RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (202) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... >   
  Topic: AF Dave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis, Creation/Evolution Debate< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,23:29   

Quote
There is really one really big thing I resent.  And that is the idea that humans are nothing more than highly evolved animals.
If you think this somehow diminishes us that is your problem and nothing to do with science.

Quote
history has shown what this type of belief can do in a society if it is believed by the leadership.
That has nothing to do with whether or not it is true.

  
afdave



Posts: 1619
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,00:47   

Quote
afdave, you've asserted that your view of the world and its origins is true because a) most people believe it and b) you and others are marshaling political support for it.
What I think I said was that to me it warrants investigation when half the country believes AIG and some smaller % believe in evolution.  In response to this, the consensus here was that this "half the country" aren't scientists, which I grant is a good answer.  However, the question still remains to me ...  "Are ND's really such poor marketers of their ideas that only 20% of the public is buying their story?"   I mean, they've got all the museums showing evolution, all the textbooks, all the encyclos, most of the media, etc, etc.  I draw one of two conclusions from this ... (1) either the ND's are just REALLY bad at marketing their origins ideas or, (2) their origins ideas don't make any sense and the public rejects them
Quote
Yet you agree with Behe that a two-foot stack of research, produced and challenged and confirmed over many decades, is meaningless.
It's meaningless for explaining the ORIGIN of immune system.  I'm sure its quite meaningful at explaining HOW THE IMMUNE SYSTEM WORKS.
Quote
Are scientific research and its results determined by democratic vote, or not? If not, you have no support at all. If so, who's franchised? How often would the votes take place? Who sets the ballot? Are the votes national, or statewide, or county-by-county? How would the voting affect, e.g., pharmaceutical research? If scientific research isn't voted on but scientific pedagogy is -- how would that work?
You might want to try quoting me next time so I can see how you think I am saying this.  I don't think any of this stuff.

--------------
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 05 2006,00:53   

Quote
How did God do it?
I haven't a clue.  The writers of Genesis didn't either.  ND's THINK they know how it happened, but they really only have some guesses.

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

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,01:07   

Dave, are you going to read up on the Vitamin C thing or not? If so, check some other sources too, not just AiG BS.

  
afdave



Posts: 1619
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,01:19   

Quote
Why do you resent the idea that you're an animal, Dave? (Would you prefer to be a plant?)  The evidence that human beings are animals (as opposed to, say, amniosperms, fungi, viruses, or archaebacteria) is so utterly overwhelming as to leave the suspicion that doubters aren't fully in possession of their senses. Not only can we tell that humans are animals, but we can tell how closely or how distantly they are related to other primates, other mammals, other amniotes, other vertebrates, other animals, other eukaryotes, etc. I'm sorry this makes you feel resentful, but I suppose that can't be helped.
Yes, I understand all this ... no ... don't care to be a plant.  I understand that our BODIES are very much like other animals ... VERY, VERY much like chimps as we are seeing on the other thread (I've got a lot more for that thread by the way), but I will be showing you that there are many fundamental differences between a chimp and a human--differences so great that when you see them, you realize it is not sensible to call a human an animal any more.  He should be called a human.  These are not physical differences.  It's matters of the mind and spirit and morality that we will be exploring.  You may not think these issues are not 'science' but they are whether you recognize it or not.
Quote
Oh, and if you're worried about the political ramifications of a belief that humans are animals—look around you and observe the political ramifications of a belief that they are not.
It is true that many awful things have been done in the name of God, Jesus Christ, Mohammed, Atheism, etc., but I believe (don't know if I will get to show this here--we're trying to focus on the God/human thing) that all the wonderful blessings of Western Civilization all ultimately boil down to one man of history--Jesus of Nazareth.

Quote
So, Dave, your only gripe is really with common descent, from ape to man? That's it? That's all? Then why all this other useless noise and antics? Lets focus on the chimp/human thing then and ignore the rest of the BS.
You'll notice my first hypothesis points focus on God and mankind.  If you want to tune me out after the first two points are done, OK by me.

--------------
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 05 2006,01:23   

Quote
Dave, are you going to read up on the Vitamin C thing or not? If so, check some other sources too, not just AiG BS.
Sure.  What is it exactly that I am looking for?

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

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,02:13   

Quote
"Are ND's really such poor marketers of their ideas that only 20% of the public is buying their story?"

As surprising as it may seem to you, Dave, the answer is yes. And there's nothing wrong with that.
You see, "ND's" Do not try to market their ideas. Maybe that hurts their image, but they cannot do otherwise: Their cause is to discover truth, not sell their "truth" to the public (which is exactly what the other side -ID/Creos- does). That's why all their funding goes to research, not PR departments.
But maybe this "marketing" of ideas seems normal to you... In which case, tell me: If you learned that a car company puts all their money in advertising and publicity, to show how cool their cars are, and NOTHING in research to make them better and safer -in fact, they don't have an R&D department at all- would you buy a car from them? Or would you ignore them, regardless of what other people think?

(Oh I understand the alalogy is a bit flawed- ID does not even have a car to sell  :) )

Quote
It's meaningless for explaining the ORIGIN of immune system.  I'm sure its quite meaningful at explaining HOW THE IMMUNE SYSTEM WORKS.

