RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (7) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >   
  Topic: AFDave's God Hypothesis, Creation/Evolution Debate< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,16:44   

Quote (Ved @ April 27 2006,14:22)
Cain and Abel married chimps, of course. That explains why we share 98 percent of our DNA with them.

This was a beautiful observation, BTW. I didn't want it to go unappreciated.  :)

And since we share, what, 96% of our DNA with gorillas, maybe C&A's grandkids married some of them. I'm sure we can work out the small details.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,16:47   

Quote (Chris Hyland @ April 27 2006,21:37)
if you believe the bible is the innerant word of god, and no evidence will change your mind, we will respect you for that.

But that doesn't mean we need to hear about it.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
UnMark



Posts: 97
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,17:16   

Quote (Chris Hyland @ April 27 2006,21:37)
Quote
Remember ... it's my Hypothesis and it can be anything I want ... the evidence to support it is coming later ...
Dave... if you believe the bible is the innerant word of god, and no evidence will change your mind, we will respect you for that.

Tolerance != respect. . . .

Here's a quandry: can God (A) create another God (B)?  Can B destroy/kill A?  Can A prevent it?  Would it make sense for an all-knowing A to create B knowing the ultimate showdown?

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,21:05   

I think this will be my standard answer to questions like these. (like lenny's questions):

Why oh why does anything about god matter in even the slightest bit to humans? Heaven and #### are meaningless words in the context of eternity. They are quite meaningful when applied to how we feel while living but not once we're dead. So why is gOd important?  ???

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
bystander



Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,21:50   

Quote

(k) The Christian Scriptures consisting of the Jewish Scriptures plus what is commonly called the New Testament are the most basic and foundational collection of documents for all of mankind's activities on Planet Earth--from scientific endeavor to family activities to government structure.  They also are the only reliable source documents for knowing the future of Planet Earth and Mankind in relation to it.  As such, these Scriptures should be the basis and starting point for all human activities from individual behaviour to family operation to nation building and governance of human affairs to scientific endeavors and the arts.


Coincidentally I have spent a couple of interesting hours on the infidels site and it appears that almost nothing in the old testament holds up archeologically from before David. The book The Bible Unearthed sounds like a good source of info and I'll be looking for it in my bookshop.

  
bourgeois_rage



Posts: 117
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,01:40   

dave:

How can your hypothesis be falsified?

--------------
Overwhelming Evidence: Apply directly to the forehead.

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,03:18   

Quote
That being said, if you believe the bible is the innerant word of god, and no evidence will change your mind, we will respect you for that.

Some of us might. I won't.

   
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,03:26   

I meant respect him for being honest. Instead of lying and saying that he believes because of the evidence.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,03:40   

Ah, right, I agree. I would respect that aspect. What I don't respect is people who try to hide that fact with BS arguments about scale-free networks and STD rates.

   
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,04:43   

AFDAVE'S CREATOR GOD HYPOTHESIS

TESTABLE PREDICTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS FOR POINT 1

POINT 1:  THERE IS A GOD
My hypothesis is that there is a Super Intelligent, Highly Moral [added], Incredibly Powerful Being -- I choose to call him God -- who has knowledge of scientific laws far more advanced than anything ever discovered by 21st Century humans.  These scientific laws are so powerful that this Being can literally "speak" material things into existence and destroy things with a simple command.  This Being lives "outside of time" and can view what we call "the future" and "the past" with equal ease.

TESTABLE PREDICTIONS FROM POINT 1
(a) A Super Intelligent Being would be expected to design highly sophisticated machines and systems.  So we would expect to find a vast number of wonderful innovations in the universe which at least appear to be designed.  Our expectation of this comes from our own experience ... i.e. "Airliners are complicated machines and we know they are designed.  Our own bodies are much more complicated, so they appear designed, etc." (Dawkins, "Blind Watchmaker", p.3).  Can we test this prediction?  Absolutely.  Even prior to the molecular biology revolution, we stood in awe of bird's wings, bat navigation, eyes, hands and other brilliant innovations.  But since the opening of "Darwin's Black Box," our awe of the wonders of nature has increased exponentially.  There are three absolute "must reads" on this topic--"Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" and "Nature's Destiny" both by Michael Denton.

