RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

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



Posts: 11084
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,13:04   

I bet it is hard finding a science textbook which doesn't include all the things creationists hate.

   
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,13:12   

Dave, you've decided to take the YEC position—that the earth is some thousands of years old—which is the hardest position imaginable to defend. For scientists, refuting YEC isn't like shooting fish in a barrel, it's like shooting a barrel full of nothing but fish.

But since you've decided to take this position, let me give you a homework assignment. As UnMark just pointed out, there is a mountain—no, a mountain range—no, a whole tectonic plate full of mountains—of evidence that the earth is billions of years old. This evidence is radiometric, geological, cosmological, quantum physical, paleontological…I could go on for hours.

So: if you want people on this site (some of whom have advanced degrees in applicable fields) to buy your argument that the Bible is inerrant and that the earth is some thousands of years old, you're going to have to construct a detailed, comprehensive, compelling argument that essentially all of that evidence is wrong. You'd probably have to prove that 90% or more of it is wrong, since the remaining 10% would probably be enough to close the case that the earth is billions of years old. And keep in mind that reference to scripture is going to get you exactly nowhere. If you can't find holes in the reasoning and/or methodology of the scientific evidence, you're doomed. I wouldn't bother with sites like AiG either, since the "science" there is laughable.

I'm afraid this particular assignment could take decades to complete, because most of the relevant fields are extremely complex and technical, and not something you could master in a semester, let alone a day or two. You might want to start with the astronomical data, because that's probably the easiest to master, but once you get tangled in the weeds of biology, paleontology, chemistry, and quantum physics, you probably won't be emerging for some time.

But think about what you're up against. You've got multiple lines of evidence from dozens of different scientific disciplines, and all that evidence converges on one value, within much less than an order of magnitude. You'd have to defeat virtually all of it to have a prayer of persuading most of the people posting to this site. I don't expect you to do it less than one lifetime, so it's a good thing you're still relatively young. I hope you're also relatively healthy.

And in case it doesn't go without saying: if you can't get over this hurdle, there's no point in even discussing any other "evidence" you might have, since without some way to make the earth a few thousand years old, the rest of your arguments are non-starters.

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

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,14:01   

Quote
Faid, don't be offended by my joke about starting your own "ministry" ... by the way, I do have your detailed questions from yesterday (?) saved and will answer them as I have time.


...Offended? *sigh* No, dave, I'm not offended. I'm sure you agree with me there's no reason to.

You can answer my questions in your own time... Proving the impossibility of Cain's wife is not among my priorities. :)
After all that we've told you, however, it's important to understand that we'll be discussing theological issues, not scientific ones.

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

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,14:21   

Quote (ericmurphy @ April 29 2006,18:12)
I'm afraid this particular assignment could take decades to complete, because most of the relevant fields are extremely complex and technical, and not something you could master in a semester, let alone a day or two.

And if you can't master those fields in a day or two, you might at least give these websites a look:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html

Lenny Flank has a site that I'd be happy to see you tear into:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/

  
orrg1



Posts: 4
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,14:24   

Dave says,

Quote
My BIG IDEA is that the USA is the most successful nation ever in the history of the planet precisely BECAUSE it was founded squarely upon a literal interpretation of by far the best, most accurate (scientifically and historically) and valuable collection of writings ever written--the Christian Scriptures.  For this reason, I am very politically involved, I make financial contributions to Christian activist organizations, and I am actively working to employ several strategies to ensure to continued dominance of the General Christian worldview throughout our government.  By the way, I'm full time now at non-profit activities such as this, so I'm really starting to have fun.  Not to worry, though.  We're not planning on taking America back to medieval Europe when the supposedly Christian popes ruled like tyrants.  No ... my vision is simply to restore the Protestant Christian principles into all levels of government which have proven themselves to be so successful for making happy citizens and allowing all people to enjoy the freedom to practice whatever religion they choose:  Atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, Evolutionists and all other religions are all quite welcome in this country.  We Protestant Christians won't execute you if you don't want to practice Protestant Christianity.


Ok, I know to some extent that you are yanking our chains. You've definitely yanked mine, but I'll take the bait anyway. So you not only want to do away with all of science, you also want to do away with the Constitution. Thanks for the enlightened tolerance, but sorry though, those of us in the "reality-based" community aren't going to sit still and watch you and those of similar bent chuck away the First Amendment, relying instead on your oh so kind benevolence. You ain't gonna turn me into a dhimmi - go ahead and try. You know, if it wasn't for the fact that they pray to the "wrong" god, I'll bet you'd be happy as a clam in Iran.  There, they're practicing your great idea of integrating Church and State better than anywhere!

  
orrg1



Posts: 4
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,14:42   

And by the way, after hearing your "hypothesis" that the rest of the Universe was created by God for decoration, I guess, I've heard enough, thanks.

