Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > AF Dave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis

Pages: (202) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,07:32    Quote Science should not be claiming that they have disproved the existence of God because they have not. Sience is NOT claiming it has disproved God, no scientist is saying that. Quote 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. Is this the old 'most scientists don't really believe in evolution but they just can't say it'. As I scientists I can tell you this is not true. Quote Science should not be implying to our children that they are glorified animals, because there is no proof. What is your definition of an animal that does not include humans? Quote 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. They don't say that either, what they do say is that there is no empirical evidence that conclusively points to a God, maybe you can prove them wrong. Quote 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" ?? Please quote me the science textbook passage of paper that says God does not exist. It is statements like this that make people call you a religious nut. If you think that there is an atheist conspiracy of scientists then please present your evidence.

tacitus Posts: 118 Joined: May 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,07:48    6--> Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,126) 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. Now the mask is coming off: Science should not be claiming that they have disproved the existence of God because they have not. I will be charitable and assume you really believe this.  If that's the case, you are sadly, sadly mistaken and have been taken in by the lies of your fellow creationists. "Science" doesn't and cannot claim to have disproved the existence of God.  That would be impossible. Once again, many good, honest and hard working scientists are committed Christians and would be insulted to hear such nonsense. Science should not be implying to our children that they are glorified animals, because there is no proof. What the heck is a "glorified animal"? Either way, this is nonsense.  Forget evolution.  Try basic anatomy.  What, apart from a bigger brain, do we have that separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom?  Nothing.  Even if you believe in some sort of supernatual soul, we are still mammals and primates.  Like it or lump it. 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 ... Again, this is an utter lie.  You should know better.  There are a few scientists, like Richard Dawkins (no doubt your favourite devil), who are outspoken on this issue, but even he would not claim what you say he does.  Again, science cannot do this.  Some scientists do, but that is not the same thing. Any reasonable person should understand this. There are thousands of Christian biologists and geologists who accept evolution.  Are you trying to insult each and every one of them? With posts like this I suspect you are beginning to wear out your welcome here.  Why should we even bother to listen to you when even your motivations are based on such an obvious falsehood?

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,07:50    Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,12<!--emo&) 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. Dave, this is exactly the kind of arrogant crap that gets you into trouble with scientists. You think you're being magnanimous by being willing to forgive scientists their errors if they admit them and fix them? You think you're qualified to even find errors in scientists' work? Who do you think you are? Some guy goes through 12 years of public school, four years of undergraduate training, another six years of postgraduate studies, a few more years of fellowships, spends the next twenty years of his life doing research into invertebrate physiology, and then you think you're entitled to read a few articles on AiG and then tell him he's wrong? What kind of a blockhead are you? I'd say no offense, but given the offensiveness of your position, I'd be lying if I said so. If you think the last 150 years of evolutionary biology is wrong, then I suggest you go out there, get your postgraduate degree in the relevant fields, and then go out and do some research. If you think you're remotely qualified to critique these guys' work, you're delusional. Oh, and by the way: how are you doing with your detailed, comprehensive rebuttal of all the evidence demonstrating that the earth is billions of years old? You might want to stop criticizing scientists' research and start doing some research of your own. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,08:05    AFDave says Quote 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.) Actually Dave, you haven’t.  All you’ve been doing is continuing to present your uninformed opinions on technical topic that you don’t understand.  I, personally, don’t care what you choose to believe, as long as it makes you happy.  However, when you present your ignorance as an alternative to actual scientific results, I will continue to point out your errors. Quote 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. That’s total bullshit Dave.  You’re off on an exercise of self-justification for your religious beliefs, nothing more.  Do you think you’re the first to come here and do this? Quote 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. Denton and Behe and the other Creationist pseudo-scientists specifically target untrained laymen like you because you don’t have the skill set to know you’re being lied to.  You’re a “soft target” Dave, whether you care to admit it or not. Quote 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. And sometimes there is no problem, but the Mom becomes a controlling, domineering battle-ax over her children anyway just because she needs to feel important. Quote 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 HAS NOT EVER claimed to have disproved the existence of God.  Whoever told you that if full of shit too. There are certainly a few atheistic scientists (i.e. Dawkins) who hold that personal opinion, but the science itself says NOTHING one way or the other on the existence of God.  You want to claim different?  Then find me a textbook or a scientific research paper ANYWHERE that says “here is scientific evidence there is no God”.   Quote Science should not be implying to our children that they are glorified animals, because there is no proof. Er Dave, there is ample evidence humans ARE just another species of animal.  Your total ignorance of, or personal dislike for of the evidence does not mean the evidence doesn’t exist. Quote 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" ?? Again, science DOES NOT DO what you claim.  Just what do you think “science” is, anyway?  Science is just the collected technical knowledge of the natural world. It has been compiled by millions of people of all religions over hundreds of years and is available to be examined or questioned by anybody. It is not some unified organization like the Catholic church with a “head scientist” as Pope handing out scientific “proclamations” that must be followed by the lesser scientists. Quote 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. Again, nothing personal Dave, but you’re way too ignorant on the topic to be telling professionals that they are in error.  If you wish, you can study the sciences, do your own research, and present peer reviewed results to overturn current scientific thinking.  However, just repeating your uninformed bogus claims will only get you laughed at. Quote 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. I agree 100% that this is a political battle, because the scientific battle was decided over 150 years ago.  The YECs lost.  Like so many other Fundamentalists, all you want is your particular religion’s brand of “Truth and Fairness”, regardless that all the scientific evidence available directly contradicts you. Quote 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. I respect your passion, but your critical thinking skills still haven’t gotten off the ground. Take care. -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