(b) An Incredibly Powerful Being would be expected to build systems of mind-numbing size and power, such as a power generation system to supply power to all His innovative machines, maybe a lighting system so his creatures can see to navigate on the planet, perhaps a water supply and filtration system to provide clean water to His little creations, and so on.  Can we test this prediction?  Again, yes.  We find exactly what we predicted.  The sun is a massive power generation and lighting system which has every appearance of engineering brilliance.  Ditto for earth's hydrologic cycle which provides, filters and circulates water for all life on earth.  The sheer size and power of these systems stagger the human mind and are precisely what we would expect if there were such a thing as an Incredibly Powerful Being, such as God.

© A Highly Moral or Ethical Being would be expected to "build in" some Laws of Right and Wrong into his universe.  Can we test this prediction?  Yes.  This is precisely what we find in our experience.  This is a truly fascinating study and my argument comes from "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis, the great Skeptic turned Christian Apologist, author of the books behind the current "Narnia" movie series.  Basically, the argument is that we find this curious "Law of Right and Wrong" or "Law of Human Nature" at work in our every day experience.  If you examine it, you find that it is quite real and applies to all humans regardless of religious upbringing or lack thereof.  Lewis then argues that there necessarily has to be "Something Behind the Law" which caused it to be.  I think he makes his point very well and I agree with him.  Come on, guys, I read Dawkins' stuff, so you can read Lewis' stuff ... let's be fair.

(d) We would expect that IF there were such a thing as a Supernatural Being like  my "God" persona, we would expect there to be many claims that people have received Written Messages from Him.  Can we test this prediction?  Again, yes.  There are many ... the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Koran to name a few.

(e) We would expect to hear many claims of "Supernatural Experiences" such as people hearing voices, seeing visions of shining beings, out-of-body experiences, etc.  Can we test this prediction?  Yes.  These reports are plentiful and have been reported since the dawn of history.  No documentation needed for that. Note that with (d) and (e), I am not saying that any of these written messages or claims of supernatural experiences are necessarily true (we will examine the truth claims of the Bible separately). At this point, I am only predicting that IF there were such a thing as a Supernatural Being, that there would be many claims of "seeing Him, hearing from Him, etc."

(f) If there is such a thing as a Being who can "speak" things into existence using advanced scientific principles which humans have not yet discovered, then I would predict that there would be some sort of relationship among matter, energy and "nothingness." Do we find such a relationship?  Well I do.  Now I'm going to get lots of rotten eggs on this one, but hear me out. It has now been well established that matter can be converted into energy, and before that it was shown that matter is largely "nothingness."  Now let's dig deeper.  Take a neutron, just to pick a particle.  Divide it in half, what do you get?  Keep dividing and keep answering the question "What do you get?"  Answer?  I don't have a clue.  But if you go far enough and really let your mind bend, you may find that it resembles NOTHING very closely.  And a hundred years from now, we might just discover that all the matterin the universe is nothing more than "Fancily Arranged Nothingness", which would fit my hypothesis quite nicely, i.e. that God Created the World out of Nothing.  I freely admit that this part of my hypothesis requires much further research and testing, but it appears to me that there has been significant progress toward supporting a crazy hypothesis like this in the 20th Century.  Besides, what fun is a hypothesis anyway if it doesn't bend your mind a little? And remember, when I am done walking through the support for my complete hypothesis, there will be some unanswered questions.  I will never be able to completely PROVE my entire hypothesis, but this is true of all hypotheses.  What I can do, though, is make an informed "faith" decision on how to live my life based on what I DO know.

(g) If there is such a thing as a Being who "lives outside of time" viewing the future and the past with equal ease, then I would predict that Time is not an infinite concept, but is something which is not absolute and can be manipulated, possibly even a "created thing" with a beginning and an end.  Can we test this prediction?  Yes.  Time Dilation has now been demonstrated in many laboratory studies which I am sure you are all familiar with.  We now know that if our technology allowed us to travel at 90% of the speed of light, time would slow down a significant amount relative to our original location in the universe. (Did I get that right? ... it's been 20 years since physics class)

Various Questions:  Hypothesis of what?  Answer:  A Hypothesis which attempts to explain the origin of the universe, planet earth and all life that we see here. Cain and Abel? Where did Cain get his wife?  Etc.  Answer:  This is a fun one, and we will get to it.  I have a very good answer. Why is it important to you that the bible be inerrant?  Answer: I am not "married to" inerrancy.  I am quite happy to discard my view of inerrancy the moment someone suggests a credible error that they can defend.  