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,15:24   

Yes, God cares about us so much that he decorates our sky with not thousands but billions of galaxies for us to appreciate... although, one has to commit the ultimate sin of not making sure one's wife doesn't eat from the apple of knowledge, pass one's genes on in such a way as to survive a global flood punishing the entire planet, and accumulate knowledge long enough to build and launch the Hubble Telescope in order to do so!

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,15:33   

Quote (afdave @ April 29 2006,10:27)
My BIG IDEA is that the USA is the most successful nation ever in the history of the planet precisely BECAUSE it was founded squarely upon a literal interpretation of by far the best, most accurate (scientifically and historically) and valuable collection of writings ever written--the Christian Scriptures.

Read a little history, Dave. Egypt's civilization lasted for thousands of years; the U.S. has been in existence for barely two hundred years. Evidence of Egypt's greatness is still visible thousands of years after it ended; there might be nothing left two thousand years from now that showed the U.S. ever existed.

And what about China? Four thousand years of civilization? And you think the U.S. is successful…

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

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

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,16:50   

Quote
Ok, I know to some extent that you are yanking our chains.
No ... I'm really not yanking anyone's chain intentionally ... I actually believe what I have written (yes, I know ... ladies are fainting and men are shaking their heads), but I would be glad to believe what you believe if I could be convinced of it by sound arguments ...

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

  
dhogaza



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,17:47   

Quote
Dave, you've decided to take the YEC position—that the earth is some thousands of years old—which is the hardest position imaginable to defend. For scientists, refuting YEC isn't like shooting fish in a barrel, it's like shooting a barrel full of nothing but fish.

Well, our life-blood should tell us that refuting YEC is like shooting a barrel full of crud oil ...

Oil being the primary foundation upon which our country's well-being rests.

  
Aardvark



Posts: 134
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,18:11   

Quote (afdave @ April 29 2006,21:50)
No ... I'm really not yanking anyone's chain intentionally ... I actually believe what I have written (yes, I know ... ladies are fainting and men are shaking their heads), but I would be glad to believe what you believe if I could be convinced of it by sound arguments ...


Is there a $250,000 prize up for grabs by any chance?

  
Joe the Ordinary Guy



Posts: 18
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,18:23   

Dave, you’ve mentioned a couple of times now that these egghead intellectuals should come down off their high horses and speak plain English to you and your fellow salt-of-the-earth types. So I thought I’d give it a try; I’m a professional communicator (a business video writer/producer) so maybe I can pull it off.

I’ll use analogy, that is, a story, to make my point. A parable, if you will. You can deal with that, right?

THE STORY:

Once there was an auto mechanic. He was a good auto mechanic; if your car had trouble, you could bring it to him and he would fix it. He was very experienced; he had fixed many different kinds of cars over the years. He was also kind and generous to interested youth, and would teach them what he knew, if they wanted to learn.

One day a baker moved into the town where the auto mechanic worked. The baker was a good baker, and had a reputation as such. The baker came to the auto mechanic and said, “I would like to work with you, for I am an auto mechanic, too.” The auto mechanic was surprised to hear this, and said, “Well, here is a broken car. Show me what you know about car repair.” The baker proceeded to mix eggs, flour, sugar and some other ingredients together, and made a nice cake. The baker showed the cake to the auto mechanic and said, “See, the car is fixed.”

The auto mechanic was surprised by this claim, and pointed out that the car was still broken.

To which the baker replied, “No, it is not. It is completely fixed. I have used a different method of repairing the car than you use. You are stuck in the past and cannot see your narrow view of car repair. My method is better than yours, because it’s cleaner and produces a tastier result. You must abandon your method of car repair and adopt mine.”

The auto mechanic was somewhat taken aback by this. Was the baker insane? Should the auto mechanic call the police? He thanked the baker for his time, but explained that he did not need any new help just now.

The baker became angry and said, “If you do not let me fix cars with you, using my methods, I will tell the people that you beat your wife, abuse various drugs and molest the youth you claim to be teaching.”

The auto mechanic grew angry and threw the baker out. The baker went to the people and said, “The auto mechanic has lied to you. He claims to fix your cars, but he beats his wife, abuses various drugs and molests the youth he claims to be teaching. I have a better way to fix your cars, here, have a piece.”