tacitus Posts: 118 Joined: May 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,08:09    Nicely put Eric.  Dave is no different from people like Richard Hoagland who condemns that whole of NASA and the rest of the space industry simply because they won't admit the Face on Mars is an artificial construct.  It's funny how he expects us to listen to him while he ignores every inconvenient little fact we bring up. He has the nerve to bring up "Truth and Fairness" when even the premise of his argument (science is anti-religious) is a blatent lie?  I constantly find it astouding how people who are obviously quite intelligent, smart, and capable people (if we are to assume his background information is true) can be so wildly off base and so wilfully ignore the truth even when it's staring them in the face.  Whether or not God exists is not the issue here.  No one can prove that either way.  It's the dishonesty with which they even approach the subject of origins that frustrates and infuriates me.  I mean, it's one thing to believe what you are being told by your fundamentalist preacher and favourite creationist web site, it's another to continue believing it unquestioningly when you are presented with solid evidence that you are wrong. Is faith in God so precarious that the odd bit of scientific evidence brings is all tumbling down?  Why do they want to prove God exists anyway?  With proof, faith is nothing if not diminished, and Christianity has a long history of priding faith over all other things. Dave appears to be a prime example of what Steven Colbert would deem to be "truthiness".  The facts don't matter, it's what you feel in your gut that really counts!

normdoering Posts: 287 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,08:58    Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,11:10) ... 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. The problem with your above statement is you've misread Meyer who is already lying to you. When Meyer says "developments in modern science provide support for Christian theism" it is a lie. He has offered a very skewed argument in which many lines of evidence are omitted and the evidence he does provide will not take you as far as he claims, to confirmation of Christianity. Even if it were valid, which it is not, it could only take you a vague idea of a god. You then misread him when you say "a Logical Inference to the Best Explanation is in fact used extensively by both scientists and historians to establish many theories." Meyer's never explores anything but the metaphysical conclusions one might draw from what science we know. I never saw him claim any where that scientific theories were established by abductive reasoning alone. It is a lie to say abductive reasoning alone establishes a scientific theory because deductive reasoning must be involved in establishing those theories. It is paramount, the fact that an apparent use of abductive inference can also seem to "establish" them is a slight of hand distraction away from what is actually critical to those theories. For example, the theory you so dislike, Darwinian evolution, has many lines of deductive proof and prediction from them to go on. I can lay out a few if you're interested.

