Lewontin

[phillynotebook]

I don't buy it, life can not come from rock and water or non living organic chemicals

[LithodidMan]

Luckily, science progresses despite your lack of belief or knowledge of the process. We have learned more in the past 10 years about the origin of life than we did in the 100 years before it. We now have several very likely models for life's building blocks, including the nucleotides (those were the tough ones, the rest is easy). The model for generation of self replicating pre-RNA chains is becoming quite clear, and changing a few ideas on early biochemistry.

[phillynotebook]

BULLS**T they have never created life in the lab yet

[LithodidMan]

Hmmm, not sure where I claimed they created life in the lab. I find it greatly amusing however when laymen claim to know more than the people who work for years to study this material.

BTW - Just for fun, can you tell me the source of the quote above you gave (the Lewontin quote)? Surely it is from a work you have read and are familiar with, right? Not a quote lifted from a creationist website, out of context and possibly distorted...... (Hint: I am looking at the original right now)

[phillynotebook]

So you believe that life came from a ROCK and WATER, inorganic into organic PRESTO CHANGO POOF!

[animateclay]

I think the reason for a list made to understand the probabilities of life on an earth-like planet is because astro physicists need to know what types of conditions are needed in their search for life on other planets outside our solar system and in it.

[animateclay]

Especially when looking for life on Jupiters moons or any of the other planets - they have to theorize IF it's possible based on certain conditions. Then if there is enough similarities to earth "such as with water" then you send probes etc.

[LithodidMan]

Yes, there are legitimate reasons for such lists. Ross' list however was not for this purpose but to construct a false impression of 'fine-tuning'. Even to the point of inventing nonsense variables.

[hellavadeal]

I think the cometary inflow gives it away. sounds like fringe astrobiolagy to me. Don't know what that has to do with the arguement put forth . silly.

[Comptech224]

Ok now, awesome video. I did put up the video again so you can link it, but you should attach to the second video since it gets more views. Your videos on these arguments are of great quality and should be known.

[Atriviality]

Now you've gone and spoiled the joke.