The people tried some of the cake and found it tasty. They said, “Hey, this is not bad. What’s that you say about the auto mechanic beating his wife? Isn’t he unmarried? And what does it have to do with this cake?”

The baker replied, “There’s lots more cake where that came from, but first, you must help me evict the auto mechanic from his building, so I can set up shop there.”

So the baker led the crowd, bearing torches, to the auto mechanic’s shop. The auto mechanic went out to meet them and said, “Hello, people. Do you have car trouble that you wish me to repair?”

But the people said, “Let the baker work with you!”

The auto mechanic was stunned by this response, and said to the people, “This baker does not know how to fix your cars, so if you bring him a broken car, he won’t be able to fix it.”

The people thought about this for a bit, and said, “Oh. Well, then, nevermind.”

The very next day the baker returned to the auto mechanic and said, “Well, at the very least you must have flour, milk and sugar on your tool bench. If you don’t do this, I will tell the people that you snore at night and pick your nose.”

And the auto mechanic said to himself, “Why me, Lord?”

THE END

Get it, Dave? The auto mechanic represents Scientists, and the baker represents Creationists. The Scientists were minding their own business, doing useful work, when the Creationists came in, knowing nothing of science, and demanding to be taken seriously.  The Scientists threw them out, thinking something like, “Idiots”, but the Creationists went out and spread lies and whipped up negative PR against the Scientists.

I submit that if something comparable had happened to YOU in YOUR professional life, your reaction would have been very similar to that of the Scientists.

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,18:25   

Quote (afdave @ April 29 2006,21:50)
I would be glad to believe what you believe if I could be convinced of it by sound arguments ...

Whoever instructed you in what a sound argument is lied to you. Please explain what you think a sound argument is.

Remember when Aureola Nominee said: "The real fun is to watch the efforts required to derive some predictions from such hypotheses, in consideration of the fact that a claim that A => B is equivalent to a claim that ~B => ~A."

That was back on this thread:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archive....omments

What Aureola was talking about was the most basic principle of a sound argument and you said about that:
"Aureola— The reason why Creationists are winning the public over is because the only people that actually understand your A>=B stuff and Bayesian logic, etc. is YOUR OWN KIND..."

That's an admission on your part that you don't know what a sound argument is. Aureola was telling you what was needed to make a sound argument.

A => B is read "A therefore B." In order for that to be sound and meaningful it must also imply "not B therefore not A." Anything else is a non sequitur and does not logically follow.

It's the first rule of  making a sound argument and you can't do it or see it.

  
stephenWells



Posts: 127
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,18:41   

Quote (afdave @ April 29 2006,16:48)
I have also studied the different sections of Genesis and, as you can probably guess, have a different theory than you which I believe has excellent support.

Does your "different theory" say that animals were created after man, as it says in genesis 2, or before man, as it says in Genesis 1? One or the other.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,18:53   

Quote (afdave @ April 29 2006,21:50)
I actually believe what I have written (yes, I know ... ladies are fainting and men are shaking their heads), but I would be glad to believe what you believe if I could be convinced of it by sound arguments ...

Dave, the reason you can't be "convinced" by "sound arguments" (aside from your own unwillingness to give up your beliefs) is because you haven't the training to understand the arguments in the first place.

You can't just come in and expect to understand, e.g., the paleontological arguments supporting an earth of billions of years old without understanding anything about paleontology or comparative anatomy. Nor can you understand the radiometric evidence without understanding nuclear physics.

You say you're trained as an engineer. Do you suppose that equips you to understand evidence from the field of genetics? I submit that it does not. You have several choices here: you can accept the sound judgment of people who actually do have the expertise to evaluate the evidence; you can spend years if not decades developing the expertise yourself; or you can simply ignore the evidence because it's just too hard to understand, and go on believing whatever you want to believe.

But don't claim you find arguments unpersuasive when you cannot understand the arguments in the first place. That would be like me claiming I don't believe the evidence supporting position/momentum complementarity without learning anything about quantum physics.

Life is complicated. Science is complicated and difficult to understand. This has nothing to do with the "arrogance" or "condescension" of the scientific community. These guys have devoted their lives to figuring out how the world works. You haven't devoted your life to it; what makes you think you're entitled to dismiss their efforts?

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

  
hehe



Posts: 59
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,21:32   

Note how Dave ran away from my points   ;)

  
hehe



Posts: 59
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,21:39   

> what makes you think you're entitled to dismiss their efforts?

The Root of all Evil  ;)

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2006,01:38   

afdave:  I would be glad to believe what you believe if I could be convinced of it by sound arguments ...

norm:  Whoever instructed you in what a sound argument is lied to you. Please explain what you think a sound argument is.