I have one request.  I have told you about myself and a little about my background.  I am curious to know your backgrounds as well.  If every responder would tell me their educational background and current occupation (and anything else you want to disclose), I would enjoy hearing it.  

OK ... let the games begin!  You can be as mean and nasty or as polite as you like.  I have very thick skin from Air Force barrooms, and I can dish it out with the best of them!  I will point out, however, that in spite of my apparent irrational, lunatic, Creationist beliefs, I am a potential "convertee" such as those referred to by the 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank.  So if you want me to convert, you might try the calm, rational technique, rather than the "Rant/Rave/Rotten Tomato" technique.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,05:39   

Without getting into detail, this looks to me like AFDave looked around at a few natural phenomena, and then came up with some facet of his "hypothesis" that would supposedly "predict" that phenomenon.

Looks pretty ad hoc to me.

The one about time dilation seems particularly strained to me. I think Einstein did a better job of explaining it than AFDave does. Again, how does AFDave's hypothesis "explain" time dilation?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,06:08   

Hi AFDave

I appreciate your good attitude toward this whole topic.  No one that I know will attempt to change your belief in God, or claim that your belief is wrong.  Many here see no conflict whatsoever in believing in God and accepting the ToE (a topic for another thread at another time). However, we will take you to task if you screw up the technical stuff.  As an IP in a Talon, would you let your students slide if they got Airmanship 101 wrong? :)

That being said, you’ve got a big logic flaw in your very first batch of Testable Prediction arguments.  

Quote
TESTABLE PREDICTIONS FROM POINT 1
(a) A Super Intelligent Being would be expected to design highly sophisticated machines and systems.  So we would expect to find a vast number of wonderful innovations in the universe which at least appear to be designed.  Our expectation of this comes from our own experience ... i.e. "Airliners are complicated machines and we know they are designed.  Our own bodies are much more complicated, so they appear designed, etc." (Dawkins, "Blind Watchmaker", p.3).  Can we test this prediction?  Absolutely.  Even prior to the molecular biology revolution, we stood in awe of bird's wings, bat navigation, eyes, hands and other brilliant innovations.  But since the opening of "Darwin's Black Box," our awe of the wonders of nature has increased exponentially.  There are three absolute "must reads" on this topic--"Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" and "Nature's Destiny" both by Michael Denton.

(b) An Incredibly Powerful Being would be expected to build systems of mind-numbing size and power, such as a power generation system to supply power to all His innovative machines, maybe a lighting system so his creatures can see to navigate on the planet, perhaps a water supply and filtration system to provide clean water to His little creations, and so on.  Can we test this prediction?  Again, yes.  We find exactly what we predicted.  The sun is a massive power generation and lighting system which has every appearance of engineering brilliance.  Ditto for earth's hydrologic cycle which provides, filters and circulates water for all life on earth.  The sheer size and power of these systems stagger the human mind and are precisely what we would expect if there were such a thing as an Incredibly Powerful Being, such as God.
©  A Highly Moral or Ethical Being would be expected to "build in" some Laws of Right and Wrong into his universe.  Can we test this prediction?  Yes.  This is precisely what we find in our experience.  This is a truly fascinating study and my argument comes from "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis, the great Skeptic turned Christian Apologist, author of the books behind the current "Narnia" movie series.  Basically, the argument is that we find this curious "Law of Right and Wrong" or "Law of Human Nature" at work in our every day experience.  If you examine it, you find that it is quite real and applies to all humans regardless of religious upbringing or lack thereof.  Lewis then argues that there necessarily has to be "Something Behind the Law" which caused it to be.  I think he makes his point very well and I agree with him.  Come on, guys, I read Dawkins' stuff, so you can read Lewis' stuff ... let's be fair.

(d) We would expect that IF there were such a thing as a Supernatural Being like  my "God" persona, we would expect there to be many claims that people have received Written Messages from Him.  Can we test this prediction?  Again, yes.  There are many ... the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Koran to name a few.

(e) We would expect to hear many claims of "Supernatural Experiences" such as people hearing voices, seeing visions of shining beings, out-of-body experiences, etc.  Can we test this prediction?  Yes.  These reports are plentiful and have been reported since the dawn of history.  No documentation needed for that. Note that with (d) and (e), I am not saying that any of these written messages or claims of supernatural experiences are necessarily true (we will examine the truth claims of the Bible separately). At this point, I am only predicting that IF there were such a thing as a Supernatural Being, that there would be many claims of "seeing Him, hearing from Him, etc."



