Aineo wrote:

twohumble wrote:

In case you have not noticed tuppence is a moderator of this forum and has adhered to our posting rules right down the line (something even I do not always do in the heat of a debate). She has not resorted to charactar assassination as you have done.

WHAT??????? Please point me to my "character assassination".....I totally reject this characterization, and see it as your attempt to "save the damsel in distress"....you have no basis for this comment at all.

tuppence is far from a "damsel in distress" and does not require me to defend her.

As to you resorting to character assassination:

"Bad science" is often seen in a misuse of data....this seems like the case to me. Just like statistics, you can make data say many things, but when you make the data sing like Dr. Setterfield has, you conflict with so many other areas of science that the evidence does not support his conclusions.

Setterfield is hardly a credible source and he clearly misunderstood that "correction factor" in Olaus Romers work as evidence for lights velocity to have decreased by 3% since 1675. In fact there have been many recent (post 1990) studies that show that if Romer had obtained more precise data for one part of his calculation, the speed of light (c) would have agreed with modern physics to within .5%. (Netterfield, Miller, A.T. Lee, Pryke, and other researchers all from 1999 to 2002 have published articles dispelling the idea that the velocity has changed).
http://www.jesus-christ-forums.com/home/viewtopic ... ield#41740

You got down right indignant when I questioned Ross' science however you have not hesitated to question Stetterfield by inferring his “science” is “bad science”. After tuppence revealed her true identity your whole toned changed.

Tuppence has defended her position with grace and patience since the day she registered and has defended other scientists who disagree with Barry Setterfield when they were misquoted or maligned for “bad science”.

In his publication Facts & Faith, Spring, 1993, there is a personal letter by Dr. Ross concerning those who criticize his ministry, in which he says, "Men with little or no formal training in the sciences or theology dogmatically contradict the science and theology of someone [himself] who has done postdoctorial research (in astronomy) at Caltech and has served for many years on the pastoral staff of a well-established evangelical church. Why do my attackers never check with people who know me personally?"
As to the implication that opposition is only from the unqualified, he must be aware of critical articles by qualified scientists at the Institute for Creation Research at El Cajon, California, 32 as well as others. As for myself, I have a Ph.D. in Zoology, taught at the college level for more than twenty years, have written extensively on the creation evolution issue including a book that went through thirteen printings, spoken in churches, schools, and conferences coast to coast in the U.S. and Canada, and been repeatedly on the radio and TV. But errors may be pointed out by anyone knowledgeable enough to defect them, whether professional scientist or housewife.
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/b-hugh-ross.htm

Ross is not accepted as a credible source by many qualified scientists whose credentials and experience equal or exceed Ross’.

If Dr. Ross is so sure of his position why does he refuse to engage in public debates with his peers?

As to Dr. Ross' theology I will be more than happy to discuss why I question his theology in the Christian Debate Forum.

Webmaster

There was nothing "vague" in my direct discussion of a couple of her sites that did not even come close to supporting her position. You claim "vague" attacks, yet Tuppence lists a bunch of sites to support her case, and in each instance I have followed the link and read the paper, it either does NOT support her, or its by a YEC. This is not vague.

Aineo, Ross won't debate YEC in public settings, but in ACADEMIC settings only. He is MORE than willing to do so, and if you read his position on this, its clear, please stop mischaracterizing him.
Aineo
You once again, in the above quote of your post, claim that I was resorted to "character assassination", you bolded this part of my post

Just like statistics, you can make data say many things, but when you make the data sing like Dr. Setterfield has, you conflict with so many other areas of science that the evidence does not support his conclusions.

Is this the great assassination you are talking about?????? The only reason I became indignant over you comments toward Ross was the fact that you accused me so verociouisly, when you attacks on another were equally strong if not stronger

So, if thats thte best example of "assassination" you can come up with, I repeat: Apologize and retract your comments about my posts.

In regard to Ross not being well accepted by qualified scientists, well, thats plain garbage. I have seen him in talks in rooms of academics at some the worlds most highly acclaimed educational universities in the world. He is invited and recieved warmly. Not to mention tha fact that if you read his endosements on his books, especially his last 2, you will find some very credentialed scientists who have read and agree with his handling of the data. Again, you make claims about Ross, and the only critisism you have posted of him are from strong atheists, or YEC's. scientists,