It's plainly obvious from a cursory reading of a handful of afdave posts that his definition of "sound argument" is "any argument which purports to demonstrate, however lamely and illogically, that which I have already decided I believe."  My question is, why give him the satisfaction of even responding to his crap, let alone participate in his delusion that he is engaging in debate?  The best face I can put on his blithering idiocy here is that although he could never convince anyone here of anything (both because his arguments are unsupportable and because he wouldn't know how to construct them properly if they were), he imagines himself as a lone soldier bravely pinning down a superior enemy force and keeping it from being effective elsewhere.  Why do you waste your time, and why do you give him the exposure?  And don't start with the "for the benefit of the lurkers" saw; there would be no lurkers if people weren't moving his drivel over here from PT and putting his name in lights at the top of discussion topics.  Just ignore him and he'll go away; as it is it looks like you're all hard at work trying to create the next Larry Fafarman.

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

  
Corkscrew



Posts: 20
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2006,02:09   

afdave: I think you've slightly misunderstood what constitutes a scientific prediction. A valid prediction must answer a yes-or-no question that isn't already known, but that we can go out and check.

For example, using the most up-to-date hypothesis of gravity I can calculate the position that an arbitrary heavenly body will be in at a later date. I can then go out with my telescope and verify or falsify that prediction. If I falsify it, that means that the hypothesis is dodgy.

The reason we use this definition is that any hypothesis that can give rise to this sort of prediction has the potential to increase our ability to manipulate the universe. For example, Einstein's quantum mechanical hypotheses allow us to predict how electrons will behave in semiconductors and thus let us build transistors. Faraday's electromagnetic hypotheses allow us to communicate at great distances. The various chemical hypotheses developed over the centuries allow us to produce materials that our ancestors wouldn't even think to dream of.

Looking at the statements you list as predictions, I can't see any that fulfil this criterion. In particular:

a) "sophisticated stuff exists" is not a prediction as the answer is already known. If you could find a way to anticipate the existence of specific sophisticated stuff that hadn't yet been discovered and that wouldn't be predicted to the same degree of specificity by naturalistic hypotheses, that would constitute a valid prediction.

b) "big, impressive stuff exists" is not a prediction for the same reason. Scientists will only listen if you actually tell them something they didn't know (that they can go out and confirm)

c) To the extent to which this is a prediction, it would also be one that's made by purely naturalistic explanations. In particular, it's notable that the societal behaviours that tend to be conserved across cultures are precisely those that are essential for the survival of a complex society. My experience is that any other "law" will inevitably come with its own little set of counterexamples.

d) Again, this doesn't predict anything that we don't already know. As an aside, I'd note that the same argument could be used to infer the existence of many Gods and other supernatural entities. What is your rationale for applying it solely to the idea of a unitary creator God?

e) Again, the "prediction" here is something that we already know to be true. Actually, we also have some fairly sophisticated ideas about why it's true - for example, out-of-body experiences appear to relate to the deactivation of a specific part of the brain.

f) Again, this doesn't predict; it merely explains. It adds absolutely nothing to the sum total of human knowledge, merely substituting a useless platitude ("Goddidit") for further serious investigation.

g) Again, this is something that we already know. Now, if a number of religious people had been predicting time dilation before its existence was uncovered, that would be a different matter entirely. To get an actual valid prediction going here, you'd need to predict the existence of a novel phenomenon that hasn't yet been observed, and then go out and confirm its existence. If you pull that off, you'll win a Nobel and I'll quite possibly become a Christian.

My background: I'm currently a maths student at Cambridge, UK. I've been an atheist for pretty much as long as I've given the issue any thought. That's probably my parents' fault, but I've done sufficient investigation of religious beliefs to satisfy myself that my position is probably right. The investigation consisted (in part) of 7 years attendance of a mostly-YEC Baptist youth club, where I was always the one who spent hours discussing theology with the leaders whilst all the Christian kids were playing football :p

  
secondclass



Posts: 9
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2006,09:06   

Quote (afdave @ April 29 2006,11:18)
Well Faid, as I said on another thread, there are many people coming over to the AIG position, many of them who earned PH.D's at secular universities and were also skeptics like yourself.  Maybe you should talk with them.

Can you point me to that thread?  Did you name names?

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2006,10:05   

Quote (afdave @ April 29 2006,16:48)
they help confirm my theory that the Christian Bible is inerrant

http://www.bidstrup.com/bible2.htm

A few more inerrancies to explain away.....

I particularly like the Easter ones..