Um Dave, I dunno what AIG says, but the research presented in the trial was about the evolution of the immune system.
If they were to present all the research done over the whole field of immunology over the last years, they'd probably need one of these:


...Now, what would ID?Creos need to present their research in the field?
Well, probably come up with some first, I guess.  :)




PS. the question mark in "ID?Creos" was supposed to be a slash, but I like it better that way. "ID? Nah, Creos".  :D

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

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,02:14   

Oh what the ####, I’ll help you out Dave.

Imagine you write a book. It is a book about sound and how it behaves. You publish the book and have copyright on it. A couple of months later, you pick up another book, about sound. You are furious when you notice that someone else has copied your work, and you promptly take them to court.

Now, how will you prove that the other person copied your book, since all the facts about sound, and how it behaves, are stated in the same way in both books? The other person could of course get the facts right too! In fact, the 2 books appear about 97 percent the same (factually)! You cannot tell the judge: “Well, your honour, I wrote the speed of sound is 330 m/s, and the other person wrote the same!”. The judge will laugh at you, since you claim that because the other person got his facts right, that he must have got it from you. Still with me Dave?

But, if there are errors in your book, factual errors, and they appear in the other book too, then you have a strong case for copyright infringement. If you made a mistake in your book, and wrote that the speed of sound is 632 m/s, and the other person repeats that EXACT SAME mistake, then you can prove that he copied your book. Your case would be even better if you could come up with 37+ errors that you made that were repeated in the impostor’s book!

Humans must eat Vitamin-C. They cannot fabricate their own Vitamin-C. Why is that? It is because our gene for Vitamin C fabrication is broken. It was a mutation that destroyed the function of the Vitamin-C gene, therefore we have to eat stuff with Vitamin-C in it, or else we would die. You know who sits with the same problem? Chimps! They also have the broken Vitamin-C gene, and it is broken in the SAME way that ours is. Why is that?

We know our DNA and Chimp DNA are VERY close to each other. But apart from the entire DNA that works, that are the same, in both our species, we ALSO share ERRORS, like the Vitamin-C gene (and many others), with Chimps. To me, this is good proof that we and Chips evolved from the same type of ape thing. We share common ancestry (Thus, we did not evolve FROM Chimps; we simply share a common ancestor). We BOTH inherited the DNA that works, AND the various ERRORS from the common ancestor.

Relate this back to my copyright story at the start of this post, and you will understand. But take it further. The 2 books are WORD FOR WORD, FACT AND ERROR, the same and ordered the same, except for about 5% max (it’s less), that differs.

So, tell me with a straight face that you think common ancestry is not true. But hey, I know you would rather believe preachers (AiG) than biologists (and other scientist) about biology. Even Behe admits common ancestry is true….
???

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,02:58   

Quote
These are not physical differences.  It's matters of the mind and spirit and morality that we will be exploring.  You may not think these issues are not 'science' but they are whether you recognize it or not.
Interesting, all we need to see is your evidence. I would point out first that many people believe the fact God imbued man with a spirit does not mean we didn't evolve from apes.

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,03:29   

I supose Afdave wants us to assume that there is something like a spirit/soul, and that these are not just words used for the mind and its various functions/output.

Apologetics...

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,03:29   

Quote (afdave @ May 04 2006,22:30)
history has shown what this type of belief can do in a society if it is believed by the leadership.

This is utter bs, Dave.  But I'd love to see you Godwin this thread, so I'll ask you what evidence you think you have to back this up.

Someday you'll regret having lied to your children about all of this.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,03:40   

[quote=dave] However, the question still remains to me ...  "Are ND's really such poor marketers of their ideas that only 20% of the public is buying their story?"   I mean, they've got all the museums showing evolution, all the textbooks, all the encyclos, most of the media, etc, etc.  I draw one of two conclusions from this ... (1) either the ND's are just REALLY bad at marketing their origins ideas or, (2) their origins ideas don't make any sense and the public rejects them[/quote] There is another reason, which Faid was, I suspect, too polite to touch on.

The reason, Dave is that most people are stupid.  Yes, that's right.  Stupid.  Civilization advances and is sustained on the minds of a vanishingly small percentage of the race.  The rest are drones - useful for evolutionary purposes, no doubt, but contributing nothing, unable to reason, unable to do much of anything except eat, sleep, and procreate.

AIG is a case in point: an entire organization of such drones.

Quite frankly, I'm astonished that the percentage of cretins is as low as it is.

"Most people can't think, most of the remainder, won't think, and those that do mostly don't do it very well."

Robert Heinlein.

  
afdave



Posts: 1619
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,03:59   

OK, back to my evidence ...

Here's Point 1 again.

1. 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.

I have already given evidence for the existence of an Intelligent Entity of some sort.  The two lines of evidence given so far are (1) Cosmic Fine Tuning and (2) Biological Machines.  To me this says loud and clear ... "Someone purposely set the 'dials' in the 'universe control room'" and "Someone is a fantastically brilliant Engineer."  Obviously, that's ALL these two lines of evidence suggest.  They say nothing about the Bible or genetics or morality or any of the other myriad issues that I am interested in.  But to me they do speak very loudly to the two statements above.  Some here say that this is not evidence and I would have to ask specifically WHY is this not evidence?  

