RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (202) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: AF Dave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis, Creation/Evolution Debate< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
afdave



Posts: 1619
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,03:19   

AF DAVE'S UPDATED CREATOR GOD HYPOTHESIS

When I first proposed my hypothesis a few days ago, I asked for comments and critique.  I have now received this and have updated my hypothesis to reflect this.  You can see this discussion under "AFDave's God Hypothesis."  Thanks to all of you for your feedback!

I will now restate my updated Hypothesis (added a few points) and set forth the updated rules and framework which I wish to use for my reasoning.

MY BACKGROUND
I was first an Electrical Engineer, then an Air Force pilot (T-38 and Huey, believe it or not), then a businessman. Having sold my second business, I am now what you might say "between businesses" and am spending a lot of time on non-profit endeavors. I do have an aircraft charter business (a single King Air to fuel my flying "habit") and I am into alternative motor vehicle fuels with the possibility of a future business venture, but I'm not currently doing anything big in business.  I was never a logician, by trade, but that does not mean I can't become one very quickly, especially when I see gross incompetence in the field.  I also do not pretend to be a professional geologist, cosmologist, physicist, biologist, or Hebrew or Greek scholar.  But I do know some good ones and I read voraciously. What I really am is an ordinary guy with a pretty good brain for learning most anything who is sick and tired of what appears to me to be absolute nonsense being fed to us from the Evolution Dogmatists.  It appears to me that while there are many good scientists doing a truckload of good work for the benefit of humanity, there seems to be a big disconnect with reality when "science" begins speculating about how life began and developed.  I was pleased to see the article mentioned below by Meyer because it is now obvious to me that I am not the only one floating the "God Hypothesis" again. I am apparently in very good company and the pace of new research in this area is accelerating.

RULES OF ENGAGEMENT (ROE)
I need to say right up front that my reasoning with respect to this "Creator God Hypothesis" DOES NOT follow the Deductive Framework.  I have stated prior to giving my hypothesis, that I cannot provide a watertight proof for God and I don't believe anyone can, so people are correct in saying that my hypothesis would fail using the deductive schema.  However, we CAN use Abductive Reasoning then draw an Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE), and as Meyer points out below, this gives us powerful support for believing that the "Creator God Hypothesis" may in fact be true.  So there is good news, O Seeker of Truth!  There is massive support for the existence of God and for the literal truth revealed in the Bible.  Stay with me through all of my points and I will show it to you in terms you can understand!  

Here's a little blurb on Abductive reasoning from Stephen C. Meyer.  I would HIGHLY, HIGHLY recommend reading his entire paper (only 23 pages) called "The Return of the God Hypothesis" which can be found here ...

http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_returnofgod.pdf

Abductive Reasoning
DATA: The surprising fact A is observed. (The finely tuned cosmos, biological machines, written 'holy' books, etc.)
LOGIC: But if B were true, then A would be a matter of course. (B is the God of the Christian Bible)
CONCLUSION: Hence, there is reason to suspect that B is true.  

Stephen C. Meyer notes that "The natural and historical sciences employ such logic [abductive] routinely.  For instance, Peirce argued that skepticism about Napoleon's existence was unjustified although his existence could be known only by abduction: Numberless documents refer to a conqueror called Napoleon Bonaparte. Though we have not seen the man, yet we cannot explain what we have seen, namely, all these documents and monuments, without supposing that he really existed" (Peirce, C. S. 1931. Collected Papers. Eds. Charles Hartshorne & Paul Weiss. Vol. 2. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

UPDATED HYPOTHESIS
A. There is a God -- My hypothesis proposes that there is a Super Intelligent, 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.

B. This God created the Cosmos as a specially designed whole, with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose.  This God created mankind with a choice of either doing his will or not doing his will, in a similar way as parents "create" babies knowing full well that their child will either do their will or not do their will.  Christian Theologians commonly call the choice of NOT doing God's will "sin."