When the sun was coming up (Matt. 28:1) while it was still dark (John 20:1), Mary Magdalene (John 20:1) or Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matt 28:1) or "the women" [note the plural] (Luke 24:1) went to the tomb. There was an earthquake, and an angel came down and rolled the stone away (Matt. 28:2) from the entrance of the tomb and sat on it, even though it had apparently already been rolled away when Mary Magdalene had got there (John 20:1, Mark 16:4, Luke 24:2). The reason for the visit was to anoint the body with spices (Mark 16:1, Luke 24:1) or just to look at the tomb (Matt. 28:1), take your pick.

When she or they, take your pick, arrived, she/they witnessed the earthquake and angel coming down from heaven (Matt. 28:1), or they walked into the tomb to discover a young man dressed in white sitting on the right (Mark 16:5) or two men in bright shining clothes (Luke 24:4), take your pick.

At this point, John says that Mary had run back to fetch Peter and another disciple. The other gospel writers make no mention of Mary taking leave of the tomb to go back and get any of the men at this point.

If/when she/they returned, the angel (Mark 15:6) or the angels (Luke 24:5) is/are quoted by the gospel writers as having said one of three things. Either "He is not here, he is raised, just as he said." (Matt. 28:6) or "He is not here, he has been raised." (Mark 15:6, Luke 24:6) or "Woman, why are you crying?" (John 20:13).

So the woman or women ran from the tomb to tell the disciples (Matt. 28:8) or they left, too terrified to say anything to anyone (Mark 16:8), take your pick.

Mary Magdalene saw Jesus appear to her and decided he'd been resurrected (John 20:14-18). Or the women, having left the tomb and thinking things over, were sure that Jesus' body had been stolen, so they tried to bribe the soldiers guarding the tomb to tell them where the body had been taken (Matt. 28:11-15).


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

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

  
UnMark



Posts: 97
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2006,11:14   

Biblical contradictions by category

It even quotes the verses instead of just listing them.  I don't think Dave will care - he's an adept at Doublethink.

Queue: Will the real Carol Clouser please stand up? :D

  
Eldin



Posts: 12
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2006,11:59   

Quote (afdave @ April 29 2006,10:27)

Quote
My BIG IDEA is that the USA is the most successful nation ever in the history of the planet precisely BECAUSE it was founded squarely upon a literal interpretation of by far the best, most accurate (scientifically and historically) and valuable collection of writings ever written--the Christian Scriptures.


Implications abound... not being an American but having read its constitution (which seems to be both strong and concise on one end but hopelessly outdated on the other... but let's talk about that), I can say your patently wrong about this though. The American constitution is strongly founded upon the French Enlightenment movement and has by extension got little to do with Religion. Anyone telling you otherwise has not got good eyes.

Quote
We're not planning on taking America back to medieval Europe when the supposedly Christian popes ruled like tyrants.


Lutherans weren't exactly saints either.

Quote
The Bible DOES in fact appear to be literally true, when one examines it honestly.

Having seen and read Greek, Latin and many modern versions of it (allegedly retranslated from Hebrew), everything except (alas) Hebrew I can say this is so untrue it is hurting my eyes. Genesis especially two different stories woven together, with a half hearted attempt to take out the most apparent contradictions. And it doesn't get much better from there...

Quote
He is correct in my view and I think I have done that in my predictions.

You're not making any.

Quote
Newton hypothesized that there was an Intelligent Creator and he made the prediction that because of this, we should expect to find order in the Universe.  He then set about to try to support his hypothesis and I would say he was successful, wouldn't you?


Please don't be smug when you're drawing wrong conclusions. Newton did prove a certain amount of order in the universe, even though ultimately he proved to be wrong about that, which you conveniently seem to forget. This does not entail in any way that an orderly universe is a divine. Any allusions to that can never be explained by empirical evidence, by definition.

Quote
"Science is not science if it even mentions the possibility of a 'god'" is just foolish.


Newton never invoked god as an empirical proof for his theories, he invoked him as inspiration. There's a not-so-subtle difference you seem to have overlooked. God CAN not be researched (I'm more hardline on this than other people, but hey). We can research the world and then say that God's work permeates everything so in effect we are seeking God, but the theory does not suffer from God's inclusion or exclusion. To illustrate: Newton's gravitational theory does not need god. However, it is perfectly possible that Newton had not made his claims were it not for his belief in God.

Theories aren't about the people writing them, they're about their content, and nowhere do Newton's theories require a god.