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,09:13    Quote Science HAS NOT EVER claimed to have disproved the existence of God.  Whoever told you that if full of shit too. There are certainly a few atheistic scientists (i.e. Dawkins) who hold that personal opinion, but the science itself says NOTHING one way or the other on the existence of God.  You want to claim different?  Then find me a textbook or a scientific research paper ANYWHERE that says “here is scientific evidence there is no God”. I just have to laugh ... "only a few  ... mmm ... like Dawkins, for example ... he's not very influential... not many others ..." OK.  Whatever. I'll tell you what ... I won't sell you any bridges and you don't sell me any and we'll be friends, OK! As for me, I'm going to get back on topic ... Thankyou, Norm at least for that!  I'll consider your words. Would anyone else like to comment on the real issue on this thread ... ? We (at least I and Norm and a few others) are debating the validity of my structure for debating Origins, the Nature of Life and related topics, collectively referred to as my Creator God Hypothesis. I have given you my preferred approach ... are there any more substantive objections? -------------- 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 2006,09:36    Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,14:13) I just have to laugh ... "only a few  ... mmm ... like Dawkins, for example ... he's not very influential... not many others ..." OK.  Whatever. I'll tell you what ... I won't sell you any bridges and you don't sell me any and we'll be friends, OK! As for me, I'm going to get back on topic ... Thankyou, Norm at least for that!  I'll consider your words. Would anyone else like to comment on the real issue on this thread ... ? We (at least I and Norm and a few others) are debating the validity of my structure for debating Origins, the Nature of Life and related topics, collectively referred to as my Creator God Hypothesis. I have given you my preferred approach ... are there any more substantive objections? Why should we bother commenting on anything else you say when you can't even be bothered to back up your own comments with, like, you know, evidence. First tell us exactly where Dawkins says that science disproves God instead of just laughing it off.  If it's so obvious to you, then educate us.  We're listening. Second, does the fact that one, admittedly strongly atheistic and outspoken scientist might believe it mean it is safe to assume all, or even a more that a small minority of scientists believe it too.  Gee, I guess that must mean I must be right in thinking that all Christians believe the same as that paragon of Christian thought, Pastor Fred Phelps (look him up if you haven't heard of him). Finally, perhaps if you started addressing our existing comments (you haven't answered any of mine yet) then maybe we will start to entertain the idea that you are actually interested in anything we have to say.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,09:36    Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,14:13) I just have to laugh ... "only a few  ... mmm ... like Dawkins, for example ... he's not very influential... not many others ..." OK.  Whatever. More misdirection, Dave. Dawkins has often said that he personally does not believe in God, and points out that there is no solid evidence that God exists. He has never claimed that science can, or has, proved that God does not exist. These claims may work with your not-well-informed layman friends, but they will not work with people who actually read about science. Quote As for me, I'm going to get back on topic ... Dave, you're avoiding "the topic" like the plague. The "topic" is, what evidence does Dave have for his claim that the Bible is inerrant and is the best available explanation for experience. So far, you're batting zero on that topic. Quote We (at least I and Norm and a few others) are debating the validity of my structure for debating Origins, the Nature of Life and related topics, collectively referred to as my Creator God Hypothesis. I have given you my preferred approach ... are there any more substantive objections? I'm pretty sure the objections you've already heard have not only demolished your hypothesis; they've demolished your method for even arriving at a hypothesis. Your proposed method takes you way outside the bounds of science. You're not talking science; you're talking theology. I don't think I can get any clearer than that. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,10:20    Quote I just have to laugh ... "only a few  ... mmm ... like Dawkins, for example ... he's not very influential... not many others ..." OK.  Whatever. I'll tell you what ... I won't sell you any bridges and you don't sell me any and we'll be friends, OK! As for me, I'm going to get back on topic ... Well Dave, if you didn't want to discuss your claim of "science says it disproves the existence of God", then why in the world did you bring it up in the first place? Speaking of on topic, you are still avoiding answering this objection to your hypothesis Quote I can spin that kind of argument any way I want too.  I can hypothesize "A Super Intelligent, Incredibly Powerful Being could create all necessary physical laws in the first femtosecond of existence, then just sit back and observe the results.  Therefore when I observe scientific data that says the universe is 14 Billion years old, and the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old, and that life has existed on Earth for over 3 billion years, and that life has evolved over that time by observed processes such as random mutations plus natural selection, I have just verified my hypothesis. Why is that reasoning any less valid than yours? or Abductive Reasoning DATA: The surprising fact A is observed. (The Indian tsunami killed hundreds of thousands of people LOGIC: But if B were true, then A would be a matter of course. (B is the hypothesis that AFDave caused the tsunami  ) CONCLUSION: Hence, there is reason to suspect that B is true. Tell us AFDave, should we suspect you of killing all those innocent people? Don't feel alone.  Most of the YECs who come through here experience similar bouts of cognitive dissonance when presented with factual evidence that blows away their arguments.  That makes them get angry and confused, just like you. -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,10:47    Quote Abductive Reasoning DATA: The surprising fact A is observed. (The Indian tsunami killed hundreds of thousands of people LOGIC: But if B were true, then A would be a matter of course. (B is the hypothesis that AFDave caused the tsunami   ) CONCLUSION: Hence, there is reason to suspect that B is true. Tell us AFDave, should we suspect you of killing all those innocent people? Thankyou, Aftershave, for getting back on topic ... you know very well what the topic is and I'm glad you are man enough to finally get back to it. It's right up there at the top of this Internet Explorer frame.  I'm glad you noticed we are debating the UPDATED version, thankyou. Now ... to fillet your statement in front of God and everybody ... my surprising answer to your question is ... DRUM ROLL ... YES ... YES, YES!! Thankyou!  A Thousand time YES!  This is precisely what you should do!  And while you are at it, put your Origins and Macro-Evolution Hypothesis in exactly the same format and go look for that evidence on the same trek! Guess what!  You won't find a SHRED of evidence for either one and you will display to all who come here that it is the Evolution Dogmatists who are doing Voodoo Science!  That's the difference between my Hypothesis and the two of yours.   Yours have no evidence.  Mine does.   And tomorrow morning you will be getting more or it than you care to hear.  But not for your benefit, unless you open your mind.  If you haven't noticed, I'm really writing for the benefit of people with open minds.  I know I won't convince hardened skeptics. So bring it on and let's see how yours stands up.  (Either one you like--Tsunami or Evolution).  You tell me you guys are the professionals.  Let's see how professional your arguments are.  Or are you just going say I'm incompetent and I have no idea what I'm in for and Meyer is a liar, blah, blah, blah? -------------- 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 2006,10:55    Just post your evidence already.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,11:09    Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,15:47) [Guess what!  You won't find a SHRED of evidence for either one and you will display to all who come here that it is the Evolution Dogmatists who are doing Voodoo Science!  That's the difference between my Hypothesis and the two of yours.   Yours have no evidence.  Mine does. No, Dave, you don't. You haven't presented anything remotely resembling "evidence" for any of your claims. To say that something "could have happened this way," or "probably happened this way," simply doesn't amount to evidence. Face it, Dave. "Hardened skeptics" are the people you have to reach. All practicing scientists are "hardened skeptics," and they won't be persuaded by half-assed guesses unsupported by any reference to actual evidence. Now—where's your evidence that the earth is only 6,000 years old? -------------- 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

Renier Posts: 276 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,11:18    Quote Yours have no evidence.  Mine does. Dave, get on with it. We are all waiting for this "evidence" to appear. Are you now saying that you have already presented it? You are joking, right? Either that, or you are insulting us. ...and in this mood of anticipation that you have created, take the hat and pluck out the evidence... come on! Oh, btw, your "suspicion" does not count as evidence, but I think you know that. Well laddy, you promised evidence, so, do honour to your word!

thurdl01 Posts: 99 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,11:22    Ad hominem attacks combined with a strong martyrdom complex.  Interesting strategy.  Do you expect it to win converts when you are lobbing general insults, though often veiled, at people? Or is it your strategy, as you've demonstrated several times in this thread, that you will simply ignore any evidence that doesn't mesh with your predecided upon conclusion?  Or, worse yet, deciding to declare arguments that are damaging to your point of view as "off topic" even if they are in direct responce to comments that you, yourself, have made in the self same thread?  How can it be that we should be expected to stay "on topic," as decided upon by yourself apparently, when you are not bound by those same rules?  The issues that have been discussed above in this thread that you deemed "off topic" stemmed from comments that you yourself have made.  Thus, you are delivering the message that (A) you are allowed to be off topic but (B) no one is "allowed" to respond to your off topic statements. I mean, I'm just trying to look at the rules that you're apparently setting up for us to "follow" should we hope to have our eyes opened by yourself.  Assuming that we are "men enough" to do so.  Because it seems to me that the pattern is going to be you ignoring, or simply labelling as "off topic," any evidence that is contrary to your position, while delivering veiled insults to anyone who dares to be on the side of reason in this whole debate. To use your own terms, are you man enough to debate this honestly?  More simply: why should we bother reading and replying to you?