Some ask "What do you mean by Cosmic Fine Tuning?" Well to quote one of your favorite resources over at TalkOrigins ...
Quote
In recent years, creationist theologians, and even a few physicists, have heavily promoted what they claim is a remarkable fine-tuning of the basic laws and constants of physics, without which life as we know it would never have developed (Barrow, 1986; Rolston III). If the universe had appeared with slight variations in the strengths of the fundamental forces or the masses of elementary particles, that universe would be pure hydrogen at one extreme, or pure helium at the other. Neither would have allowed for the eventual production of heavy elements, such as carbon, necessary for life. Similarly, if gravity had not been many orders of magnitude weaker than electromagnetism, stars would not have lived long enough to produce the elements of life. Long before they could fabricate heavy chemical elements, stars would have collapsed. Only the fact that the gravitational force was forty orders of magnitude weaker prevented this from happening. In a calculation similar to Hoyle's, mathematician Roger Penrose has estimated that the probability of a universe with our particular set of physical properties is one part in 1010123 (Penrose 1989: 343). However, neither Penrose nor anyone else can say how many of the other possible universes formed with different properties could still have lead to some form of life. If it is half, then the probability for life is fifty percent. [url="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html"]

Notice here that this TalkOrigins writer does not refute any claims of these physicists regarding THIS universe.  All he is able to do is point out that there MAY BE other universes.  And this nicely illustrates my point about the inconsistency of scientists such as some of you ... namely that you engage in 'wild speculation' about multiple universes with no evidence that there may be other universes.  Then you accuse theists of engaging in 'wild speculation' about our proposed 'God' character.  We are BOTH talking about things that we cannot observe and that are even difficult to imagine, yet the theistic scientists are pushed away with the lame argument that they are somehow less scientific that the Multiple Universe Speculators (MUS's).  Now of course we theists would not push away the MUS's as we ouselves are pushed away.  It is quite permissible for them to propose anything they want ... the real question is "How reasonable is their hypothesis?" to which Richard Swinburne, John Leslie, William Lane Craig and Robin Collins have given a formidable answer.  In my opinion, they have shown the superiority of the Theistic Design Hypothesis.  More about that here [url="http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_returnofgod.pdf"].  If anyone would like to argue this, I am happy to dive into it in more detail. (looked hard on TO for a refutation ... couldn't find one)

Some also ask "How do biological machines point to a 'God'?" ...  Well again, I have not yet given enough evidence to say that it is 'God' as described in the Bible, but it certainly does seem to indicate that there at least was a Designer of some sort.  Richard Dawkins spends an entire chapter on bat echolation in The Blind Watchmaker and then says
Quote
I hope the reader is as awestruck as I am, and as William Paley would have been, by these bat stories.  My aim has been in one respect identical to Paley's aim.  I do not want the reader to underestimate the prodigious works of nature and the problems we face explaining them. (p. 37)
then he says
Quote
We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully 'designed' to have come into existence by chance. (p. 43)
Thank you Richard Dawkins.  Case closed.  It's been great debating all of you.  Now can we move on to the IMPLICATIONS of the existence of a Designer?  Just kidding ... I know you are not yet convinced, but I hope this is at least a good start for you.  I'm pretty sure you don't want me to repeat the Denton and Behe stuff which is why I quoted one of your own.  Here's one more nice tidbit on Molecular Machines from a non-YEC source ... Bruce Alberts, President of the National Academy of Sciences, introduced this issue with an article entitled, The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines (pointed out by Meyer ... see link above).  In his article, Alberts admits that
Quote
We have always underestimated cells . . . . The entire cell can be viewed as afactory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines . . . Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts (Alberts, Bruce. 1998. The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the NextGeneration of Molecular Biologists. Cell 92 (8 February): 291-94).
Alberts notes that molecular machines strongly resemble machines designed by human engineers, although as an orthodox neo-Darwinist he denies any role for actual, as opposed to apparent, design in the origin of these systems.

Say what you want about Behe and his wisdom in court (and I probably agree), but in my opinion, Behe has done an excellent job of pointing out the complete absence of any gradualistic explanations for the origin of the systems and motors he discusses.