Quote
imagine for a minute IF THERE REALLY WAS a God as described in the Bible and there REALLY IS the possibility of Heaven and He11 and all those other things ... I think you at least have to admit that it's LOGICALLY possible that it's true.


Logically, everything is a possibility. Logics is only worth as much as its premisses. And threatening with #### (what's the deal with most people not wanting to write that out fully anyway?) is not a good way to make your point.

Quote
[in referrence to Evolution dogma] without any attempt at verification whatsoever?


I should stop right here and laugh at you now. If you are so closed minded that you ignore the positive MOUNTAINS of evidence in favour of Evolutionary theory and then accuse them of not trying... you deny the lifework of thousands of people around the work as simply not having existed? Even when it is readily available all around the web and in bookstores.

I take comfort in the fact that a sane god will dump you straight into the furnaces of ####. Lying is not taken kindly in most religions, and if it is in Christianity, then Jesus is at this very moment weeping in heaven. But since I answered this post for one reason and one reason only, I shall carry on for a last bit.

Quote
Unfortunately, humans are limited with a finite number of words and I am further limiting myself to a subset of all possible words called the English language.  Of course, I don't mean that God spoke the world into existence in the human sense of the word.  If you have a suggestion for a better way to propose that piece of my hypothesis, I am open to it.


You are now no longer insulting biologists, you are now insulting linguists. And I am a linguist.

English is a language that allows word compounds (ie. 'can you give me my workjacket?';) and though not as strong as other Germanic languages (Dutch, German Scandinavian languages, etc.) it is perfectly possible to create an infinitely long word that carries an infinitely large amount of data. That is the beauty of language, discrete infinity. Packing an infinite number of ways into an extremely efficient and most definitely finite starting set. Sure, the starting set could be infinite, but there's little use in that. You can express yourself equally well with a finite set of sounds. Everything after that can be infinite. Perhaps humans too can utter the word that brings into being a new galaxy, we may just not have found it yet.

Please do some real research before flaunting your ignorance around anywhere. And if you do flaunt your ignorance, don't pretend like you know. Jesus hates it when you do that.

  
Carol Clouser



Posts: 29
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2006,17:53   

Here I am Unmark.

Afdave's "explanation" of the Cain's wife issue is obviously incorrect, as anyone who knows the real (Hebrew) Bible will readily confirm. The Bible does not make the prohibition against incest contingent on deformed offspring. Incest is forbidden, period. And it makes no sense to postulate that God would organize his world in a manner that compelled violations of his own commandments.

The correct explanation is that the Hebrew Bible neither states nor implies that Adam was the first human being. During the sixth "era" (not day!;) the Bible tells us that God provided for the appearance of "humans" (Ha-adam, in Hebrew) not "Adams". When Adam appears, a sizeable population of human beings already existed. This also explains why Cain went about building a "city". There were enough folks around, just in his location, to populate a city!

Unmark, I don't comment on so called "new" testament issues, since it concerns me not in the least. I will leave that to Afdave.

One other important point here. Pay attention, Afdave. The so called "old" testament (OT) was created by Jews, for Jews, and is about Jews. We are flattered that, after many centuries of being the only people to cherish it, much of the world has fallen deeply in love with the document. But the text is OURS. We claim OWNERSHIP and EXPERTISE. We transmitted the oral tradition to go with it from generation to generation, until it was recorded (in the Talmud and Midrash). What Christians have done is hijack the text, mistranslate it, distort it, misunderstand it, add to it, and finally subtract from it. In the process they have made the OT look silly with a multitude of contradictions, none of which appear in the original. Unbelievable, but this is the historical truth, admitted to even by (knowledgeable) Christians.

So if you want real, honest and correct answers to issues pertaining to the OT, you need to consult the true experts and rightful owners. You know who they are. It is not Afdave and his ilk.

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2006,18:08   

afdave, I should point out that Carol is spelling-challenged, scientifically illiterate, prone to lying, deception and malice, and generally clueless about the Tanakh.

Other than that she's probably a fine person, but she's certainly an embarrassing faux scholar.

Ignore her.  We usually do.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2006,19:02   

Well ... I said I would respond on Monday, but this is too much fun!

I do have to apologize for one thing ... as you might guess, I was reading my "Good Book" and these posts this morning and I was reminded that we are supposed to treat others as we would like to be treated ...

OOPS!  Flubbed that one!  I shouldn't make catty remarks that make it sound like Evolutionists with a lot of education are arrogant and should "get off their high horses." Might be true.  But it's not nice to make snippy remarks about it.  Bad Dave!

OK.  Now that we got confession out of the way, let the real fun begin!