Renier Posts: 276 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,11:27    Afdave wrote: Quote This is extremely important and will come after I present credible evidence that we should expect some Super-Intelligence to exist and that it is highly likely that He (or it) commmunicates like we do. Quote And this is where I think my evidence ... "cosmic fine tuning, the anthropic principle, etc." as I will elaborate on soon lead to a Super-Intelligent 'god-like' character as a better explanation than other alternatives. Oh cra_p. Is this going to be a Deja Vu feeling, like talking to Heddle?

tacitus Posts: 118 Joined: May 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,12:01    Quote (Renier @ May 01 2006,16:27) Oh cra_p. Is this going to be a Deja Vu feeling, like talking to Heddle? I think you're being unfair to Heddle -- this guy makes David Heddle look like a genius. If anything this thread reminds me of any number of threads on boards like Bad Astronomy where a rank amateur posts a series of half-assed assertions and claims he's just about to overturn everything we thought we knew about the laws of physics. When challenged to produce evidence to back up his assertions all he can do is: ignore, dismiss, change the subject, mock, etc. etc.  Classic pseudoscientist reactions. As for the forthcoming "bombshell". I'm not holding my breath.

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,12:07    Ok, since anecdotal evidence counts in Dave's book, I will provide some: I heard a couple of people saying Dave caused the tsunami. At this point, I think that puts it on equal footing with your God hypothesis. -------------- 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.

Renier Posts: 276 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,12:10    Quote As for the forthcoming "bombshell". I'm not holding my breath. Well, I hope Afdave gets on with it, before the sun burns out. Oh.. wait a minute, I get it. "A 1000 years is like a day". Think afdave is taking the bible definition for time, like "behold, I come quickly"?

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,12:23    Quote (tacitus @ May 01 2006,17<!--emo&) If anything this thread reminds me of any number of threads on boards like Bad Astronomy where a rank amateur posts a series of half-assed assertions and claims he's just about to overturn everything we thought we knew about the laws of physics. When challenged to produce evidence to back up his assertions all he can do is: ignore, dismiss, change the subject, mock, etc. etc.  Classic pseudoscientist reactions. For arguments like this, you don't even have to go that far to find one. Find the "LUCA Thread" on this very site. See how far the Ghost of Paley has progressed in his battle to overturn the last 500 years of astronomy and astrophysics. Last I saw, he was still struggling with a geocentric explanation of non-cosmological redshift. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,12:37    AFDave, you keep ignoring this important discussion point.  You've ignored it three times now, so I'll ask it a fourth time OA: "I can spin that kind of argument any way I want too.  I can hypothesize "A Super Intelligent, Incredibly Powerful Being could create all necessary physical laws in the first femtosecond of existence, then just sit back and observe the results.  Therefore when I observe scientific data that says the universe is 14 Billion years old, and the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old, and that life has existed on Earth for over 3 billion years, and that life has evolved over that time by observed processes such as random mutations plus natural selection, I have just verified my hypothesis." Why is that reasoning any less valid than yours? AFDave says Quote And tomorrow morning you will be getting more or it than you care to hear.  But not for your benefit, unless you open your mind.  If you haven't noticed, I'm really writing for the benefit of people with open minds.  I know I won't convince hardened skeptics. Sure, if you realize as we do that your definition of "open minded person" is someone as totally ignorant of the sciences involved as yourself who can be gulled by pseudoscientific charlatans.  You probably won't find many here who fit your definition, though. Quote So bring it on and let's see how yours stands up.  (Either one you like--Tsunami or Evolution).  You tell me you guys are the professionals.  Let's see how professional your arguments are.   Sigh...Sorry Dave, you started this thread to provide the evidence for your YEC position, remember? So post your evidence based on the pseudoscientific garbage that you picked up from AIG.  We've seen it all before.  (In fact, we 've heard it so many times it has a special name. PRATT, or "Points Refuted A Thousand Times".)  Post your technical "evidence", and we'll hand you your ass on a platter, just like every other cock-sure but clueless YEC we meet.  And you'll sputter and fume, and tell us we'll all burn in he11...oh well. Quote Or are you just going say I'm incompetent and I have no idea what I'm in for and Meyer is a liar, blah, blah, blah? No need for me to belabor the obvious.  I'll let the scientific quality of your YEC arguments speak for themselves. -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,12:50    Quote Last I saw, he was still struggling with a geocentric explanation of non-cosmological redshift. At least he gave you a model, however ridiculous. He won't even give me a model he promised.