Before we field questions, let's touch on the last two issues in Point 1.  I said
Quote
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.  
What in the world could I possibly have as evidence for this?  Well, this is obviously a bold statement, but consider Meyer's study of "The Big Bang and General Relativity."  I searched TalkOrigins for a refutation of Meyer's "God Hypothesis" article as well as the "Index to Creationist Claims" for a refutation of the particular section I am about to quote and found none.    I Googled "meyer god hypothesis refutation" which yielded a seemingly unrelated Panda's Thumb article. So maybe you all can point me to some of those if they exist somewhere.  Here's the Meyer quote in full.  I give it IN FULL because I want all here to READ IT IN FULL.  I have, probably 3 times now and it makes a lot of sense to me ...
Quote
THE BIG BANG AND GENERAL RELATIVITY
During the twentieth century, a quiet but remarkable shift has occurred in
science. Evidence from cosmology, physics, and biology now tells a very
different story than did the science of the late nineteenth century. Evidence from
cosmology now supports a finite, not an infinite universe, while evidence from
physics and biology has reopened the question of design.
In 1915-16, Albert Einstein shocked the scientific world with his theory of
general relativity (Chaisson & McMillan 1993: 604-5). Though Einstein s theory
challenged Newton s theory of gravity in many important respects, it also implied
(as did Newton s) that the universe could not be static, but instead was
simultaneously expanding and decelerating. According to relativity theory,
massive bodies alter the curvature of space so as to draw nearby objects to them.
Einstein s conception of gravity implied that all material bodies would congeal
unless the effects of gravitation were continually counteracted by the expansion of
space itself (Eddington 1930). Einstein s theory thus implied an expanding, not a
static, universe.
Einstein disliked this idea, in part for philosophical reasons. An actively
expanding universe implied a beginning to the expansion, and thus, to the
universe. As the Russian physicist Alexander Friedmann (1922: 377-86) showed,
general relativity implied that, in the words of Stephen Hawking, at some time in
the past (between ten and twenty thousand million years ago) the distance
between neighboring galaxies must have been zero (1988: 46). Relativity theory
suggested a universe of finite duration racing outward from an initial beginning in
the distant past. For Einstein, however, a definite beginning to the universe
seemed so counterintuitive that he introduced an arbitrary factor in his theory to
eliminate the implication. In 1917, he postulated a repulsive force, expressed by
his cosmological constant, of precisely the magnitude necessary to counteract
the expansion that his theory implied.1 Like Newton, Einstein inadvertenly
concealed an important cosmological reality implicit in his theory.
Yet the heavens would soon talk back. In the 1920s-30s, Edwin Hubble, a
young lawyer-turned-astronomer, made a series of observations that shocked even
Einstein. While working at the Mt. Wilson Observatory in Southern California,
Hubble discovered for the first time that our Milky Way galaxy is but one of
many galaxies spread throughout the universe. More important, he discovered that
the galaxies beyond the Milky Way are rapidly receding from ours. Hubble
noticed that the light from these distant galaxies was shifted toward the red-end of
the electromagnetic spectrum. This red-shift suggested recessional movement,
for the same reason the so-called Doppler Effect that a train whistle drops in
pitch as a train moves away from a stationary observer. Hubble also discovered
that the rate at which these other galaxies retreat from ours is directly related to
their distance from us just as if the universe were undergoing a spherical
expansion in all directions from a singular explosive beginning the big bang
(1929: 168-73).
During the remainder of the twentieth century, physicists and cosmologists
formulated several alternatives to the Big Bang theory that preserved an infinite
universe. Some of these cosmological models were formulated for explicitly
philosophical reasons. For example, in the late 1940s, Fred Hoyle, Thomas Gold,
and Hermann Bondi proposed the steady state model to explain galactic
recession without invoking the objectionable notion of a beginning. According to
their theory, as the universe expands new matter is generated spontaneously in the
space between expanding galaxies. On this view, our galaxy is composed of
matter that spontaneously popped into existence between other galaxies, which in
turn came out of the empty space between other galaxies, and so on (Bondi &
Gold 1948; Hoyle 1948). Thus, the steady state theory denied the need to
postulate a singular beginning, and reaffirmed an infinite universe without
beginning or end.
By the mid-1960s, however, Hoyle s theory had run aground as the result of
a discovery made by two employees of Bell Telephone Laboratories in New
Jersey. According to the steady state model, the density of the universe must
always remain constant, hence the creation of new matter as the universe expands.
Yet in 1965, the Bell Lab researchers, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, found
what physicists believed to be the radiation left over from the universe s initial
hot, high-density state (1965: 419-21). The discovery of this cosmic background
radiation, at roughly 2.7 degrees Kelvin equivalent, proved decisive. Physicist
George Gamow had predicted its existence as a consequence of the Big Bang
(1946: 572-73). Yet advocates of the steady state acknowledged that, given their
model, such radiation should not exist. The steady state theory also implied that
galaxies should have radically different ages, but advances in observational
astronomy have revealed that galactic ages cluster narrowly in the middle-age
range. By the 1970s, even Bondi, Gold, and Hoyle had abandoned their theory
(Kragh 1993: 403).
Following the demise of the steady state model, the oscillating universe
model arose as an alternative to a finite universe. Advocates of this model
envisioned a universe that would expand, gradually decelerate, shrink back under
the force of its own gravitation, and then, by some unknown mechanism, reinitiate
its expansion, on and on, ad infinitum. But, as physicist Alan Guth
showed, our knowledge of entropy suggests that the energy available to do the
work would decrease with each successive cycle (Guth & Sher 1983: 505-7).
Thus, presumably the universe would have reached a nullifying equilibrium long
ago if it had indeed existed for an infinite amount of time. Further, recent
measurements suggest that the universe has only a fraction about one-fifth of
the mass required to create a gravitational contraction in the first place (Peebles
1993: 475-83; Coles & Ellis 1994: 609-13; Sawyer 1992: A5; Ross 1993: 58).
Prior to the formulation of the oscillating universe theory, three
astrophysicists, Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose, published a series of
papers that explicated the implications of Einstein s theory of general relativity
for space and time as well as matter and energy (Hawking & Penrose 1970).
Previously, physicists like Friedmann showed that the density of the universe
would approach an infinite value as one extrapolated the state of the universe
back in time. In a series of papers written between 1966-70, Hawking and his
colleagues showed that as one extrapolated back in time the curvature of space
also approached infinity. But an infinitely curved space corresponds to a radius
(within a sphere, for example) of zero and thus to no spatial volume. Further,
since in general relativity space and time are inextricably linked, the absence of
space implies the absence of time. Moreover, neither matter nor energy can exist
in the absence of space. Thus, Hawking s result suggested that general relativity
implies that the universe sprang into existence a finite time ago from literally
nothing, at least nothing physical. In brief, general relativity implies an absolute
beginning of time, before which neither time and space, nor matter and energy,
would have existed.

The space-time theorem of general relativity was, of course, conditional. It
stated that, if general relativity obtains for the universe, then space and time
themselves must have originated in the same initial explosion that created matter
and energy. In a series of experiments, beginning just two years after Einstein
published his results and continuing on to the present, the probable error of
general relativity (estimated quantitatively) has shrunk from 10 to 1 to .05
percent, to a confirmation out to the fifth decimal place. Increasingly accurate
tests conducted by NASA, such as the hydrogen maser detector carried by a
NASA rocket in 1980 and 1994, have continued to shrink the probable error
associated with the theory (Ross 1993: 66-67; Vessor 1980: 2081-84). Thus,
general relativity now stands as one of the best confirmed theories of modern
science. Yet its philosophical implications, and those of the Big Bang theory, are
staggering. Taken jointly, general relativity and the Big Bang theory provide a
scientific description of what Christian theologians have long described in
doctrinal terms as creatio ex nihilo Creation out of nothing (again, nothing
physical). These theories place a heavy demand on any proposed causal
explanation of the universe, since the cause of the beginning of the universe must
transcend time, space, matter, and energy.
[url="http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_returnofgod.pdf"]


Now admittedly, this study does not yet fully support my hypothesis points of "God  speaking things into existence" and "God living outside of time, seeing the past and future with equal ease."  But you have to admit it is intriguing and warrants further study.  Meyer's last paragraph (bold) is stunning to me and argues strongly for AT LEAST THE POSSIBILITY of a 'God' who can 'speak' things into existence and who JUST MIGHT in fact 'live outside of time' as the Bible asserts.  

OK.  That's enough for now.  I have now given you much of what I consider to be excellent evidence for a "Designer of the Universe" and a "Designer of Living Systems" and at least preliminary evidence for believing the long standing assertion of theists that "God Transcends Space and Time."  As we move ahead, I will show why I believe there is much evidence that this "Universe Designer" and "Living Systems Designer" are in fact One Person and that there is good reason to believe that this One Person does in fact 'dwell outside of space and time.'

I welcome your intelligent comments.  I qualify comments with the modifier 'intelligent' because I have now pretty much heard everything un-intelligent that there is to hear including but not limited to Glen Davidson's detailed and authoritative "Psychoanalysis of AF Dave" (thankyou, Glen ... I have to pay $300/hr for those here in Kansas City), Aftershave's continual attempts to supposedly "Look out for a poor-deluded fellow EE and help him avoid 'getting his ass handed to him'".  Some people's criticisms have in fact been well founded and I have acknowledged them.  The latest, of course is AIG's reference to the Chimp-Human Chromosome issue and my acceptance of it.  Again, a good criticism and I plan on confronting AIG about it (I have a contact who claims they know Ken Ham personally ... we will see what happens).  Of course, if you WANT to keep making un-intelligent criticisms, that's OK,  but you could always start another thread for that, and I question what such inane comments profit you.  But again, who am I to stop you?

Note that I have left of the A1, B1 stuff.  I assume by now that everyone at least UNDERSTANDS my argumentation framework--whether they agree with it or not, so it is not necessary to keep repeating it.

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

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,04:21   

FYI, quote mining is probably the single best way to demonstrate your own dishonesty.
Quote
We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully 'designed' to have come into existence by chance. How, then, did they come into existence? The answer, Darwin's answer, is by gradual, step- by-step transformations from simple beginnings, from primordial entities sufficiently simple to have come into existence by chance. Each successive change in the gradual evolutionary process was simple enough, relative to its predecessor, to have arisen by chance. But the whole sequence of cumulative steps constitutes anything but a chance process, when you consider the complexity of the final end-product relative to the original starting point. The cumulative process is directed by nonrandom survival. The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate the power of this cumulative selection as a fundamentally nonrandom process.

Someday you'll regret having lied to your children about all of this.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,04:31   

Quote (afdave @ May 05 2006,08:59)
Quote
We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully 'designed' to have come into existence by chance. (p. 43)
Thank you Richard Dawkins.  Case closed.  It's been great debating all of you.

Dave,
Before we discuss this, it's important (I think) to clear out something:

Quote-mining is frowned upon in this forum. It's a clear indicator of the deceiving tecniques the people you believe in use.
Now, I think you probably quoted that straight from the AIG site, so I don't blame you. You can retract it, of course, or, better yet: Look what Dawkins actually wrote, and see for yourself who has been LYING to you.

Check it out- Chapter three.


<edit: Whoops- sorry, improvius.>

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

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,04:39   

Quote (Faid @ May 05 2006,09:31)
<edit: Whoops- sorry, improvius.>

Not at all.  The more the merrier.  I'd be happy to see EVERYONE here give Dave a smack for that one.  I mean seriously, quote mining Dawkins?  Dave is getting worse and worse with each new post.  I'm just waiting for him to trot out the alleged connection between evolution and you-know-who.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,05:00   

Hmm. I think thordaddy did, at some point... But then, thor is so absurd, even Godwin can't touch him.


Dave, About your talkorigins link: Did you stop reading after the part you quoted? Because if you kept on, you'd see how he goes on to explain how his arguments are not based in the "multiple universe" theory.

Uniess you quoted that from AIG too, I guess.

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

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,05:00   

I must say the Dawkins quote surprises me. For anyone who has never heard of Dawkins, there won't be any leverage from name recognition anyway. For anyone who HAS heard of Dawkins, this quote is such a flagrantly dishonest misrepresentation of what Dawkins says that such people better not be trying to eat when they read it. Even the most brain-dead creationist can't help but recognize that this can't be even remotely accurate.

Discussing this stuff with someone who genuinely doesn't know any better might have some value. But why discuss with someone who knows better and lies anyway? This is the canonical argument with pigs.

  
afdave



Posts: 1619
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,05:03   

Quote
FYI, quote mining is probably the single best way to demonstrate your own dishonesty.
[quote]
We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully 'designed' to have come into existence by chance. How, then, did they come into existence? The answer, Darwin's answer, is by gradual, step- by-step transformations from simple beginnings, from primordial entities sufficiently simple to have come into existence by chance. Each successive change in the gradual evolutionary process was simple enough, relative to its predecessor, to have arisen by chance. But the whole sequence of cumulative steps constitutes anything but a chance process, when you consider the complexity of the final end-product relative to the original starting point. The cumulative process is directed by nonrandom survival. The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate the power of this cumulative selection as a fundamentally nonrandom process.


Someday you'll regret having lied to your children about all of this. [/quote]

I own the book ... I have heard you that you don't accept 'lifts' from AIG, so you didn't get any this time.  I typed the quotes from Dawkins myself.

It's not dishonest to quote the pieces I did because the part I was wanting to point was that Richard Dawkins himself at least ADMITS that it all looks designed, which my quotes illustrate nicely.  Of course it is common knowledge that Dawkins rejects ACTUAL design ... I think that's pretty obvious from the title of his book, don't you?

As for my kids, they have free access to this book and they understand both Dawkins and MY position well. Come on, guys, there's no deception going on here.

Now if we are going to get preachy about quote mining, let's talk about some other quote mining criminals ... let's look at Faid's ... he lifted this from me
Quote
(afdave @ May 05 2006,08:59)
[Quote ]
We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully 'designed' to have come into existence by chance. (p. 43)

Thank you Richard Dawkins.  Case closed.  It's been great debating all of you. [/quote]

but forgot to include the last part ...
Quote
Thank you Richard Dawkins.  Case closed.  It's been great debating all of you.  Now can we move on to the IMPLICATIONS of the existence of a Designer?  Just kidding ...


I was joking because I KNEW that Dawkins (and you) don't accept this as ACTUAL design ... i.e. "It LOOKS like a duck, WALKS like a duck, QUACKS like a duck, but let me spend the next EIGHT CHAPTERS trying to convince you that it's NOT a duck **cough** (isn't that what this debate is about in the first place?)

OK.  So now that we have another ROE question settled, are there any substantive arguments against my case?

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

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,05:13   

Dave, you settled nothing.

After you say "just kidding", you admit this is an attempt to convince us:
Quote
I know you are not yet convinced, but I hope this is at least a good start for you.  I'm pretty sure you don't want me to repeat the Denton and Behe stuff which is why I quoted one of your own

When you knew, in fact, that this misquote does not support "design" in any way, and in fact simply argues against random assembly of life in its present complexity, ie: the "tornado in a junkyard" example(which is something none of us believes, anyway).

I mean seriously, Dave.  :angry:

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

  
thurdl01



Posts: 99
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,05:30   

Quote (afdave @ May 02 2006,11:47)
Quote
To use your own terms, are you man enough to debate this honestly?

Yes.

Just to remind you of your promise.  Cause quote mining?  Doesn't count as honest debate.  Even if you mined your own quote from the book rather than relying on a pre-mined quote, it's still quote mining.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,05:33   

Quote
Some also ask "How do biological machines point to a 'God'?" ...  Well again, I have not yet given enough evidence to say that it is 'God' as described in the Bible, but it certainly does seem to indicate that there at least was a Designer of some sort.
As I said before, you need to provide evidence that biological systems are more likely to be the work of a designer than biological evolution without using and argument from ignorace or analogy. No-one will accept your point if you just assume this to be the case.

  
afdave



Posts: 1619
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,05:39   

Quote
When you knew, in fact, that this misquote does not support "design" in any way, and in fact simply argues against random assembly of life in its present complexity, ie: the "tornado in a junkyard" example(which is something none of us believes, anyway).

I mean seriously, Dave.  


Again, let me say VERY CLEARLY.  I quoted Richard Dawkins to illustrate to me a FASCINATING phenomenon with this man ...

Here is a man who everyone know DOES NOT accept design, yet he in effect says, "It LOOKS like a duck, WALKS like a duck, QUACKS like a duck, but let me spend the next EIGHT CHAPTERS trying to convince you that it's NOT a duck **cough** (isn't that what this debate is about in the first place?)

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to once again highlight this embarassing paradox of one of science's most brilliant minds.

I'll do my darndest not to quotemine and I trust you will do the same.  Now, to quote someone on this thread, "Can we quit arguing about rules and get on with it?"  

Do you have any substantive refutation of my logic?