First, it is clear that you all and I are not yet on the same page as to the STRUCTURE for this debate, so I thought I'd clear things up a bit.  People have slammed my logic saying things about A=>B etc, and it is now clear to me that I did not specify clearly the framework for the debate in terms that YOU UNDERSTAND.  I need to clarify that my reasoning about my "Creator God Hypothesis" DOES NOT follow the Deductive framework.  I have stated prior to giving my hypothesis, that I cannot provide a watertight proof for God and I don't believe anyone can, so people are correct in saying that my hypothesis would fail using the deductive schema.  However, we CAN use Abductive Reasoning then draw an Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE), and as Meyer points out below, this gives us powerful support for believing that the "Creator God Hypothesis" may in fact be true.  So there is good news, O Seeker of Truth!  There is massive support for the existence of God and for the literal truth revealed in the Bible.  Stay with me through all 12 (13?) (14?) points and I will show it to you in terms you can understand!  (We are only on Point 1 right now, so relax, grab a drink, and stay awhile)

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

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

ABDUCTIVE REASONING
DATA: The surprising fact A is observed. (The finely tuned cosmos, biological machines, etc.)
LOGIC: But if B were true, then A would be a matter of course. (B is God and His written message, the Bible)
CONCLUSION: Hence, there is reason to suspect that B is
true.  

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

A note on the term 'PREDICTION':  I think the term 'Surprising Fact' might be less confusing than 'Prediction' because 'Prediction' is used with Deductive Logic. I will use this term going forward so as to hopefully not confuse anyone again.

I have to tell you a little secret which I hope at least establishes my honesty with you if nothing else--Prior to writing my hypothesis, I had no fancy name for my framework of reasoning.  If you'd have pinned me down, I would have told you it was the "Common Sense Framework" or some such thing.  Remember, I was first an Electrical Engineer, then an Air Force pilot, then a businessman.  I was never a logician by trade, but that does not mean I can't become one very quickly, especially when I see gross incompetence in the field.  What I really am is an ordinary guy with a pretty good brain for learning most anything who is sick and tired of what appears to me to be absolute nonsense being fed to us from the Evolution Dogmatists.  We can talk all day long about A=>B and Bayesian logic and all the rest, but the bottom line is, the "scientists" have lost their way when speculating about how life began and developed.  It's utter nonsense and I am glad that my "Common Sense Logic Framework" actually DOES have a fancy name, albeit I have to modify my terminology a little.  I was also pleased to see the article referred to above because it is now obvious to me that I am not the only one floating the "God Hypothesis" again.  I am apparently in very good company and the pace is accelerating.

As a side note, I cannot quite figure out why alot of people here gripe so much about the DI saying they don't want to talk about God -- I even had somebody warn me that if I blogged over there and mentioned God, they would send me away.  Meyer talks plenty about God in this article.  Can someone explain that one?


Quote
Imagine if Newton had said:
-I observe that things fall down
-I propose that it's God's Omnipresent Hand that pushes them down
-I predict that, if God's Omnipresent Hand exists, it will push things down everywhere in the world
-I examine the world
-I see that things fall down
-I conclude that my testable predictions have been confirmed, and God's Omnipresent Hand exists. Do you really think that, in that case, anyone would think of him today as anything more than a crackpot?

Yes, I do think we would consider him a crackpot if he had reasoned this way. I am not reasoning this way.  See discussion above.
Quote
then how on earth does this "prediction" derive from your hypothesis? (other that trying to explain what you already see, of course...

"Trying to explain what I already see" IS THE ONLY THING I am trying to do ... I think I confused you by not being clear on the structure of my argument.  See above.
Quote
Somebody said my assumption is that "It is impossible for such a Supernatural Being to exist unless that Being sends written messages."

Really?  Where did I assume that?  I think all I did was make a prediction that IF my God persona exists, we would expect there to be claims of written messages from Him.  Given the discussion above, we can modify this to say the we "see this SURPRISING FACT that there are many written messages claiming to be from 'God'"
Quote
In all of these cases, your observations do not provide confirming evidence for your predictions, because there are other well supported explanations requiring no Supreme Being. ... To confirm your hypothesis, you need other evidence that could be caused by rain only.

Does the clarification above help you?
Quote
Second:  With all due respects, trying to "prove" the existence of God by examining the physical world is a fool's errand.

Again, I cannot prove it ... but I can make an Inference to the Best Explanation from my observance of 'Surprising Facts.' (See above)
Quote
I also note the deep hypocracy - you all demand that we teach "both sides of the issue," but refuse to do so with your own children!