C. All of human kind descended from two genetically rich parents, Adam and Eve, but did not diversify significantly due to minimal geographic isolation.  My hypothesis proposes that there was only one large "super-continent" prior to the Great Flood of Noah, thus minimizing geographic isolation and resultant natural selection and specialization/diversification.  The same applies to animals except that I make no proposal as to HOW MANY animals there were initially.  Obviously, there would have to be at least one pair of each 'kind' (a term to be defined later)

D. Early man was created perfectly, i.e. no deleterious genetic mutations.  It is proposed that early man was vigorous, healthy and possibly taller than modern humans.  Early families were very large--on the order of 30 to 50 kids per couple and lives were long, many over 900 years.  Sons routinely married their sisters in the ante-diluvian world with no worries of genetic defects.  The first laws prohibiting close marriages did not occur until the time of Moses by which time we assume that accumulated harmful genetic mutations would have been a significant consideration.

E. Mankind chose NOT to do God's will very early on (just as all young children choose not to do parents' will), thus prompting God to institute a system for persuading humans to admit their folly and begin doing His will, for "redeeming" humans who choose this path, and for reminding humans that the present physical world is only a "proving ground" or "training camp" for the next world which will be created at a definite point in the future.  These events are commonly called the Fall and the Curse by Christian Theologians.

F. God allowed the choices of mankind to take their natural course for the most part, intervening in the affairs of men sporadically and briefly.  Most of the "day-to-day management" of Planet Earth was delegated to mankind himself, similar to how modern parents delegate the day-to-day management of their children to a school or a day care center.

G. The natural result of collective disobedience to the revealed will of God was an extremely corrupt society--i.e. rampant dishonesty, injustice, murder, theft, etc.--which was terminated by God through the agency of a global, life-destroying flood--the Flood of Noah described in Genesis.  

H. The Global Flood of Noah was an immense cataclysm of enormous tectonic, volcanic and hydraulic upheaval.  It completely reshaped the ante-diluvian world and resulted in massive, worldwide sedimentation and fossilization, mountain range uplift, sea basin lowering, continent separation, and climate change.  The Flood was survived in a floating ark by 8 humans (four couples) and one or more pairs of terrestrial, air-breathing, genetically rich animals and birds. The diversity we see in the living world today is the result of subsequent geographic separation and isolation of species and natural selection.

I. Following the Global Flood, we hypothesize an Ice Age of undetermined duration brought on by the massive climate changes induced by the Flood.  It was during this time that the dinosaurs and many other species died out. Since the time of the Ice Age, the structure of the earth's crust and the climate which followed, has not changed appreciably, and uniformitarian principles may now be applied to geological studies.

J. We hypothesize a supernatural intervention by God at the Tower of Babel which instantly and miraculously created several new languages (we think on the order of 12 or so), whereas prior to this event, there was only one language.

K. The record of these events (except the Ice Age) was dictated to selected individuals such as Adam and Seth and their descendants and carefully recorded on stone tablets, then passed down to successive generations.  Moses eventually received these stone tablets (or copies of them) and composed the book we now call Genesis by compiling these records into one written document.  He then composed his own written record of the events of his own lifetime, resulting in the complete Pentateuch.

L. God personally dictated the events of the Creation week to the first man, Adam, but then assumed a less active role in the composition of the balance of Genesis and the balance of what is now commonly called the Christian Scriptures.  This role varied from active dictation in an audible voice to less obvious methods--we might call it "planting of thoughts" in the minds of the writers.  This collective process is commonly called the "Inspiration of Scripture" by Christian Theologians.

M. Many cultures in geographically diverse locations around the world have legends which follow the general outline above.  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.  Since the Documentary Hypothesis (Graf-Wellhausen Theory) has now been thoroughly discredited, we have good reason to revert to the previously well established hypothesis that Genesis is NOT oral tradition, but rather it is a carefully copied written record of eye-witness accounts.

N. The Christian Scriptures, i.e. the 66 books of what is commonly called the Holy Bible, are essentially the WRITTEN record of what this Super-Intelligent, Super-Powerful Creator God wanted mankind to know about Himself, His Creation, and His Plans for the Future.

O. Jesus of Nazareth is the single most influential human being to ever walk Planet Earth.  Also, there are over 300 specific prophecies concerning a supposed "Messiah" figure throughout the Jewish Scriptures -- what Christians call the Old Testament.  These prophecies "just happen" to all converge in the life of one man of history--Jesus of Nazareth. We hypothesize that this Jesus of Nazareth was (and is) the Creator God in human form, just as he claimed to be.