normdoering Posts: 287 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,12:52    Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,15:47) Quote Tell us AFDave, should we suspect you of killing all those innocent people? YES, YES!! Thankyou!  A Thousand time YES!  This is precisely what you should do! Previously I said: "...the theory you so dislike, Darwinian evolution, has many lines of deductive proof and prediction from them to go on. I can lay out a few if you're interested." Here is just one line of proof: At this website you'll find a chapter from a book by Kevin Kelly called "Out of Control": http://www.kk.org/outofcontrol/ch15-d.html I will use this chapter to illustrate how science uses abductive reasoning to move into deductive reasoning and show how its the deductive reasoning that is the key to science, not the abductive. It's about Danny Hillis who built the first massively parallel processing computer, the Connection Machine, and used it as a "proof" for a concept in Darwinian evolution. Hillis saw a problem: The more knowledge you gave a computer, the slower it got. Yet with a person, the more knowledge you give him, the faster he gets. This paradox, that if you tried to make computers smart, they got stupider led to some pre-scientific abductive reasoning. (Well, not really, because John Holland already did both the abductive and deductive core but Hillis' contribution is easier for me to explain because of this book - so let's look at Hillis alone.) Hillis' abductive reasoning went: "There are only two ways we know of to make extremely complicated things. One is by engineering, and the other is evolution. And of the two, evolution will make the more complex. If we can't engineer a computer that will be proud of us, we may have to evolve it." Hillis looks at the world and see a variety of complex things, human machines, living things and the rest of nature. He knows that people make complex and functional machine things -- he is such a person after all -- he is also told the the process of Darwinian evolution can make complex and functional machine-like things too and, unlike you, he believes this and understands it. From Hillis' abductive reasoning about evolution he moves then, naturally, to a deductive scientific mode of reasoning by turning his assumption about evolution into a hypothesis: He should be able, like John Holland suggests, to make a computer that can evolve computer programs and thus test this assumption about evolution. (This didn't really test evolution for anything we didn't  know by the 1950s using pure math, but Hillis was first to make the argument into a machine). This hypothesis was then tested by building a machine that could evolve computer programs. If that had not been done -- it's the experiment in the experimental method, the scientific method -- then Hillis would not have been a scientist but merely a philosopher, like Hume or Kant or Meyer. "If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning, concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion." -- David Hume And note what happens when its done, we have to start talking about something you'll see a lot of in science: numbers! Measurable reality quantified. You don't see much of that in philosophy. The Connection Machine had 64,000 processors with a population of 64,000 very simple software programs that could be altered by mutation. Each program had an entire computer processor dedicated to running it. initially the seed programs are just random sequences of computer instructions, but over tens of thousands of generations they became a program that sorted a long string of numbers into numerical order. It was a specific and real machine testing a significant assumption about evolution. The computer used selection, akin to natural selection, tested the programs and terminated the less fit so that only the shortest (the best) sorting programs would be given a chance to reproduce. Over ten thousand generations of this cycle, Hillis' system bred a software program that was nearly as short as the best sorting programs written by human programmers. That is a form of proof -- call it proof of concept. It's not proof that Darwinian evolution is what wrote our genomes, but it is proof that evolution could, in principle, do so. That's what I  mean  when I  talk about science and deductive proof. All that was in the '80s and you'll hardly ever hear any  creationist ever talk about Hillis or Holland. Did you know those men existed before I told you?

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,17:22    normdoering, Re "It's about Danny Hillis who built the first massively parallel processing computer, the Connection Machine, and used it as a "proof" for a concept in Darwinian evolution. [...]" I dunno whether afdave appreciates that story or not, but I found it fascinating. Henry

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,18:11    Quote Why oh why does anything about god matter in even the slightest bit to humans? Heaven and #### are meaningless words in the context of eternity. They are quite meaningful when applied to how we feel while living but not once we're dead. So why is gOd important?   -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

Corkscrew Posts: 20 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,05:34    AFDave: again, I think we have a slight confusion of terminology. What you're describing as an hypothesis would, if I understand correctly, be more accurately considered a conjecture. My understanding is that statements about the universe subdivide into the following categories: Conjectures - statements that fit all the known data (these are produced by the largely-intuitive process of abduction) Hypotheses - conjectures that are falsifiable Data - conjectures that have been verified (there's no term for conjectures that are merely verifiable) Predictions - conjectures that are both verifiable and falsifiable, and that haven't yet been verified or falsified Science is concerned primarily with deciding which of the infinite number of possible hypotheses for any given situation is best. It does this by applying three principles: predictivity, parsimony and credibility. Predictivity means that an hypothesis must give us some idea of what we'll find next (otherwise it's scientifically useless), parsimony means that an hypothesis must be efficient in its use of "magic numbers" (so, for example, five dots in a row would be best described by a linear equation not a quintic equation), and credibility means that an hypothesis must have survived attempted falsification. Of these, credibility is the most important, followed by predictivity and then parsimony (this is partly because predictivity is a necessary condition for credibility). Your conjecture does not, as it stands, make any predictions, so can't be considered an hypothesis. To rectify this, you'll need to: 1) increase its specificity until you can use it to make a prediction of the form described above 2) confirm that the current best-of-breed scientific hypotheses would not also make that prediction (ideally, they shouldn't even leave open the possibility of that prediction being true, but you can't have everything) 3) go out and test the prediction I repeat: for your conjectures to be scientifically valid, it is not sufficient to present existing evidence in support of each of them. To match the level of current origins science, you must also be able to derive and confirm predictions from them. Otherwise, it really is just a "just so story". Predictivity is what makes the difference. As an aside: Quote Why does it always seem that every time the word 'God' is even mentioned, everybody runs for cover and says it's not science? Because over the centuries scientists have shown an alarming tendency to get sucked into ultimately-unsuccessful research of the paranormal and cease to ever again produce useful scientific results. That's not a tendency that anyone particularly wants to encourage, so it's considered valid to basically tell students: "It's a dead end. Live with it." Plus, of course, a wide array of folks claim erroneously to have scientific support for their religious beliefs, which effectively dilutes science's trademark. Another aside: Quote I just have to laugh ... "only a few  ... mmm ... like Dawkins, for example ... he's not very influential... not many others ..." OK.  Whatever. As I understand it, Dawkins merely says that modern science proves that God doesn't necessarily exist, not that He doesn't exist. It's a necessary condition for atheism, not a sufficient condition.