Oh ... I teach them both sides alright ... guess which one they pick when they are given the whole truth about Evolution! (like ALL kids should be given)
Quote
Dave, how do you explain away the mountains of radiometric datings that prove the earth is some 4.5 billion years old?

This is really easy ... your assumptions are wrong (long answer later in the proper sequence)
Quote
But think about what you're up against [defending YEC]. You've got multiple lines of evidence from dozens of different scientific disciplines, and all that evidence converges on one value, within much less than an order of magnitude.

I was told this kind of nonsense by some IT guys when I set out in my telecom business to "do what no one in the industry had ever done before" ... they told me I could never do it, but I did it anyway.  This task is easier because Evolutionists are on a sinking ship.  My hope is to just rescue a few honest ones who want to be rescued.
Quote
So you not only want to do away with all of science, you also want to do away with the Constitution.

Wow ... must have stayed at the bar too long if that's what he heard.
Quote
Read a little history, Dave. Egypt's civilization lasted for thousands of years; the U.S. has been in existence for barely two hundred years.

By success, I mean "people would actually WANT to live there because it's such a great country."  Which country would YOU rather live in?  Ancient Egypt or USA?
Quote
And what about China?

Yes.  I forgot ... All Americans are now beginning to wear traditional Chinese dress and hairstyle and we're binding our women's feet and going back to subsistence rice farming because we want to be like the great Chinese nation.  Yes. Right.

To "Joe-the-Ordinary-Guy" -- Thanks for the excellent parable ... but you got the characters wrong.  The 'Auto Mechanic' represents all the good scientists from Ockham to Newton.  Then came a whole slew of 'Bakers', also known as Hume, Kant, Darwin, Marx, Freud and others.  Now the Creationists are stepping in again to clean up the whole mess.

To Norm Doering -- Your's and Aureola's comments were actually helpful to me -- I did not realize that my "Common Sense Logic" had a fancy name and I am also quite pleased that my logic is sound even though I didn't know the fancy name.  I have been saying all along that if someone points out things that need changing, I will change them.  See above.  Thanks again!

And finally to Corkscrew -- I always enjoy your comments ... I would be interested to hear your response to my discussion of Abductive Logic above.

Quote
(what's the deal with most people not wanting to write that [he11] out fully anyway?)

Use 'ones' for the L's ... if you don't the blog software cendors you.

Thanks!

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

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2006,19:13   

Okay, Dave. Can you explain to me why the earth is only a few thousand years old, when every scrap of evidence available makes it quite clear that it is in fact billions of years old?

Doesn't take any logic to do that. All it takes is a demonstration that all that evidence is wrong.

Take your time, Dave. Your refutation of radiometric dating alone should take you a few decades to develop. And remember; some of the people who post here are experts in that particular field, so I don't think you'll be slipping anything by them.

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

  
UnMark



Posts: 97
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2006,20:16   

:02-->
Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,00:02)
Quote
I also note the deep hypocracy - you all demand that we teach "both sides of the issue," but refuse to do so with your own children!

Oh ... I teach them both sides alright ... guess which one they pick when they are given the whole truth about Evolution! (like ALL kids should be given)

If you're searching high and low for a science book that affirms your Storybook, then how is that the whole truth on science?
:02-->
Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,00:02)
Quote
Dave, how do you explain away the mountains of radiometric datings that prove the earth is some 4.5 billion years old?

This is really easy ... your assumptions are wrong (long answer later in the proper sequence)

It's only easy because you can't think.  Exactly which assumptions are wrong?  Enumerate them.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2006,21:08   

Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,00<!--emo&:0)
Quote
Dave, how do you explain away the mountains of radiometric datings that prove the earth is some 4.5 billion years old?

This is really easy ... your assumptions are wrong (long answer later in the proper sequence)

By the way, Dave—this is the first question to be answered in sequence, because unless you can answer it, the entire rest of your argument—all of it—dies.

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

  
Jay Ray



Posts: 92
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2006,21:26   

Quote
By success, I mean "people would actually WANT to live there because it's such a great country."  Which country would YOU rather live in?  Ancient Egypt or USA?


Speaking for myself, one of the biggest reasons I'd choose the USA over ancient Egypt is because Egypt was a theocracy.  Ostensibly, the USA is secular nation.  Sure, it grew out of western monotheism, but the founders saw the wisdom in making the government neutral to religion.  The boundary between neutrality and theocracy is becoming increasingly blurry in the USA, and my concern for the freedoms we enjoy grows in direct proportion.  Maybe ancient Egpyt won't look that bad in a few decades, relatively speaking.

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

Pages: (7) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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