In all of these cases, your observations do not provide confirming evidence for your predictions, because there are other well supported explanations requiring no Supreme Being.  You are committing a simple logical error, i.e.

You hypothesize that it rained last night
You predict “If it rained,  my driveway will be wet”
You look out the door in the morning and observe a wet driveway
That doesn’t mean that it rained last night – maybe your wife just washed the car there, or your next door neighbor’s lawn sprinkler was mis-aimed.  
You cannot conclude rain just by seeing a wet driveway.
The wet driveway doesn’t preclude your hypothesis, but it does not qualify as something that confirms your hypothesis either.  
To confirm your hypothesis, you need other evidence that could be caused by rain only.

Think it through again and you’ll understand.

FYI, I’m a spacecraft systems designer (all DOD stuff), MSEE, with a strong amateurs’ interest in the natural sciences.  I’d also like to thank you for your military service to our country.  Guys like me can’t say enough to our military folks about just how much they are appreciated.

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,06:43   

Occam's Aftershave said ...
Quote
You hypothesize that it rained last night
You predict “If it rained,  my driveway will be wet”
You look out the door in the morning and observe a wet driveway.That doesn’t mean that it rained last night – maybe your wife just washed the car there, or your next door neighbor’s lawn sprinkler was mis-aimed.  
You cannot conclude rain just by seeing a wet driveway.
The wet driveway doesn’t preclude your hypothesis, but it does not qualify as something that confirms your hypothesis either.

Quite true that ONLY the wet driveway would not suffice, but I think I am saying that I have "seen the wet driveway, saw the full rain gauge, saw the forecast the night before, etc." ... so to speak ... does that clear it up for you?  And even with all that, I would not say that I could PROVE 100% that it rained last night ... but there is a point at which I have enough evidence with which to feel comfortable and go ahead and make decsions based upon my well-grounded belief that it did rain.  (Very cool profession you have by the way ... love to hear about that sometime)

Eric Murphy--  My hypothesis does not purport to EXPLAIN Time Dilation ... others more competent than I have done that.  If you'll notice, it only PREDICTS THE EXISTENCE of such a phenomenon.

Thanks for the comments!

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
dhogaza



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,06:50   

Quote
The reason for the variance we find in the legends is that many of them are simply oral traditions passed down through the generations without the benefit of scrupulous copying of written records that the Christian Scriptures have enjoyed.

The Old Testament was passed down orally through generations. The four Gospels were all written long after the death of Jesus, differ in details.  I think it's Mark for which anthropologists have found several different endings, isn't it?  It's hard for all these to be the inerrant word of God ...


Quote
A Super Intelligent Being would be expected to design highly sophisticated machines and systems.

On the other hand, a Super-Duper Intelligent Being wouldn't have to work.  So why would that Being bother?  It would probably just sit around and get stoned all eon.

My hypothesis is as scientific and defensible as yours.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,07:18   

Here's another "retrodiction" that I don't think stands up to scrutiny:
Quote (afdave @ April 28 2006,09:43)

(d) We would expect that IF there were such a thing as a Supernatural Being like  my "God" persona, we would expect there to be many claims that people have received Written Messages from Him.  Can we test this prediction?  Again, yes.  There are many ... the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Koran to name a few.


Sorry, Dave. I don't follow this. Why would "we" expect that the existence of God that people would result in people claiming to having received "Written Messages"? As Mr. Aftershave pointed out, this neither confirms nor excludes your hypothesis. It's entirely plausible that people would claim to have received Words From On High whether God exists or not.

Also, how well does your hypothesis survive this test: if the various religious texts are indeed the Word of God, wouldn't we expect them to largely agree with each other? Many of them don't seem even to be internally consistent. I think the existence of many, mutually contradictory religious texts better supports the notion that there are many creator beings than the notion that there is one creator being.

And besides, you might make such a prediction, but I certainly would not. Given the size of the cosmos, and by comparison the utter insignificance of a) the Milky Way, b) the solar system, c) the earth, and d) any particular human being, I would be greatly surprised if some sort of Supreme Being favored some random human with its thoughts on life, the universe, and everything. I'd be surprised if such a Supreme Being even noticed the existence of humans, or cared one way or another whether they existed.

