Five Reasons NOT to Believe Hugh Ross' Fine Tuning Argument

Five very funny "evidences" of a designed Earth from Hugh Ross' "Reasons to believe: Fine-Tuning For Life On Earth" The list can be found here: http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design_evidences/200406_fine_tun...
Because of time constraints I had to shorten my text slides, please pause to read them, as they are Ross' original claims.

SirTheist's original post: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI-sgPJUW0o
Comptech224's Excellent rebuttals:




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhtPXbCoGBA&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQFk4uBlrtA&feature=related
And now the five most ridiculous out of the 154 on the list:

#58 Timing of birth of continent formation:

if too early: silicate-carbonate cycle would be destabilized
if too late: silicate-carbonate cycle would be destabilized

#84 Biomass to comet infall ratio:

if smaller: greenhouse gases accumulate, triggering runaway surface temperature increase
if larger: greenhouse gases decline, triggering a runaway freezing

#91 Phosphorus and iron absorption by banded iron formations:
if smaller: overproduction of cyanobacteria would have consumed too much carbon dioxide and released too much oxygen into Earths atmosphere thereby overcompensating for the increase in the Suns luminosity (too much reduction in atmospheric greenhouse efficiency) if larger: underproduction of cyanobacteria would have consumed too little carbon dioxide and released too little oxygen into Earths atmosphere thereby undercomsating for the increase in the Suns luminosity (too little reduction in atmospheric greenhouse efficiency)

#141 Ratio of dual water molecules, (H2O)2, to single water molecules, H2O, in the troposphere:
if too low: inadequate raindrop formation; inadequate rainfall if too high: too uneven of a distribution of rainfall over planets surface

#153 Heat flow through the planets mantle from radiometric decay in planets core
if too low: mantle will be too viscous and, thus, mantle convection will not be vigorous enough to drive plate tectonics at the precise level to compensate for changes in stars luminosity if too high: mantle will not be viscous enough and, thus, mantle convection will be too vigorous resulting in too high of a level of plate tectonic activity to perfectly compensate for changes in stars luminosity

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• SirTheistDRF
• Comptech224
• Creationism
• Hugh
• Ross
• Anthropic
• principle
• Fine
• Tuning
• Astronomy
• Physics
• Evolution
• Old
• Earth
• Comets
• Tectonics
• Geology
• Banded
• Iron
• Photosynthesis
• evolution

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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]

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.