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

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 752
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,05:53   

Quote
The reason, Dave is that most people are stupid.  Yes, that's right.  Stupid.  Civilization advances and is sustained on the minds of a vanishingly small percentage of the race.  The rest are drones - useful for evolutionary purposes, no doubt, but contributing nothing, unable to reason, unable to do much of anything except eat, sleep, and procreate.


Well, true enough, I suppose, but we didn't evolve intelligence in order to theorize and to do mathematics.  We evolved intelligence in order to do well in our little primate groups, and that is entirely possible to do without knowing science or accepting evolution.  We're herd animals, and we are intelligent herd animals for the most part.

Afdave illustrates this fact over and over again.  It's all argumentum ad populum, which is why he fails to distinguish between good science and bad (whatever), and fails entirely to even recognize the evidence when it's in plain view.  Which is why he looks at the obviously derived chromosome 2, and says that what obviously did happen "could not happen".  His "standards" come from his herd.  He doesn't think so very stupidly, considering where he's coming from, so much as that he argues from his herd position, and with a near-total lack of science knowledge--let alone its philosophy.  

There are no rewards for him even to begin to understand the world in an unbiased manner, rather he probably gets credit in his circles for "tackling the atheists", even though he never actually manages a hit on anybody (his herd would know the difference?).  Within his herd, his reward system, it all works out, and he obviously cares not a fig about science (though he probably has a high opinion of an ideal of science), only about defending his ego and his herd.  This is why "discussing these things with him" is futile through and through.

You can't make a cat look in the mirror, and you can't get most people to look past their social-reward systems.  This is actually true for scientists in many cases, as anyone who has come up with actually new ideas knows.  Nearly all challengers of the accepted ideas have considerable trouble getting even scientists to look at the evidence uncolored by past beliefs.  How much worse it must be when one has virtually no background in science, an "education in evolution" from the CRI and AIG, and a considerable amount of ego invested into "knowing evolution to be wrong".  

Intelligence serves the primate's psyche, not the "truth of the world" (it's complicated to explain how this differs in science to a meaningful extent, but it has mostly to do with societies of people who have recognized and experienced the rewards of empiricism).  Intelligence could not evolve differently, as far as we know, so we're stuck with people whose intelligence works for themselves and their group, quite contrarily to small-t "truth" as it is commonly understood.

And yes, I still think that saying "people are stupid" fits the contextual meaning of that phrase.  Of course, but most people who are too stupid or lazy to understand the scientific method still don't oppose the vast majority of science--partly this is because their religious prejudices actually tend to suggest that one may well learn from the "created world".  The trouble is when one disagrees that life itself was "created" (or disagrees that a flood was created by an angry God who regretted what he had made--a clear strike against the "design hypothesis"), since that goes against the worldview that in many cases has facilitated science.

Stupidity no doubt has much to do with it, however the social "herd instinct" of humanity seems to explain more.  While social pressures and curiosity helps to place more of the intelligent people into a mode of the acceptance of science, clearly some quite intelligent people also expend quite a lot of intellectual skill (debating skill) into disagreeing with the science that they have learned where they "already know it to be wrong".  

Look at Afdave's argument.  Clearly it is fallacious by any standard, but it is also carefully drawn (though it was hardly invented by Afdave) to avoid the fact that the only explanation for current and fossil forms of life that has managed to cross borders, religions, ethnic groups, politics, and intellectual inheritances, is evolutionary theory.  Russian atheists, American Catholics and mainline Protestants, scientists, intellectuals, Japanese Shintoists (initially, anyhow, though I don't know if Shinto holds up well alongside modern science), Muslim thinkers, Hindus, Jainists, and traditional religionists like native Americans, have all been able to comprehend and accept the evidence for evolution.

Herd thought?  No, except to the degree that empiricism is a kind of herd thought, which it is (but with standards that reach beyond the herd).  Tradition?  Only the tradition of "objectivity", rather than forcing the interpretation.

Evolutionary theory is extraordinarily successful by the standards of any startup of a new religion.  This is because evolutionary thought only depends upon the evidence, and it is not designed to challenge or to disagree with any religion.  Cultural baggage and biases (such as Darwin's) need not follow evolutionary theory, and indeed tend not to.  Most of all, evolutionary theory does not depend upon herd thought, except to the extent that empiricism should be considered "herd thought".  Promulgating a new religion, by contrast, requires herd sanctions and herd thinking to slowly infiltrate (or to be violently imposed) upon society, and the creation myths of that religion remain peculiar to that religion.

The only universally-acceptable origins-of-life idea is evolutionary theory, while one may easily enough explain why opposition by particular religions persist.  But one may as "easily" explain to a herd-thinker like Afdave why he and so many other ignorant types cling to exploded notions, as one may explain to them how to recognize the evidence of derivation of chromosome 2 when they are explaining how something like chromosomal fusion cannot occur.  They are operating on the basis that evolution is impossible, which is why they cannot even begin to deal with the evidence in favor of evolution.

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,05:54   

Biological systems only trivially appear to be designed. You can't just say 'they look designed' and assume they are. People who actually study these systems don't think they look designed at all.

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 752
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,06:02   

Quote
I welcome your intelligent comments.  I qualify comments with the modifier 'intelligent' because I have now pretty much heard everything un-intelligent that there is to hear including but not limited to Glen Davidson's detailed and authoritative "Psychoanalysis of AF Dave" (thankyou, Glen ... I have to pay $300/hr for those here in Kansas City),


Well, you're too stupid and ignorant even to respond to my authoritative analysis, moron.  All you can do is to compound your ignorance by denying everything intelligent ever written with regard to your mindless tripe, and of course your ignorance of yourself is probably the most profound ignorance that you possess.