P. 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.

So now you have the "AF Dave Creator God Updated Hypothesis" ... this is my second draft and almost completely my own words.  While it is true that I have done extensive study, the only sentence to my knowledge "lifted" from an outside source is the first sentence of para (b).  This hypothesis covers many of the main points that I believe should be included, but I would welcome any constructive comments suggesting additions, modifications, or clarifications.

As soon as I am satisfied from my feedback from you that my framework of reasoning is sound, I will proceed to provide evidence which I believe supports each point in my Hypothesis.

This should be fun ... I welcome your 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

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,03:36   

A few pointers:

To save you some time, we don't need evidence that there was an ice age.

If you could give us something that we haven't heard a hundred times before I'm sure we'd all be very grateful.

If you're going to present this theory as an alternative to current science theories using abductive reasoning you need to show why it explains the data better than current theories. Just because your hypothesis also talks about the origin of the universe it does not mean it is automatically a better theory of the origin of species than evolution.

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 554
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,03:38   

[cue smart people who should know better taking afdave's moronic bait]

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,03:46   

I know but I have a day off and im bored.

  
afdave



Posts: 1619
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,04:01   

Quote
If you're going to present this theory as an alternative to current science theories using abductive reasoning you need to show why it explains the data better than current theories.

I agree completely ... I plan on going to great lengths to show exactly that.  My Ice Age info will show that it was not a million (did I get that about right from ToE?) year Ice Age, but that it was relatively short, occurred right after the Great Flood, and helps to explain dinosaur extinction.

--------------
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

  
Laser



Posts: 4
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,04:04   

You seem to be honest in your desire for feedback, so I will give you honest critiques.  Gee, where to start?  The beginning, I guess.

Science doesn't really say anything for or against points A and B.  They aren't questions that science can address. (At least not at this point in time.  It might be possible in the future, but it might not be possible either.)

In point C, you immediately start to limit yourself in a way that science does not.  "I make no proposal as to HOW MANY animals there were initially.  Obviously, there would have to be at least one pair of each 'kind' (a term to be defined later) "  Why won't you make a claim?  Is it because the claim could be tested and found to be wrong?  Science makes hypotheses that are tested all the time.  You're already starting on a nonexistent foundation.

In point D, you finally make a claim: "It is proposed that early man was vigorous, healthy and possibly taller than modern humans.  Early families were very large--on the order of 30 to 50 kids per couple and lives were long, many over 900 years."  What evidence do you have for this claim?  Any fossils of humans taller than today's humans?  Any archaelogical digs that show structures designed for tall humans or very large families? (No, the Bible doesn't count as evidence.  There are places in the Bible that say bats are birds, so I'm not confident in the Bible as a source of scientific evidence and knowledge.)

Later in point D: "The first laws prohibiting close marriages did not occur until the time of Moses by which time we assume that accumulated harmful genetic mutations would have been a significant consideration."  Again, why "assume"?  Why not look for evidence?

Your chain of "abductive logic"  has glaring flaws and weaknesses from the get go.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4506
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,04:08   

Don't multiply topics needlessly. There was no need to open a new topic for this modification of what is already being discussed in the original topic.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,04:12   

Is there any way to copy this stuff over to the other topic?

Quote
My Ice Age info will show that it was not a million (did I get that about right from ToE?) year Ice Age
The theory of evolution doesn't say anything about the ice age, saying thins like this makes people not take you seriously. The theory of evolution says nothing about the origin of the universe, the origin of matter, or the origin of life. Some of the requirements include things like an old earth, but an ice age is not one of them.

  
afdave



Posts: 1619
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,04:32   

Quote
There was no need to open a new topic for this modification of what is already being discussed in the original topic.
I hear you.  I assumed people would quit posting to the old one and it would fade away ... If you need to merge them, though, no problem ... maybe use the TITLE for this one so people know it's updated and tack this discussion on the end of the other one?

--------------
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

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,05:01   

Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,08:19)
this "Creator God Hypothesis" DOES NOT follow the Deductive Framework.  I have stated prior to giving my hypothesis, that I cannot provide a watertight proof for God and I don't believe anyone can, so people are correct in saying that my hypothesis would fail using the deductive schema.  However, we CAN use Abductive Reasoning then draw an Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE), ...


