Part 2: Hugh Ross, Fuz Rana, and Michael Shermer - Was Darwin Wrong? Debate at UT 4/28/9

[Wunji1]

Why is the man to right of Hugh Ross stroking his water bottle from 2:31 to 3:00? hmmm

[Wunji1]

@Wunji1 that would be "to the right", and that in the mirror view...lol

[ScottMacFie]

Scientists would have us believe the universe created itself, which is of course, not falsifiable either. We were told that the laws of physics were constant--except when they are not (like quantum physics). The double-slit photon test indicates there is an all-knowing force in the universe--and that force is God.  If you can believe a theoretical "cat" is either dead, alive or in limbo until observed, you can believe in God, Christ and the resurrection.

[chansetwo]

Creationists have been using the same tired, discredited argument for hundreds of years. The argument from natural theology is no different now, than it was when David Hume conclusivly refuted it in 1779. The fact that they continue to repeat or repackage (ID) the same failed argument demonstrates that it really is all that they can come up with.. They have nothing to stand on.

[earldowningproject]

@chansetwo David Hume did not refute the design argument. In fact, he very clearly stated that the laws themselves - inductively leads one to the conclusion that the universe was clearly designed. I would be happy to provde the exact quote. So, Hume was a deist, not an atheist.

[brilyn]

Wow...

He just babbles on and on and on and on and on and on...

I'm happy to stipulate the science. I'm not interested in debating the science. How the science gets you to god, he doesn't seem to ever talk about. Maybe he does, but my eyes glaze over from all the irrelevant technobabble.

But hey, I guess that's his technique.

[TheKorban]

hugh ross makes a good case, I have read a few of his books and have become convinced to life being a creation by an eternal being, God is a good a name as any.

[WhisperProcessor]

He had me at, "1e91."