If I were creating a hypothesis about how the universe came to exist, the last thing I would predict would be personal greeting cards from its creator to individual humans.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,07:24   

Quote (afdave @ April 28 2006,11:43)
Eric Murphy--  My hypothesis does not purport to EXPLAIN Time Dilation ... others more competent than I have done that.  If you'll notice, it only PREDICTS THE EXISTENCE of such a phenomenon.

Thanks for the comments!

No, it doesn't predict it either. Isaac Newton absolutely believed in a Supreme Being, and he predicted that as a consequence, time would be absolute, unchanging, and the same anywhere.

When two different people reach two different conclusions starting with the same premise, it's pretty clear that the premise does not "predict" the conclusion.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,08:03   

I'm afraid I have to agree with the aftershave; none of these 'predictions' actually follow from the hypothesis.  One could predict precisely the opposite with equal validity.

F'r example, let's choose the first one.
Quote
A Super Intelligent Being would be expected to design highly sophisticated machines and systems.
Why?  Most engineers I know try to design simple systems.  I could predict that an Intelligent Being would be expected to design extreme simply simple machines and systems.

You've provided absolutely no why to support your predictions.

  
steve_h



Posts: 544
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,08:03   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ April 28 2006,11:0)
Hi AFDave
You hypothesize that it rained last night
You predict “If it rained,  my driveway will be wet”
You look out the door in the morning and observe a wet driveway
I think he's doing something worse. He's observed a wet driveway and is trying to come up with a hypothesis to explain it:  "God's very powerful, he could wet my driveway if he wanted to" and goes on to  'predict' that his driveway will be wet.  IOW he's recycling the observations he intends to explain as predictions.  Not only that, most of them don't follow from his hypothesis; Maybe God could wet his driveway, but he could also choose not to, or he could dry a previously wet driveway. A wet drive, a  dry drive or anything in between are all possible outcomes of his hypothesis, so none can be said to be the predicted outcome.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,08:28   

Dude, you are asking about this god as super smart super powerful etc. but those are subjective and, for them to be meaningful to you, they need to be defined on you4r terms. Bottom line, god is irrelevant. You can't define, comprehend, interact etc.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,09:44   

afdave:

Like others have said, your logic basically consists of:

-I try to explain my wet driveway
-I propose that it rained last night.
-I examine my driveway: It is wet.
-Therefore, it rained last night.

The observations you are trying to explain cannot also be used as testable predictions. This is a scientific theory now, remember?

Even so, your hypothesis is still not in accordance with observations.
Would an all-powerful entity, that made an entire universe for one species, waste so much space and energy for nothing? If the sun is an amazing power plant created for us alone, why are there so many others (billionz and billionz of them, as that late evil atheist would say), larger and more efficient, that burn in vain?
Also, where do you see this sense of "right and wrong" in the universe outside ourselves? Where exactly are these "laws" written in the universe? in the stars? the earth? where? The only ones that have them are humans- and perhaps, in a cruder form,  some animals.
Now, I know that the "Creator God" religion accepts and cherishes that, but how is it a testable prediction for the "creator god" scientific hypothesis? (remember, no religious arguments...)


Oh, and I'm an MD in my 30's, currently a trainee in orthopaedics.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,09:57   

afdave, I'd say you'd have more fun posting on umcommon descent where people who think like you tend to gravitate but you'll need to avoid talking about god and jesus and such.  They'll ban you for it.

Anyhow, you haven't brought anything new to the table here.  Christisian apologetics is not science and CS Lewis will never be remembered as having any understanding of science or scientific thinking.

Instead of you inviting us to try and "convert" you, how about you skip the middleman and go do some schooling and then convert yourself like any intelligent adult would?  Unless you just enjoy playing language games where you can make stuff up as you go along and are not held to any rational rules of logic or scientific method.  Read Dembski as an example.  

Oh and I have read Lewis, he doesn't bring anything new to the table either.  If you have read one Christian apologist you have read them all.  They all play by a different set of "logic" rules, make stuff up as they go along, make extreemly subjective and unproveable claims, all of which kills any chance of a meaningful discussion.  No offense but your comments here are in the same vein and I doubt you even see that.  

If you want to convert others here you'd do well to avoid theistic nonsense, wild unsupported assertions, and instead focus on things that can be tested using ordinary scientific method.  As an example, the fact that people claim they have had out of body experiences does not prove they have had out of body experiences. :-)

I recognize that critical thinking is probably foreign to you.  Wild, unsupported subjective claims are perfect for theology, but they don't mix well with scientific, or critical, thinking.

You seem like a decent guy so I'll shoot straight with you, most all of your claims and "predictions" are not only unscientific, they are utter nonsense and suggest that skeptical or scientific thinking is something you are unfamiliar with, and also a waste of time to respond to.  No big deal.  But if you want to be taken seriously, first go learn how to think critically and then get back to us.

Here is an introductory lesson in critical thinking for you:

1) The fact that many people make the same claim, and have done so for a very long time, is not evidence that their claims are true.  An idea's popularity is not an indication of its validity.

I'd be more tha happy to help you learn to think critically, but I personally don't have time to respond to your apologetics.  Again, Try Dembski's site for that.  They not only welcome untrained thinking, they relish it.  Just be cautious when you speculate on who the intelligent designer might be.

Cheers!

Chris

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Carol Clouser



Posts: 29
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,10:00   

If you think any aspect of your "hypothesis" above is based on the Bible, nothing could be further from the truth. The real, original Bible, namely the Hebrew Bible, says nothing of the sort, EVEN IF INTERPRETED LITERALLY. You must have been reading some of those sloppy, inaccurate translations of the Hebrew Bible out there, such as the KJV.

So your hypothesis has absolutely no leg whatsoever to stand on.

Get a thorough education, then you just might be in a position to hypothsize.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,10:12   

Quote (Carol Clouser @ April 28 2006,15:00)
If you think any aspect of your "hypothesis" above is based on the Bible, nothing could be further from the truth. The real, original Bible, namely the Hebrew Bible, says nothing of the sort, EVEN IF INTERPRETED LITERALLY. You must have been reading some of those sloppy, inaccurate translations of the Hebrew Bible out there, such as the KJV.

So your hypothesis has absolutely no leg whatsoever to stand on.

Get a thorough education, then you just might be in a position to hypothsize.

Oh my, wild assertions person meet wild assertions person.

Now you two can take turns making fantastic claims and make stuff up as you go along.  This is the beauty of theology!  Anything goes, everyone is right, and you need not prove anything for it to be true.  It is true because you say it is true (more often than not in flowerly, fresh scented language that makes your whites even brighter).

Standing in THIS corner, CS Lewis, standing in THAT corner, the ONLY TRUE Bible (Hebrew).  May the best mythology win!

ps: I'm putting $5 on Carol to win in the 3rd round (only because I have witnessed her "true Hebrew" thing before).

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,10:56   

Am I the only one starting to wonder if some of these Carol Clouser postings are actually just some smartass parodying her?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
The Wayward Hammer



Posts: 64
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,11:11   

How could one tell if something was a parody of Carol?  I mean, honestly, I cant make any sense of what she says when I think it is her.

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,12:32   

:03-->
Quote (steve_h @ April 28 2006,13:03)
I think he's doing something worse. He's observed a wet driveway and is trying to come up with a hypothesis to explain it.

No, it's worse than that. He is not trying to come up with a hypothesis to explain anything. This is what he learned in fundy school and therefore it must be true and scientific. If science doesn't agree, then science must be wrong... for that is also what he learned in fundy school.

  
steve_h



Posts: 544
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,14:48   

Quote
No, it's worse than that. He is not trying to come up with a hypothesis to explain anything. This is what he learned in fundy school and therefore it must be true and scientific. If science doesn't agree, then science must be wrong... for that is also what he learned in fundy school.

It's worse than that -- it's not just him, there are loads of 'em.

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,15:18   

Quote (steve_h @ April 28 2006,19:48)
It's worse than that -- it's not just him, there are loads of 'em.

No! Even worse -- one of them is the president who was elected by the load.

  
steve_h



Posts: 544
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,15:25   

Worse than that. He was elected twice! (Well, maybe once, sort of)

If you have a comeback, I hereby offer advance notice of my desire to give in on this one.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,15:34   

So, has anyone here come to believe in a 6,000 year old earth and accepted Jesus as their personal savior thanks to Afdave's devastating arguments?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
  198 replies since April 27 2006,06:34 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (7) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]