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,05:47    Good morning everyone ... I'll probably start off every day with a retraction or two because I am passionate about this stuff and I believe there is a lot in our country at stake, and sometimes I say unnecessary things to try and make my point ... I think we all do ... I said ... Quote 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. I am happy to retract these statements.  They are unnecessary and do not contribute to the points I am trying to make.  They represent an impression I have about some of our leading scientists, but they do open a can of worms that I don't want to focus on right now.  Also, I do not mean to insult anyone here who may be a professional scientist.  I have no doubt--honest--that you all do excellent work in your specialty.  But I feel that many good scientists have "stepped over" OUT OF their specialty (as I also am doing) to address the question of origins.  I don't know what your reasons are, but I'm sure you have good ones, and I have my own reasons as well.  I agree that name-calling, motive-questioning and other such tactics get us nowhere, and I for one will apologize when I commit these 'sins'. So ... back to what I DO want to focus on ... MY GOALS My goal, first of all, is NOT to win an argument, or to make someone feel stupid.  My real goal is two-fold:  (1) to really get to the bottom of why Creationism is so objectionable to a lot of good scientists.  This is why I am HERE, not over at AIG or DI, (2) I have personally seen a lot of excellent support for being a Creationist, but I could be wrong.  If so, who better to tell me I'm wrong that professional scientists over here? (3) If I am right, the implications are enormous and all of humanity should know about this.  Believe it or not, I care about all of you on this blog as human beings.  I feel that I am a 'beggar who has found bread' and I want to share this information with others.  My motives are altruistic even though I may not act like it sometimes.  I am human and someone has rightly said 'To err is human.'  I will continue to 'err', but I will try not to and when I do, I will confess and try to fix it.  What else can I do? (4) I came here already armed with a significant amount of study, but I knew that I was missing one key ingredient ... actual dialog with a diverse group of Naturalistic Philosophers.  So what is really happening here is that you all are making some very good points to improve the presentation of my logic, help me select proper terminology so as not to make people mad, and understand the naturalistic perspective.  This is an incredibly valuable learning experience for me, which will help me immensely if I ever do get around to presenting information on a Grand Scale.  And of course there is the off chance that you guys' position may be correct, in which case I would be a fool NOT to adopt it. So let's dive in ... it appears that I need to spend a little more time explaining my structure for testing ANY hypothesis ... I think that a lot of the evidence I will present, you will have probably heard before, but you may reject it as support for my particular hypothesis on logical or other grounds.  So I think I need to first argue the validity of using my approach ... I have proposed Abductive Logic Confirmed by Inference to the Best Explanation, and have inserted an extra step (this was an assumption to me, but I see it is not for you, so we will insert it) Abductive Reasoning DATA: The Surprising Fact A (or Phenomenon A) is observed. (The finely tuned cosmos, biological machines, written 'holy' books, etc.) EXPERIENCE: (Let us insert this to explain where 'B' comes from)  We propose 'B' based upon our own observation and experience.  We cannot do otherwise and still call it 'science' 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. Let's illustrate this process from an example from my own experience.  I lived for a while as a child in a foreign country with a tribe of jungle natives (my Dad is a Bible translator).  These natives had never seen an airplane when my dad arrived.  We will call this Surprising Fact (or Phenomenon) A.  Some on this thread have argued that it should not be called a Surprising Fact, but I believe it should because the 'surprise' part means that you have never seen the thing before, i.e. you are surprised.  Some also say that EVERYTHING you see in the world could be called a Surprising Fact if you propose a 'God', but this is not true.  The definition of a surprising fact in this context is simply 'new', i.e. not previously studied.  Of course 'new' facts soon become old, but this does not take away anything.  Many new things in the physical world are still fascinating to study even though they are not 'new' to science.  So I would also be content to call my 'Surprising Fact" a 'Noteworthy Fact' or simply 'Phenomenon.'  Someone else may say, "Why do you think that fact is noteworthy? I don't think it is."  Well, you may not and that's OK.  This whole exercise is written for those who ARE interested in the phenomena of the physical world and who seek to explain how they got here.  I am one of them and I assume there are others. So the natives observe this airplane and they observe people getting out of it and walking toward them and they say "Wow ... a sky canoe!"  (They really did this ... and that is what they call an airplane to this day ... the word is 'kanawa' in their language).  Notice that they immediately explained Phenomenon 'A' in terms they already understood well.  They understand canoes ... they get into their canoes, go various places, then get out again.  They saw this airplane arrive from someplace, they saw people get out, and so they assume that it is a very fancy 'canoe', and in a sense they are correct. Now some of the more thoughtful natives (not many mind you ... most of them said 'Wow! Sky Canoe' and moved on) ... but some of them said to themselves, 'I wonder who made this sky canoe?' ... and they began asking questions.  They asked my dad and he told them something like 'Cessna Aircraft Corporation' in a country far from here called 'America.'  (Which to the natives was so foreign sounding that my dad might just as well have said 'The Tooth Fairy made it and she lives in Timbuktu.' Now there are some interesting things we can observe here.  First, we could ask why my dad told them Cessna made the airplane. And the answer would be that he had previously used the Abductive Reasoning method and had made an Inference to the Best Explanation.  Let's walk through this.   MY DAD IS THE OBSERVER DATA:  Phenomenon A is the airplane. EXPERIENCE:  My dad proposes 'B' because of his own experience LOGIC:  If B were true, then A would be a matter of course. CONCLUSION:  There is reason to suspect that 'B' is true.  In fact, 'B' is so well supported that my dad feels it warrants the strong statement 'Cessna made this airplane.' Now my dad only has his own experience to draw upon to propose 'B' and to do anything else would be unscientific.  What is his experience?  He has seen many airplanes, he has read about Cessna, Piper and Beechcraft, and he even read a book on aerodynamics once.   All this leads him to propose 'B' that 'Cessna made the airplane.'  Could he propose other 'B's'?  Sure, he could propose that a farmer planted aiplane seeds and this airplane grew from one of the seeds.  He could propose that the Fairy Godmother waved a magic wand and the airplane magically appeared.  But these proposals would not be based in his experience and they would not constitute good science.  So he does the most logical thing and proposes that 'Cessna made the airplane.'  Now some will ask, "This is great, Dave, but can he PROVE that Cessna made the airplane?  Well, no.  Has he ever OBSERVED any aircraft factory building airplanes?  No again.  How does he know that someone didn't just FABRICATE THE EVIDENCE ... maybe a trickster printed 'Cessna' on the side of the airplane and on the instrument panel an on the pilot's operating handbook!   Right again ... coulda happened.  Maybe that book on aerodynamics had errors.  Maybe the whole book was a fraud.  And on and on we could go.  Well ... granted ... my dad could propose many alternatives for explaining the origin of the airplane, but the problem is that these alternatives would not be supported from his own experience, thus rendering them UNSCIENTIFIC.  The Best Explanation then, from his own experience is 'Cessna made the airplane.'  He cannot prove this in the sense that it is not a Deductive Proof using Logical Entailment.  In other words, he cannot 'prove' the logical premise that airplanes come from aircraft factories because there is the logical chance that this might not be true. Another thing to point out in this example is that we have two 'classes' if you will, of people here.  This is important because some people on this thread said that my Proposals  -- 'B' -- are invalid because I was informed about them already, i.e. someone has already proposed that there is a God.  But this does not matter.  Let us see why.  My dad is in the supposedly 'informed class' of people who DO know about airplanes (or at least claim they do), and the natives are in a different 'class' of people who are NOT informed about airplanes.  