Some people can use Abductive Reasoning and then draw an Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE), but not you, Dave.

There is an old quote from David Brooks that applies to your method of reasoning: "To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy."

Of course, your problem is that you don't recognise "God" as an unknown, do you?

Your "abductive inference" (that there is a least one god) is over 3,000 years old and so are the so-called "surprising facts" you are using as support. In all that time, going through several religions, it never made it past first base into the realm of deductive science.

Also, I would not recommend reading Stephen C. Meyer to learn about logic -- he'll probably forever cripple your ability to understand modern scientific reasoning.

  
afdave



Posts: 1619
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,05:23   

Good question from the old thread from improvius ...
Quote
Or you can just change the meaning of "logic" to help you rationalize this junk.

Here's my logic ...
1) We hypothesize a Super-Intelligent Creator ... we can only imagine Him somewhat like a human mind because that is what we are familiar with, but much more intelligent ... this is my "B"
2) We observe a Surprising Fact that all over the world, people claim to have received messages--written and oral from some 'god' character.  It's a surprising fact because quite frankly it's WEIRD ... this is my "A"
3) LOGIC:  If B were true, then A would follow naturally based on our own experience with Intelligent Agents (i.e. they communicate verbally and in writing)
4)  CONCLUSION:  There is reason to suspect that B is true (not proof, obviously, but reason)

Now how is this "junk" logic?
Quote
In all that time, going through several religions, it never made it past first base into the realm of deductive science.
Again, I am saying that I am not using Deductive Reasoning ... I am using Abductive Reasoning and drawing an Inference to the Best Explanation.  This is used regularly by both scientists and historians, Meyer's Napoleon scenario being an excellent example.  Again, for other readers, see http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_returnofgod.pdf

--------------
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

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,05:36   

1) Let's hypothesize that humans are imaginative, and similar to one another in this way everywhere. Part of what makes them human.

2) We observe that humans imagine vaguely-human super powerful or influential beings fairly commonly. In fact, even small children do this.

3) LOGIC: We reason that people are very similar to people. They might even BE people.

4) We observe that apart from human imagination, no trace of objective evidence has EVER been discovered (despite searches so dedicated they approach desperate) of any such entities.

5) LOGIC: We reason that imagination might be producing something imaginary. Being the product of imagination, it might even BE imaginary.

Next step: testing. Fairly exhaustive tests for the actual existence of imaginary entities have so far failed to produce anything of the sort. Another test: do those humans raised to believe in evidence and observation and NOT raised to believe in the imaginary, ALSO experience the same entities? Well, no, they don't.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,05:40   

Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,09<!--emo&:0)
I agree completely ... I plan on going to great lengths to show exactly that.  My Ice Age info will show that it was not a million (did I get that about right from ToE?) year Ice Age, but that it was relatively short, occurred right after the Great Flood, and helps to explain dinosaur extinction.

Dave, where did you get the idea that there was just one long ice age? The history of the earth is peppered with ice ages, including one, about 600 million years ago, where the entire surface of the earth froze solid.

You're going to need to come up with more than one ice age in your chronology, and that's just one of your easier assignments.

--------------
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: May 01 2006,05:44   

Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,10:23)
Again, I am saying that I am not using Deductive Reasoning ... I am using Abductive Reasoning and drawing an Inference to the Best Explanation.

In other words, you're not using science.

How far do you think you're going to get with the people on this website, many of whom are professional scientists?

--------------
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

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,05:52   

Quote
MY BACKGROUND
I was first an Electrical Engineer, then an Air Force pilot (T-38 and Huey, believe it or not), then a businessman.


I am curious why you seem to think there is a need for you to advertise this in every thread.

These facts do not lend any credibility to your arguements.  

Two words come to mind - who cares?

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

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,06:01   

Dave, before I answer in any more of your arguments, I want to make this perfectly clear: Have we agreed that we are NOT discussing in scientific terms? Yes or no?

--------------
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."

  
afdave



Posts: 1619
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,06:02   

Quote
How far do you think you're going to get with the people on this website, many of whom are professional scientists?