If you ever can make an intelligent remark, please do so, cretin.  I see that you not only cannot respond to my analysis of your mindlessness, but you have also failed to explain how such a dangerous place as this universe is "designed for life", why it is that the "designer" only uses evolutionary algorithms, or evinced the least bit of knowledge of how science works.  Thank you for showing how close to correct my analysis of your ignorance is.

There is virtually no chance that you will ever be anything except a stupid and ignorant little ape, Dave.  The biggest reason of all is that you only sneer at expertise of all kinds, while clinging to your tiny collection of knowledge as if it were Eternal Truth, as do all bigots.

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 752
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,06:10   

Quote
Here is a man who everyone know DOES NOT accept design, yet he in effect says, "It LOOKS like a duck, WALKS like a duck, QUACKS like a duck, but let me spend the next EIGHT CHAPTERS trying to convince you that it's NOT a duck **cough** (isn't that what this debate is about in the first place?)

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to once again highlight this embarassing paradox of one of science's most brilliant minds.


It should be embarrassing for Dawkins.  However, real scientists do not care a fig about Dawkins' incorrect notions about life "appearing designed", for on the face of it, life does not appear designed.  I will grant that it may appear "miraculous" or "spiritual", depending on definitions and contexts, but it does not appear designed.  

The most truly embarrassing thing is that religious apologists like Afdave think that life looks designed like machines.  

I brought this up previously, Dave, and you failed as utterly to respond intelligently as you did to my analysis of your ignorance.  Why don't you for once face the facts, that you know virtually nothing except engineering and business, and that you need to learn something other than your determined prejudices?  Or at least that you shouldn't reveal to intelligent people that you couldn't think yourself out of a hole in a tree.

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
stevestory



Posts: 8831
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,06:11   

Quote
The reason, Dave is that most people are stupid.  Yes, that's right.  Stupid.  Civilization advances and is sustained on the minds of a vanishingly small percentage of the race.  The rest are drones - useful for evolutionary purposes, no doubt, but contributing nothing, unable to reason, unable to do much of anything except eat, sleep, and procreate.
Count me out on that. It reminds me of a Randroid math professor I once knew. He was puzzled that America was so successful. He said in European countries--he was Swedish--only the very few top people were selected to become professors and corporate executives and researchers and the like. America, he said, allowed anyone to try to do anything. Allowing all those unthinking idiots he and Rilke's Grandaughter believes in to try all those things, would waste so many resources America should be inefficient and poor.

Now, I would agree that most people don't think in a very logical and trained way. But they do think.

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 752
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,06:20   

Quote
And that is the idea that humans are nothing more than highly evolved animals.


Now see, Dave, if you were intelligent and educated you'd know that the idea that humans are animals (generally thought to be "at the peak") is hardly new with Darwin.  Aristotle generally referred to us as animals, for the obvious reason, that we act and exist very much like animals.

Do you want medical testing to be done on our relatives, the apes, or would you prefer that it be done on birds?  And can you think through the implications of why medical testing is done on monkeys and apes just prior to humans, or are you going to just drivel on in your ignorance and prejudice?

And if for once you were able to argue something based on the evidence, instead of your prejudices, you might get some respect.  That is to say, if you were curious and willing to learn, even though you know so little about science, psychology, philosophy, sociology, and religion, you would receive some helpful replies.  

We do care that your prejudices against humans as "evolved animals" prevent you from discussing the evidence that we are.  We just don't care about all of the blather that you gather up to defend your prejudices, trying to pass them off as science.

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
afdave



Posts: 1619
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,06:24   

Quote
As I said before, you need to provide evidence that biological systems are more likely to be the work of a designer than biological evolution without using and argument from ignorace or analogy. No-one will accept your point if you just assume this to be the case.
True.  But this is my point exactly.  Science attempts to explain things in terms of current understanding.  Then as new understanding comes, science modifies its descriptions.  This is what I do.  I see bio machines.  I know how non-bio machines come into existence, so I have nothing better from my experience to explain the bio-machines than "Bio-Machine Design."  I would be happy to adopt "Evo Did It" if I had ever seen an instance of this happening, but so far I have not.  When I ask for examples of, for instance, a fruit-fly "evolving" into a house fly type insect, I am told that this type of change would take many millions of years, so "we cannot possibly observe the process."  This would leave me in the uncomfortable position of trying to explain a process that I can only wildly speculate about, but have never even seen, even by analogy.  So to me, my ANALOGY, while it may be weak, appears to be far stronger than your COMPLETE LACK OF AN ANALOGY.  In other words ... at least I have SOMETHING ... I have my analogy.  You have NOTHING that I can see.  Oh, yes ... I know ... moths changing color and finch beaks, etc.  But this is well understood already WITHIN the Creationist model and has NOTHING AT ALL to say about "Feet to Flippers" type Evolution.  Oh and I know .. the fossil record.  But again, we have a handful of equivocal examples of "transitional forms."

I'm happy to try to see things your way, but so far, no one has walked me through it well enough to be convincing.

Does this make sense?

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

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

Pages: (202) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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