We explored the proposal that my dad made from his experience - "Cessna made the airplane."  Now consider the Proposal -- 'B' -- that the natives might have proposed had they not been told anything by my dad.   THE NATIVES ARE THE OBSERVERS DATA:  Phenomenon A is the airplane. EXPERIENCE:  The native proposes 'B' -- 'A super-expert canoe-maker made this sky canoe.  His canoe-making ability far exceeds our own because this canoe is not restricted to the river.  It obviously can fly over the treetops and can go anywhere the guy steering it wants it to go.  It is also much faster--look how fast it whizzed by as it was taking off.  And no one has to paddle!  It has a strange 'paddle' on the front that spins!' ... and so on ... They make this proposal -- 'B' -- because of their own experience -- which is an Inference to the Best Explanation that they can think of that compares to this new phenomenon. LOGIC:  Now if B were true, then A would be a matter of course. CONCLUSION:  There is reason to suspect that 'B' is true.  Are there other conclusions one could draw?  Yes, but they would not be better explanations based upon the evidence of their own experience and thus would not be scientific.  The Best Explanation for the natives is that stated above and so they make the Inference and are scientifically justified in making it. Now here's the fun part ... notice that the two Proposals made by the two Classes of people are QUITE SIMILAR.  My dad's 'B' was 'Cessna did it'.  The natives 'B' was 'A super-expert canoe-maker did it.'  Both drew from their experience.  And both made logically sound proposals to explain the phenomenon.  My dad's is more refined because he has had the privelege of more data.  But the native could also gain access to this same data if he put forth some effort, i.e. learn English, read some books on airplanes, travel to America and observe more airplanes, etc.  My point is that the objection of 'You are just making proposals from you own experience so this invalidates your proposal' is not a valid objection.  In fact, we are REQUIRED to ONLY make proposals based upon our own experience because this is the THE ESSENCE OF SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY.  At least, that's what I think I am hearing from all of you ... correct me if I am wrong. Now someone will say, 'Come on, Dave.  Where all your evidence for this supposed 'Creator God. We are waiting!'  And some have also said, 'We've seen all the supposed YEC evidence and we don't buy it.'  I have already hinted about some of my evidence for Point 1 - There is a God ... namely, the Cosmic 'Fine-Tuning', biological 'machines' we observe and so on.  I will elaborate on these and many other evidences of my other points going forward.  But I think many of you do in fact already have part of your answer to the question "Where is the evidence?"  You have read Denton, Behe, Dembski and YEC writers. I think the REALLY NEW THING that I am presenting to you is not necessarily new evidence, but a NEW WAY OF DRAWING CONCLUSIONS FROM THE EVIDENCE, which I actually believe you put into practice every day in your scientific and other endeavors, but which you may not have thought to put into practice into the Origins question. And I admit, that my framework may need some tweaking ... maybe you can help me with that.  But I think I am at least on the right track.  So these are my really BIG questions for you:  Is it possible that this is the case with you?  Is my approach outlined above unreasonable?  If so, why specifically?  Do you admit that you use this process regularly to support many 'hypotheses' about a plethora of 'phenomena'?  I welcome your comments on this. SOME MORE OBJECTIONS Quote Chris Hyland: ... 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. I think this is a terminology thing.  I will revise my terminology.  I will stop saying 'Evolutionists' and start saying 'Naturalistic Philosophers'.  Is that better? Quote Norm Doering: ... 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?  Actually yes.  You'll notice from the discussion above that I am doing EXACTLY what you say I should do, i.e. "To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure;"  Namely, I am trying to explain the origin of natural phenomena (unknown), with propositions from my own experience (known). Quote 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? Answer is YES.  I do not practice 'religion' (whoa ... there's a shocker that I will have to explain separately no doubt) and I do not engage in wild speculation.  I have the mind of an engineer and a scientist.  I, like you, am a healthy skeptic. Quote Abductive Reasoning is supposed to lead to a hypothesis where deductive reasoning can apply. I would submit to you that Deductive Reasoning can apply to NOTHING in all of science or history in an absolute sense.  I am only aware of its application in mathematics.  I believe the structure that I have proposed is used constantly in every day scientific practice. Can you demonstrate why I am wrong here? Quote 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? Yes, I can see that.  Good call, referee!  I'll take the 'foul'! Quote The problem with your above statement is you've misread Meyer who is already lying to you. It may be true that Meyer is lying about certain things.  I have not investigated all his claims.  But Meyer has pointed out a logical framework to determining 'truth' (proposed by Peirce in the 30's) that appears to be in use by many scientists and historians today.  I have thought through this framework myself and am adopting my own version of it, and I think it is solid.  I honestly value your feedback on this, though. Quote Dave, why would you get on this site without knowing about logic and how to make a hypothesis and so on?  Shouldn't you study up a little before presenting your hypothesis? Good question.  I came here already armed with a significant amount of study, but I knew that I was missing one key ingredient ... actual dialog with a diverse group of Naturalistic Philosophers.  So what is really happening here (and this was one of my goals) is that you all are making some very good points to improve the presentation of my logic, help me select proper terminology so as not to make people mad, and understand the naturalistic perspective.  This is an incredibly valuable learning experience for me, which will help me immensely if I ever do get around to presenting information on a Grand Scale.  And of course there is the off chance that you guys' position may be correct, in which case I would be a fool NOT to adopt it. Quote To use your own terms, are you man enough to debate this honestly? Yes. Quote Ockham's Aftershave: "I can spin that kind of argument any way I want too.  I can hypothesize "A Super Intelligent, Incredibly Powerful Being could create all necessary physical laws in the first femtosecond of existence, then just sit back and observe the results.  Therefore when I observe scientific data that says the universe is 14 Billion years old, and the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old, and that life has existed on Earth for over 3 billion years, and that life has evolved over that time by observed processes such as random mutations plus natural selection, I have just verified my hypothesis." Yes, you could propose this, but the proposal would not be based upon your experience because we have never observed such a process, so it would not be the BEST explanation. Admittedly it's an explanation, just not the best one.  A BETTER explanation is something based in our own experience, such as a Super Intelligent Being DESIGNED this flagellum (or whatever), because this would be based upon our experience.  See discussion above. Quote Norm Doering:  It's about Danny Hillis who built the first massively parallel processing computer, the Connection Machine, and used it as a "proof" for a concept in Darwinian evolution. I will copy this to my thread "AF Dave wants you to prove evolution to him" and I will try to find time to show you over there why this DOES NOT provide proof of concept for Darwinian Evolution.  But you need to know that this will be lower priority to me because I really want to get away from "Evolution Bashing". Quote Why oh why does anything about god matter in even the slightest bit to humans? Heaven and #### are meaningless words in the context of eternity. They are quite meaningful when applied to how we feel while living but not once we're dead. So why is gOd important? He's only important IF HE (or it) is there.  If He is not, I agree ... who cares.  But I have strong suspicion that He is there and so I propose that see is, then make scientific observations to see if the proposal is supported.  If it is, then I make only a small step of 'Faith' by saying that I believe in God.  A step which I think takes LESS FAITH than the alternatives. Note that many people just basically pull this 'I believe in God' stuff out of thin air and I think they are rightly accused of practicing 'Blind Religious Faith.'   Now I will go ahead and stop here and post this, then begin presenting my EVIDENCE FOR POINT 1. See you in about an hour ... -------------- 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