I may not get very far with closed minded professional scientisits, which I hope you are not, but I hope to put some truth out there in an area where I currently see a lot of error.

This is from the Meyer article quoted previously ...
Quote
Scientists rarely prove their theories deductively from empirical evidence. Indeed, no field of inquiry short of mathematics could progress if itlimited itself to the logic of entailment. Rather, most fields of inquiry employ
alternate forms of inference known variously as the method of hypothesis,abduction, hypothetico-deductive method, or inference to the best explanation. (p.21)

and ...
Quote
The natural and historical sciences employ such logic routinely. In the natural sciences, if we have reason to expect that some state of affairs will ensue given some hypothesis, and we find that such a state of affairs has ensued, then we say that our hypothesis has been confirmed. This method of confirmation of hypothesis functions to provide evidential support for many scientific hypotheses. Given Copernicus heliocentric theory of the solar system, astronomers in the seventeenth century had reason to expect that the planet Venus should exhibit phases. Galileo's discovery that it does exhibit phases, therefore, supported (though it did not prove) the heliocentric view. The discovery did not prove the heliocentric theory, since other theories might and in fact could explain the same fact (Gingerich 1982: 133-43) (p. 22 of Meyer's article).

and ...

--------------
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

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,06:04   

Quote (Faid @ May 01 2006,11:01)
Dave, before I answer in any more of your arguments, I want to make this perfectly clear: Have we agreed that we are NOT discussing in scientific terms? Yes or no?

Well, he is an engineer, not a sciemtist  :D

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,06:08   

Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,10:23)
Quote
In all that time, going through several religions, it never made it past first base into the realm of deductive science.
Again, I am saying that I am not using Deductive Reasoning ... I am using Abductive Reasoning ...

You think you are using Abductive Reasoning but you're not really doing that. What you are doing is called "rationalization."

Abductive Reasoning is supposed to lead to a hypothesis where deductive reasoning can apply. Thus your failure to supply a testably hypothesis after doing your Abductive Reasoning means you've failed to do it correctly.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,06:08   

Dave, your "abductive reasoning" is a science-killer.

A quick example:

A volcano is a "strange, weird thing."

But if God exists, volcanoes would exist as a matter of course.

Using that kind of reasoning, how far do you think we would have gotten using our belief in God to explain natural phenomena? What would we know about volcanism?

BTW, when you say things like, "I see a lot of error in scientists' work, which I mean to correct for the honest folk on this discussion board," you do realize you obliterate any credibility you might have had, right?

--------------
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

  
afdave



Posts: 1619
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,06:10   

Quote
These facts do not lend any credibility to your arguements.
I don't expect them to lend to or detract from credibility.  I want new people who have never met me to have some idea of where I'm coming from.

Faid--  The more I study this issue, the more I agree with Meyer that the Abductive approach with a Logical Inference to the Best Explanation is in fact used extensively by both scientists and historians to "establish" many theories (not prove, I understand) which are of great use to humanity.  This is not to say that my conclusions are then automatically true.  I expect to be required to do a great deal more work ... and I may fail.  I admit that.  If you used the same approach and your explanation was better, then it would be reasonable to adopt yours, to be sure.

--------------
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

  
afdave



Posts: 1619
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,06:15   

I said ...
Quote
I want new people who have never met me to have some idea of where I'm coming from.

Yeah, like Mars, Pluto or some Fundy Planet in another galaxy ... yeah, yeah ... I know the jokes are coming ... :-)

--------------
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

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1492
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,06:25   

AFDave says
Quote
I may not get very far with closed minded professional scientisits, which I hope you are not, but I hope to put some truth out there in an area where I currently see a lot of error.


Dave, you're really starting to disappoint me.  You continue to criticize technical areas in which you admittedly have no expertise, yet accuse those who do have detailed knowledge in those areas of being "closed minded".

What you are doing is the equivalent of going to a convention of aerospace engineers and pilots, held at an airport with hundreds of aircraft on the tarmac and flying overhead, and lecturing that heavier-than-air flight is impossible.  Then, after you have embarrassed yourself with that, dozens of those technical people offer to help you and teach you the basics you obviously lack, but you refuse to listen and instead tell them they're closed minded.

Is it any surprise you are turning off most everyone here?

Being smug and self-assured may be a good thing for a combat pilot, but if not backed up with technical knowledge and understanding those traits will just make you a smoking hole in the ground.

Many people have already pointed out the unwarranted assumptions and battleship-sized flaws in your logic. If you want to impress us, start listening and addressing the criticisms.  Show more critical thinking skills and less single-minded bluster.

--------------
JoeG: And by eating the cake you are consuming the information- some stays with you and the rest is waste.

  
afdave



Posts: 1619
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,06:29   

Here's something else I have never understood ... maybe one of you can explain ...

Why does it always seem that every time the word 'God' is even mentioned, everybody runs for cover and says it's not science?  Personally, I'm content to not use the word God if it makes everyone feel better.  How about  Super-Computer-Alien-Thingy?  (SCAT for short) How about Cosmo-Brain?  Or you think of a name ... it doesn't matter to me.  What matters to me is IF ..... IF,IF,IF,IF,IF ..... there is such a thing, what do you call Him (or it) to even begin an honest search to find evidence for Him (or it) or show that there is none?

--------------
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

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,06:41   

Because you can't start from the conclusion and then look for the evidence to fit your conclusion, that is not science.

  
tacitus



Posts: 118
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,06:48   

:02-->
Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,11:02)
Quote
How far do you think you're going to get with the people on this website, many of whom are professional scientists?

I may not get very far with closed minded professional scientists, which I hope you are not, but I hope to put some truth out there in an area where I currently see a lot of error.

Close-minded?  Are you serious?  This from someone who, in a single post, has proved that he has closed his mind to virtually every single bit of scientific evidence concerning the age of the Earth and its long and convoluted history?

Do you even realize how close-minded you are?  Do you understand the sheer tsunami of evidence scientists (many of them Christians) have  built up over the past 200 years compared to the muddy sidewalk puddle you young-earthers have been wallowing in?

I'm sorry to be so blunt, but you are really preaching to the wrong crowd here.

Your hypothesis--statement of faith--reads like something from a bad pseudoscience web site "proving" that aliens abducted his grandmother.  Doesn't Ken Ham have a message board you can hone your rhetoric on, or are you, like others suspect, posting here in the vain hope you will manage to "convert" some of us to your faith?  And if you are, I hope you understand how insulting that is to those of us who are already Christians.

  
tacitus



Posts: 118
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,06:59   

Quote
E. Mankind chose NOT to do God's will very early on (just as all young children choose not to do parents' will), thus prompting God to institute a system for persuading humans to admit their folly and begin doing His will, for "redeeming" humans who choose this path, and for reminding humans that the present physical world is only a "proving ground" or "training camp" for the next world which will be created at a definite point in the future.  These events are commonly called the Fall and the Curse by Christian Theologians.

Kind of odd behaviour for an entity who is supposed to be omipotent.  Are we expected to believe that God (as defined by most Christians anyway) needed a "Plan B"?  (Actually, if you assume the flood actually happened, he had to use a Plan C as well).

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,07:06   

Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,10:23)
Here's my logic ...
1) We hypothesize a Super-Intelligent Creator ... we can only imagine Him somewhat like a human mind because that is what we are familiar with, but much more intelligent ... this is my "B"
2) We observe a Surprising Fact that all over the world, people claim to have received messages--written and oral from some 'god' character.  It's a surprising fact because quite frankly it's WEIRD ... this is my "A"
3) LOGIC:  If B were true, then A would follow naturally based on our own experience with Intelligent Agents (i.e. they communicate verbally and in writing)
4)  CONCLUSION:  There is reason to suspect that B is true (not proof, obviously, but reason)

Now how is this "junk" logic?

(Copy/pasting my answer from the other thread)

Dave, let me rephrase that the way it actually is:

1) I observe people say that they have been contacted by an entity

2) I propose there is an entity that wishes to contact people

3) I conclude that there is good reason that my theory is true.

Maybe this might help you finally understand.


Oh, about the previous post, my bad: I was referring to the "testable predictions" part of your hypothesis, of course.

--------------
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."

  
afdave



Posts: 1619
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,07:06   

Quote
If you want to impress us, start listening and addressing the criticisms.

Where have you been?  I have been doing just that. How about you?  Do you ever do that? What more do you want me to do?  (Agree that you are right ... I know, I know ... but you'll have to earn that if that's what you want.) What we have here, Aftershave, is a big problem in science today and many scientists are either too proud, or too blind, or too afraid to lose their jobs or their friends, or whatever to do anything about it themselves.  Denton and Behe are quite clear on this issue and I think this explains why they have taken the unusual step of presenting their information to the non-professionals like me.

You know, in families sometimes the dad shirks his responsibilities as a dad and so the mom takes over.  She's not as good at being a dad as he is (just like I'm not as well trained in logic, geology, etc., etc.).  But she has to jump in there and take over or the family would be in trouble.

This is exactly what I see in this one critical area of science today, i.e. the area of Origins and the Nature of Mankind and the issue of God.  Science should not be claiming that they have disproved the existence of God because they have not.  Science should not be implying to our children that they are glorified animals, because there is no proof.  Science should not be telling the theologians that God is dead or irrelevant, because they have no basis for claiming that and they arrogantly claim that they do.  And so on ... you get the idea.  So if science is going to behave irresponsibly, then who else but non-scientists are going to have to jump in and "blow the whistle" ??

This is exactly what you see going on right now on multiple fronts and it is exactly the reason we hear so much about "concerned scientists."

Now we laymen are reasonable people and we will forgive scientists if they admit their errors and fix them, but if all we ever get is stonewalling and "you're not even fit to make an argument" and "you're just a religious nut", you can be sure that the people will do everything in their power to rise up and fix it themselves.

And believe me, we laymen can do a lot.  I may not get professional scientists to listen to me, but as you and I both know, all we need is a political majority and we win.  Not to say that I'm just about politics.  I am about Truth and Fairness, but I am also about winning and using every political tool in my toolbox to make sure we have Truth and Fairness in the science establishment in this country.

A lot hinges on this, too.  What people think about origins and the nature of mankind is VITALLY important to law and society.  This is why you see me being so passionate about this issue.

--------------
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

  
tacitus



Posts: 118
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,07:27   

Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,10:23)
Here's my logic ...
1) We hypothesize a Super-Intelligent Creator ... we can only imagine Him somewhat like a human mind because that is what we are familiar with, but much more intelligent ... this is my "B"
2) We observe a Surprising Fact that all over the world, people claim to have received messages--written and oral from some 'god' character.  It's a surprising fact because quite frankly it's WEIRD ... this is my "A"
3) LOGIC:  If B were true, then A would follow naturally based on our own experience with Intelligent Agents (i.e. they communicate verbally and in writing)
4)  CONCLUSION:  There is reason to suspect that B is true (not proof, obviously, but reason)

Now how is this "junk" logic?
Again, I am saying that I am not using Deductive Reasoning ... I am using Abductive Reasoning and drawing an Inference to the Best Explanation.

Your problem is that we have plenty of evidence from extant primitive cultures that your "A" is simply an attempt by those societies to explain what they can't understand.  

Why do you insist on a double standard?  One for the ancient Jews, and another for the rest of humanity?  After all, you surely don't infer (abduce or whatever) that the Norse God Thor exists since the Vikings found him to best way to explain the phenomenon of lightning?

It's also a fact that the human brain works overtime to make sense of out of the confusing and incomprehensible, including dreams.  We know that people with temporal lobe epilepsy have utterly convincing visions that lead them to believe they have a direct line to God (or even that they are God themselves).  Why do you ignore this good, basic, scientific evidence that could help explain these "contacts with God" and simply argue that it's "WEIRD".

Of course it's weird, but that's no excuse to make the unsupported leap and decide that there must be a creator God.

It's funny, 100 years ago, people used to believe in fairies,  elves, and succubi since they "explained" many the weird things that happened to them.  Today... not so much.  What happened?  UFOs happened. Now it's all ETs and little green men.  Does the fact that thousands of people all around the world claim similar experiences mean that alien abductions are really happening? And why is your case for a creator God any more compelling than that nonsense?

  
  6047 replies since May 01 2006,03:19 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (202) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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