Corkscrew Posts: 20 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,06:04    Quote YES, YES!! Thankyou!  A Thousand time YES!  This is precisely what you should do!  And while you are at it, put your Origins and Macro-Evolution Hypothesis in exactly the same format and go look for that evidence on the same trek! - Hypothesis: humans evolved from the same lineage as modern apes - Observation: the modern apes that are most physiologically similar to humans have 24 chromosomes per haploid - Observation: humans have 23 chromosomes per haploid - Conclusion: either humans have lost a chromosome or the other apes have all gained a chromosome - By application of parsimony: humans have lost a chromosome - Observation: chromosomes are generally "lost" by merging with another chromosome, as destruction of a chromosome's worth of genetic information is generally fatal - Conclusion: at some point in our ancestry, two human chromosomes merged - Prediction: one human chromosome will closely resemble two ape chromosomes merged together. This prediction was subsequently confirmed. I can present other instances of confirmed predictions if you like.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,06:12    Dave, if you're going to present evidence for the existence of God, you're kind of wasting your time. Many of the people here already believe that God exists, and most others, like me, who don't believe God exists, concede that the question is essentially unprovable either way. Most theologians seem to be of the opinion that trying to use physical evidence to prove the existence of God is at best futile and at worst blasphemous. Your really contentious claim is that the Bible is inerrant. Given the difficulty of that task, I really think you should concentrate your efforts there. -------------- 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

Corkscrew Posts: 20 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,06:14    Quote Now some will ask, "This is great, Dave, but can he PROVE that Cessna made the airplane?  Well, no.  Has he ever OBSERVED any aircraft factory building airplanes?  No again. However, it was still a valid hypothesis because it makes the falsifiable, verifiable prediction that, if he chose to go to the factory, he would see planes being made that were identical in style to his. Likewise, the conjecture that the aerodynamics book was accurate is falsifiable - he could go away and build a bunch of toy aircraft and compare their flight with the book's claims, for example. In general, the only time we take a statement on trust is when we can reasonably expect that it would have been falsified were it not true. Or when we have absolutely no other option. Abduction is rarely more than half the story, and in science it's generally not even that.

Pages: (202) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard