RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

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



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,06:34   

AFDave's Creator God Hypothesis

I will use the general outline proposed by someone which shares the majority viewpoint on this blog--the 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank--so as not to be accused of "setting my own Creationist Rules for scientific endeavor."  Here's what Lenny said ...

1) Observe some aspect of the universe
2) Form a hypothesis that potentially explains what you have observed
3) Make testable predictions from that hypothesis
4) Make observations and experiments that can test those predictions
5) Modify your hypothesis until it is in accord with all observations and predictions

One thing to keep in mind ... I cannot "prove" the Biblical account of origins and that there is a Creator God any more than you can "prove" that all living things evolved from a common ancestor by random mutation and natural selection.  Neither of us were there to observe either one.  But we can both follow the outline above, then make a "faith" decision in both cases about what we think most reasonable to believe.

Another note ... I will only give my outline, then provide links to my support ... while I like to explain things in my own words and like others to also, someone correctly pointed out that limiting oneself to their own words only is not possible in scientific investigation.  The sources that I deem reliable are AIG, ICR and the TrueOrigins.org archive.  I see "Dr. Dino" being refuted alot on TalkOrigins and some of this may be well deserved.  I do not consider him and certain others to be a responsible spokesman for the Creationist viewpoint.  I also do not claim to be a professional geologist, biologist, genetecist or paleontologist.  I have a Bachelor's Degree in Electrical Engineering, flew supersonic jets in the Air Force and have successfully built and sold a telecommunications business which has allowed me to now pursue non-profit endeavors such as posting to this blog, among other things.  

If you want to see if what I look like (surely this guy must have an eye in the middle of his forehead and a severely red neck), check out my own blog site at airdave.blogspot.com.  I have only published a handful of articles, but I hope to become more active from this point forward ... come on over!

Are you ready?  Here we go ...

1) Observe some aspect of the universe
I make observation of Planet Earth and all of Life within it--that is, everything that has DNA

2) Form a hypothesis -- I don't want any criticism of my hypothesis -- according to the rules above, it can be anything I want it to be.  You can save your criticism for my evidence which purports to support it.

(a) There is a God -- My hypothesis is that there is a Super Intelligent, Incredibly Powerful Being -- I choose to call him God -- who has knowledge of scientific laws far more advanced than anything ever discovered by 21st Century humans.  These scientific laws are so powerful that this Being can literally "speak" material things into existence and destroy things with a simple command.  This Being lives "outside of time" and can view what we call "the future" and "the past" with equal ease.
(b) This God created the Cosmos as a specially designed whole, with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose.  This God created mankind with a choice of either doing his will or not doing his will, in a similar way as parents "create" babies knowing full well that their child will either do their will or not do their will.  Christian Theologians commonly call the choice of NOT doing God's will "sin."
© Mankind chose NOT to do God's will very early on (just as all young children choose not to do parents' will), thus prompting God to institute a system for persuading humans to admit their folly and begin doing His will, for "redeeming" humans who choose this path, and for reminding humans that the present physical world is only a "proving ground" or "training camp" for the next world which will be created at a definite point in the future.  These events are commonly called the Fall and the Curse by Christian Theologians.
(d) God allowed the choices of mankind to take their natural course for the most part, intervening in the affairs of men sporadically and briefly.  Most of the "day-to-day management" of Planet Earth was delegated to mankind himself, similar to how modern parents delegate the day-to-day management of their children to a school or a day care center.
(e) The natural result of collective disobedience to the revealed will of God was an extremely corrupt society--i.e. rampant dishonesty, injustice, murder, theft, etc.--which was terminated by God through the agency of a global, life-destroying flood--the Flood of Noah described in Genesis.  
(f) The Global Flood of Noah was an immense cataclysm of enormous tectonic, volcanic and hydraulic upheaval.  It completely reshaped the ante-diluvian world and resulted in massive, worldwide sedimentation and fossilization, mountain range uplift, sea basin lowering, and climate change.  The Flood was survived in a floating ark by 8 humans (four couples) and one or more pairs of terrestrial, air-breathing, genetically rich animals and birds. The diversity we see in the living world today is the result of subsequent geographic separation and isolation of species and natural selection.  
(g) Following the Global Flood, we hypothesize an Ice Age of undetermined duration brought on by the massive climate changes induced by the Flood.  It was during this time that the dinosaurs and many other species died out. Since the time of the Ice Age, the structure of the earth's crust and the climate which followed, has not changed appreciably, and uniformitarian principles may now be applied to geological studies.
(h) We hypothesize a supernatural intervention by God at the Tower of Babel which instantly created several new languages (we think on the order of 12 or so), whereas prior to this event, there was only one language.
(f) The record of these events (except the Ice Age) was dictated to selected individuals such as Adam and Seth and their descendants and carefully recorded on stone tablets, then passed down to successive generations.  Moses eventually received these stone tablets (or copies of them) and composed the book we now call Genesis by compiling these records into one written document.  He then composed his own written record of the events of his own lifetime, resulting in the complete Pentateuch.
(g) God personally dictated the events of the Creation week to the first man, Adam, but then assumed a less active role in the composition of the balance of Genesis and the balance of what is now commonly called the Christian Scriptures.  This role varied from active dictation in an audible voice to less obvious methods--we might call it "planting of thoughts" in the minds of the writers.  This collective process is commonly called the "Inspiration of Scripture" by Christian Theologians.
(h) Many cultures in geographically diverse locations around the world have legends which follow the general outline above.  The reason for the variance we find in the legends is that many of them are simply oral traditions passed down through the generations without the benefit of scrupulous copying of written records that the Christian Scriptures have enjoyed.  Since the Documentary Hypothesis (Graf-Wellhausen Theory) has now been thoroughly discredited, we have good reason to revert to the previously well established hypothesis that Genesis is NOT oral tradition, but rather it is a carefully copied written record of eye-witness accounts.
(i) The Christian Scriptures, i.e. the 66 books of what is commonly called the Holy Bible, are essentially the WRITTEN record of what this Super-Intelligent, Super-Powerful Creator God wanted mankind to know about Himself, His Creation, and His Plans for the Future.
(j) Jesus of Nazareth is the single most influential human being to ever walk Planet Earth.  Also, there are over 300 specific prophecies concerning a supposed "Messiah" figure throughout the Jewish Scriptures -- what Christians call the Old Testament.  These prophecies "just happen" to all converge in the life of one man of history--Jesus of Nazareth. We hypothesize that this Jesus of Nazareth was (and is) the Creator God in human form, just as he claimed to be.
(k) The Christian Scriptures consisting of the Jewish Scriptures plus what is commonly called the New Testament are the most basic and foundational collection of documents for all of mankind's activities on Planet Earth--from scientific endeavor to family activities to government structure.  They also are the only reliable source documents for knowing the future of Planet Earth and Mankind in relation to it.  As such, these Scriptures should be the basis and starting point for all human activities from individual behaviour to family operation to nation building and governance of human affairs to scientific endeavors and the arts.

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

Please remember ... this is MY HYPOTHESIS, and as such, I have only completed Steps (1) and (2) outlined at the first of this post.  Steps (3) - (5) are coming later.

And now ... let the games begin!  (And let the rotten tomatoes fly!;)

I welcome your comments!

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

  
stephenWells



Posts: 127
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,07:15   

Claiming this is "your hypothesis" is disingenuous; everything you claim here is standard young earth creationism.

Unfortunately, "your" hypothesis is already incompatible with known facts; example, strata sequences and fossil distributions are completely incompatible with catastrophism (global flood). Bear in mind that it's not so long since all scientists were creationists, and only a little longer than that since all astronomers were geocentrists. Ever wondered why everyone changed their opinions? It has a lot to do with evidence.

You use the analogy " Most of the "day-to-day management" of Planet Earth was delegated to mankind himself, similar to how modern parents delegate the day-to-day management of their children to a school or a day care center. " But you're already comparing human behaviour to that of children- e.g. disobedience to God's intentions; so that makes Earth a day car center being run by the children. Where's the adult supervision?

Also, who did Adam's children marry? And why is 98% of our genome shared with chimps?

In short, "your" account of YEC is no more convincing than any other account of YEC.

  
Shirley Knott



Posts: 148
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,07:17   

Utter rubbish.
You go wrong pretty much right from the start.
Any being who "speaks", any being which "causes to come into existence" or acts to "cause to go out of existence" cannot be 'outside of time', since speaking, causing, and acting are inherently and essentially temporal acts.
Thus, your proposed entity fails on consistency grounds.
You might as well define 'god' as a plane euclidean closed geometrical shape with 3 equal length sides which contains no angles.

Next...

hugs,
Shirley Knott

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,07:24   

Remember ... it's my Hypothesis and it can be anything I want ... the evidence to support it is coming later ...

Return hugs!

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

  
thurdl01



Posts: 99
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,07:26   

So you ask for our opinions ("I welcome your comments!") but then get to hide behind a shield of "it's only a hypothesis"?  Swanky get up.

  
bourgeois_rage



Posts: 117
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,07:27   

Quote
Where we differ is that I believe you have come to a conclusion from the evidence which is not as well supported as my conclusion is.  

I'll elaborate tomorrow morning as promised!  It's been fun!  See you then!


Yeah, we're all still waiting for that evidence.

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

   
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,07:30   

Assume there's a god
Assume everything we observe is the way it is because god wills it to be that way
Go observe something. Anything.
Was what we observed the way it is and no other way? Yes, it was
Therefore, there's a god.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,08:12   

Quote
I welcome your comments!
I have just one. This is one of those posts that illustrates my oft-stated position that it's impossible to tell the difference between a sincere creationist and a mischievous prankster.
If this is really meant seriously, I have just one question. Have you ever read an actual book* on the topic of evolution?

*(pop-up books don't count)

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,08:26   

Quote (Russell @ April 27 2006,13:12)
If this is really meant seriously, I have just one question. Have you ever read an actual book* on the topic of evolution?

*(pop-up books don't count)

I'm sure he has.  They have an excellent selection of them for sale at www.drdino.com.

--------------
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.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,08:43   

This is a hypothesis of what, exactly? That explains what, exactly? Does it, for example, explain the hierarchy problem in particle physics? Does it explain the number of dimensions, or the values of any physical constants, or the differences in mass of the various families of subatomic particles? Does it explain the chronological stratification of taxa in sediments? Does it proffer an alternative explanation for radiological data supporting currently-accepted figures for the age of the earth? Does it explain common descent with modification? Does it have anything to say about which came first, the enzyme or the DNA that codes for it?

Regardless of "evidence," I don't see where or how AFDave's "hypothesis" "explains" anything at all. It just seems like a random string of statements that are evidently assumed to be true, but I don't get what explanatory power they're supposed to have.

I guess if Dave's hypothesis shows anything, it's that you don't need to understand the scientific method to become an engineer, or to fly supersonic jets. I guess I'm not supposed to criticise Dave's hypothesis before I see the evidence to support it, if his hypothesis has no explanatory power to begin with, then what's the point of even looking at the supporting evidence?

And, just out of curiosity: where did Cain's and Abel's wives come from?

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

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,09:22   

Cain and Abel married chimps, of course. That explains why we share 98 percent of our DNA with them.

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,09:43   

Quote
Form a hypothesis -- I don't want any criticism of my hypothesis -- according to the rules above, it can be anything I want it to be.  You can save your criticism for my evidence which purports to support it.


Okay. It can be anything you want it to be, but by the same token, we are justified in rejecting it out of hand if it is epistemologically inferior to other hypotheses, which yours clearly is, based on parsimony and the logic of explanation.

When we say a hypothesis potentially explains a phenomenon, we say that it describes the phenomenon in terms of other phenomena that are well-understood, and simpler than the phenomenon we are purporting to explain. "God" is simply not an explanation. No testable predictions follow from 'an omnipotent being, who could have done anything at all, did this.' So, evidence aside, it's just a loser of a hypothesis.

Further, it completely abuses the principle of parsimony, which leads us to accept for consideration the hypothesis that asks us to make the fewest and the best supported assumptions. Yours assumes the existence of a being with 'the basic skill set' to construct an entire universe. A huge assumption that you can only support with the very same 'evidence' that you will use to support the hypothesis itself. Circular reasoning such as this will get you exactly nowhere.

Logic alone doesn't give us answers. It tells us where to look for them. Application of sound logic has served the sciences well, and that is why 'Godidit' is no longer allowed. Science ends where creationism begins, and tortured attemps such as this to pretend it's not so do exactly zero to advance anyone's knowledge or understanding. Quit wasting your time.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,09:54   

If Dave, or anyone else, is interested in a longer discussion of parsimony and creationist "explanations," check out Occam's Hammer.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,10:06   

[quote=afdave,April 27 2006,11:34][/quote]
OK, so, you "don't want any criticism of your hypothesis", but you "welcome our comments"? What do you want, praise?  ???

Anyway... I'll pretend this "hypothesis" is original, and I'll also respect the fact that the next steps are yet to come (I reeeally want to see those). For now, I'd just appreciate some clarifications:

Quote
These scientific laws are so powerful that this Being can literally "speak" material things into existence and destroy things with a simple command

What do you mean by "speak"? Does this entity have a need to use words? What are these words exactly? In your hypothesis, I mean. Does this entity even have a mouth, and if so, why? It obviously is in no need of food or breathing. And why do you refer to it as "He"? Does it have a gender, and if yes, why?
Quote
This God created the Cosmos as a specially designed whole, with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose.  This God created mankind with a choice of either doing his will or not doing his will, in a similar way as parents "create" babies knowing full well that their child will either do their will or not do their will.  Christian Theologians commonly call the choice of NOT doing God's will "sin."

Since your hypothesis delves into the "mind" of this entity, can you also explain the reasons it did this? For fun? Because it felt alone? Superiority complex, what? You may of course claim ignorance, but remember that your hypothesis already assumes full knowledge of the motives of this entity to create the universe- making humans. Isn't inconsistency to stop there?
Quote
Mankind chose NOT to do God's will very early on (just as all young children choose not to do parents' will), thus prompting God to institute a system for persuading humans to admit their folly and begin doing His will, for "redeeming" humans who choose this path, and for reminding humans that the present physical world is only a "proving ground" or "training camp" for the next world which will be created at a definite point in the future.

How did humans disobey this entity exactly? Did it apply some rules that were broken, and how important were they, for their breaking to have such a disastrous result?
And if, like you said, this entity lived "outside time", in the past and the future alike, shouldn't it know that mankind would disobey it in the first place, when it made them, and take steps to prevent this instead of resorting to turning the whole universe into a reforming institute later on? Or did it actually know all this beforehand, and this is just an elaborate game it plays with us?
Quote
The natural result of collective disobedience to the revealed will of God was an extremely corrupt society--i.e. rampant dishonesty, injustice, murder, theft, etc.--which was terminated by God through the agency of a global, life-destroying flood--the Flood of Noah described in Genesis.

Now, since this entity knew this was going to happen anyway (being outside time and all) WHY did it let humans (as the world's "managers") to take it that far? And if leaving humans on their own was important somehow, why didn't it leave it that way instead of destroying its whole creation to restart? Something it must have already known, from the beginning of time, of course. Is this some kind of strange game for this being?
Quote
The Global Flood of Noah was an immense cataclysm of enormous tectonic, volcanic and hydraulic upheaval.  It completely reshaped the ante-diluvian world and resulted in massive, worldwide sedimentation and fossilization, mountain range uplift, sea basin lowering, and climate change.  The Flood was survived in a floating ark by 8 humans (four couples) and one or more pairs of terrestrial, air-breathing, genetically rich animals and birds. The diversity we see in the living world today is the result of subsequent geographic separation and isolation of species and natural selection.  

Now, wasn't this being able to do practically anything? It did create the world, after all. If it wanted to get rid of all the bad fruit for some reason, why all the mess? Couldn't it simply zap all the bad guys to nonexistence, instead of destroying almost all its creation, and devising some copious and risky plan involving floating wood? Does your hypothesis justify, in any way, such an illogical action from an all-knowing, all- powerful being?
Quote
Following the Global Flood, we hypothesize an Ice Age of undetermined duration brought on by the massive climate changes induced by the Flood.  It was during this time that the dinosaurs and many other species died out. Since the time of the Ice Age, the structure of the earth's crust and the climate which followed, has not changed appreciably, and uniformitarian principles may now be applied to geological studies.

Everything you say here is in obvious disagreement with reality itself, but, like I said, these criticisms come with the later steps in your "theory", so I'll let it pass for now. Let's focus on your hypothesis:
Quote
We hypothesize a supernatural intervention by God at the Tower of Babel which instantly created several new languages (we think on the order of 12 or so), whereas prior to this event, there was only one language.

Hmm... Is there a proposed reason for this new trick of your entity? Was it getting bored? If it wanted people to speak differently, Wouldn't it make it so from the beginning? If it punished them for something they did, then, again, being all-knowing, wouldn't it know it would come to pass from the beginning and prevent it? Why wait for something it knows will happen, just to enforce a punishment? Is this entity a sadist?
Quote
Many cultures in geographically diverse locations around the world have legends which follow the general outline above.  The reason for the variance we find in the legends is that many of them are simply oral traditions passed down through the generations without the benefit of scrupulous copying of written records that the Christian Scriptures have enjoyed.  Since the Documentary Hypothesis (Graf-Wellhausen Theory) has now been thoroughly discredited, we have good reason to revert to the previously well established hypothesis that Genesis is NOT oral tradition, but rather it is a carefully copied written record of eye-witness accounts.

Saying that ancient jews had written documents when nations like the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Greeks, Minoans, Chinese etc did not is a gross inaccuracy... Ok, ok. just the hypothesis now, sorry. :)
Quote
We hypothesize that this Jesus of Nazareth was (and is) the Creator God in human form, just as he claimed to be.

Is this person the entity itself? The creator? Then, your hypothesis is suspiciously near some old Christian heresy I've heard of- Monophysitism. Anyway, why did this entity come to this world to die? What was gained? Or is this another game?


There are of course many other questions, like f.e. how many humans were first created, how many survived the flood, and how humanity came from all those.... This could go on... And frankly it's pointless. I know you can easily answer all these questions, afd. "God works in mysterious ways". "Who are we to read the Lord's mind"? "It is so because so it was written, and the writing is true because the writing says so". And you know, all those answers work well- with religious indoctrination.
But you see, when you try to twist your indoctrination to look like a scientific hypothesis, like you do now, you just can't wave all logical inconcistencies off and be done with it. You have to adress them. That's why "mysterious ways" is totally useless as a justification. So is "You'll burn in he11 heathen".



PS. Sorry, "You have my prayers" is no good either.

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

  
Reluctant Cannibal



Posts: 36
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,11:07   

Your hypothesis, afdave, is nothing more and nothing less than a restatement of the contemporary YEC  interpretation of the Bible, particularly the Old Testament. Clearly your adherence to these beliefs takes precedence over your observations of the world.

Please don't tell us that your religious beliefs did not come first in arriving at your conclusions. That would be dishonest.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,11:18   

Excellent questions ... I think I will be able to answer many of them without recourse to "God works in mysterious ways" type answers ...

Any more questions anyone?

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,11:31   

Quote (bourgeois_rage @ April 27 2006,12:27)
Quote
Where we differ is that I believe you have come to a conclusion from the evidence which is not as well supported as my conclusion is.  

I'll elaborate tomorrow morning as promised!  It's been fun!  See you then!


Yeah, we're all still waiting for that evidence.

Yup. AFDave will convince us all that Genesis is literally true, evolution never happened and that the Earth is 6,000 years old, when no one else could before. Yup.

Quote
If this is really meant seriously, I have just one question. Have you ever read an actual book* on the topic of evolution?

*(pop-up books don't count)


Does Jack Chick's Big Daddy count?

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

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,11:33   

Yes, why bother going through these motions? All they do is make reasonable people suspicious.

Why not just simply say "Here are my religious beliefs. I hold these beliefs to be Truth as I see it. The bible says it, I believe it, that settles it for me."

If you were to do this, I submit that everyone here would understand and accept this position. Maybe even respect it, at least in the way that Dawkins respects Kurt Wise's explicit admission that evidence can never be relevant to his beliefs.

That sort of position can be honest without the need to be rational. Beliefs such as yours cannot be BOTH honest and rational; attempting to pretend to rationality only undermines your honesty while adding nothing rational to your beliefs. Is this what you really want?

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,11:45   

Quote
Many cultures in geographically diverse locations around the world have legends which follow the general outline above.  The reason for the variance we find in the legends is that many of them are simply oral traditions passed down through the generations without the benefit of scrupulous copying of written records that the Christian Scriptures have enjoyed.  Since the Documentary Hypothesis (Graf-Wellhausen Theory) has now been thoroughly discredited, we have good reason to revert to the previously well established hypothesis that Genesis is NOT oral tradition, but rather it is a carefully copied written record of eye-witness accounts.


Wow. Just wow. Some people can convince themselves of anything they need to, can't they?

"We have good reason to revert to the previously well established hypothesis"... Um, no. It's not 'well-established'. It's not proven in any scholarly sense. Period.

Many Asian countries have written histories, both religious and secular, that are as old as Genesis, and yet bear absolutely no relation to anything in the Old Testament. Why do you assume they are wrong and the Old Testament is right?

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

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,11:46   

Quote
I'll elaborate tomorrow morning as promised!  It's been fun!  See you then!


Did he mean that in Genesis Time?

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

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

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

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,12:32   

No ... probably won't convince you, Arden, but there are others ... remember a guy named C.S. Lewis?  Probably more skeptical than you and he ended up as a Christian apologist ... ditto for Josh McDowell, Lee Stroebel and a host of others ...

Hmmm ... Arden Chatfield, the next great Christian apologist ... I like it!

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

  
steve_h



Posts: 533
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,12:52   

A Tenner (Sterling) says we never get (3)-(5). Possibly on account of us being too rude,  not deserving of the truth, or similar. (Max. 1 taker)

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,13:17   

Quote (afdave @ April 27 2006,17:32)
No ... probably won't convince you, Arden, but there are others ... remember a guy named C.S. Lewis?  Probably more skeptical than you and he ended up as a Christian apologist ... ditto for Josh McDowell, Lee Stroebel and a host of others ...

Hmmm ... Arden Chatfield, the next great Christian apologist ... I like it!

No offense, AFDave, and I honestly have nothing against you for being a Christian, but the basic fact is, you're trying to convince a bunch of well educated and well informed people with no evidence. You're presenting your beliefs as something that can be emperically proven, and they simply can't. If they could, others would have done so LONG ago. People don't believe in the Book of Genesis because it's scientifically proven -- they believe in it because they choose to.

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

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,14:10   

No, Arlen, there are mountains of evidence ... maybe not evidence to your liking ... but there is evidence alright, and my guess is you've probably seen alot of it already ...

But that's OK, I'll be giving it again ...

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,14:19   

Quote (afdave @ April 27 2006,19:10)
No, Arlen, there are mountains of evidence ... maybe not evidence to your liking ... but there is evidence alright, and my guess is you've probably seen alot of it already ...

But that's OK, I'll be giving it again ...

"God said so, it's in the Bible" is not 'evidence', Dave.

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

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,14:22   

Quote (afdave @ April 27 2006,19:10)
... but there is evidence alright, and my guess is you've probably seen alot of it already ...

But that's OK, I'll be giving it again ...

*sigh*

As strange as it may seem to you, afdave, I completely agree.
I'm sure there's not going to be a shred of "evidence" in your reasoning, that we haven't seen a bajillion times already.

But by all means, go on. Surprise me.


Oh, and I almost forgot:
Quote
I think I will be able to answer many of them without recourse to "God works in mysterious ways" type answers ...


Um, you're gonna have to answer all of them that way, Dave. This is supposed to be a scientific hypothesis, remember?

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

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,14:49   

Just a reminder AFDave:

What happens to an Air Force pilot who flies into a zero-zero fog at night, and every last one of his instruments (altimeter, air speed, artificial horizon, etc.) indicates the aircraft is in a rapidly descending spiral, but the pilot decides to ignore all that empirical scientific data and trust his inner balance that tells him he's flying straight and level?

Think about it.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
Michael Tuite



Posts: 12
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,15:23   

Hello afdave,
I don't anticipate that you'll get much traction here with the evidence you present and I can't imagine you expect to; nor, however, do I expect this will deter you. So, before the ritualized but necessary debunking begins, I do have a question for you that gets to your fundamental motivation: Why is it important to you that the bible be inerrant? Is it because if god is not the creator then he is not the redeemer and there may be no prospect of being reunited with your loved ones after death?

Thanks,
Michael

  
thurdl01



Posts: 99
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,15:29   

Quote (afdave @ April 27 2006,20:10)
No, Arlen, there are mountains of evidence ... maybe not evidence to your liking ... but there is evidence alright, and my guess is you've probably seen alot of it already ...

But that's OK, I'll be giving it again ...

We're waiting.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,16:37   

Quote
Remember ... it's my Hypothesis and it can be anything I want ... the evidence to support it is coming later ...
Dave, we don't have a probelm with there being a god. Please don't try to present evidence for a young earth or a global flood, it's not funny any more. That being said, if you believe the bible is the innerant word of god, and no evidence will change your mind, we will respect you for that.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

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

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

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

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

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

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

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

  
UnMark



Posts: 97
Joined: Mar. 2006

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

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

Tolerance != respect. . . .

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

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

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

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

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

The Daily Wingnut

   
bystander



Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

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

Quote

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


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

  
bourgeois_rage



Posts: 117
Joined: Mar. 2006

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

dave:

How can your hypothesis be falsified?

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

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

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

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

Some of us might. I won't.

   
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

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

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

   
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

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

AFDAVE'S CREATOR GOD HYPOTHESIS

TESTABLE PREDICTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS FOR POINT 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

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

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

Looks pretty ad hoc to me.

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

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

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

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

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

Hi AFDave

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

Think it through again and you’ll understand.

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

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the comments!

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

  
dhogaza



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2006

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

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

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


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

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

My hypothesis is as scientific and defensible as yours.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

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

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

Thanks for the comments!

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

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

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

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

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

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

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

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

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

  
steve_h



Posts: 533
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

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

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

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

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

The Daily Wingnut

   
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

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

afdave:

Like others have said, your logic basically consists of:

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

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

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


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

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

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

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

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is an introductory lesson in critical thinking for you:

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

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

Cheers!

Chris

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

  
Carol Clouser



Posts: 29
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

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

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

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

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

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

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

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

Oh my, wild assertions person meet wild assertions person.

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

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

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

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

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

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

  
The Wayward Hammer



Posts: 64
Joined: April 2006

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

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

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

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

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

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

  
steve_h



Posts: 533
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

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

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

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

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

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

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

  
steve_h



Posts: 533
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

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

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

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

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

  
steve_h



Posts: 533
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,15:44   

Quote
So, has anyone here come to believe in a 6,000 year old earth and accepted Jesus as their personal savior thanks to Afdave's devastating arguments?
I almost did, but then I didn't.

(Added quote)

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,17:06   

Quote
The real, original Bible, namely the Hebrew Bible, says nothing of the sort, EVEN IF INTERPRETED LITERALLY. You must have been reading some of those sloppy, inaccurate translations of the Hebrew Bible out there, such as the KJV.

I have about 5 different Bible versions, a good friend who is a Hebrew scholar, and my dad is a linguist who knows Hebrew and Greek ... does that count for anything?  Or am I still misguided?  You are actually jumping ahead to Points 9 and 10 I think ... I will get to that soon.  Do you have any comments on Point 1?
Quote
This is what he learned in fundy school

So is UT a fundy school now?  I graduated in '86 and it wasn't then ... hmmm ... maybe they changed ...

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

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,17:25   

Quote (afdave @ April 28 2006,22:06)
So is UT a fundy school now?

If you learned about "the Global Flood of Noah" at UT, then UT is a fundy school.

If you didn't learn about "the Global Flood of Noah" at UT, then you are a liar.

A rational person who actually understood logic could use that first premise to positively conclude that you are a liar.  Do you know why?

  
orrg1



Posts: 4
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,19:42   

afdave,

I'd have to believe by the effort that you've put into your hypothesis that you expected to have maybe a little more impact than you have. Maybe you could if you could bend your own mind a little and consider this.

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

My reply, which I've made previously elsewhere, is in the form of an image worth in my mind more than a thousand words - The Hubble Ultra Deep Field image. Now consider that the distance to the nearest star is about 2,400,000,000,000 miles. I can maybe get my mind around that number. The fastest spacecraft that we have ever launched would take about 10,000 years to travel that far at a velocity greater than 8 miles per second. Yet this distance is far below resolvability in this image, where essentially all of the big and little blips are not stars but galaxies. And this image is only a tiny slice of the entire universe, only 10,000 galaxies. The small angle view has been compared to "observing the universe through a straw". All this was done for God's "little creations?". According to the Bible the earth is the center of the universe, yet we can see that it has less significance in this impossibly vast realm of time and space than a single grain of sand does sitting in pile made up of all the sand from all the beaches in the world. Don't you think the authors of the Bible would have changed Genesis if they could have seen this image? Why did God invest so much effort into this tiny dust speck,  but now interacts with the material world more weakly than a neutrino?

You also say

Quote
we find this curious "Law of Right and Wrong" or "Law of Human Nature" at work in our every day experience.  If you examine it, you find that it is quite real and applies to all humans regardless of religious upbringing or lack thereof.  Lewis then argues that there necessarily has to be "Something Behind the Law" which caused it to be.


How about the fact that human beings have been interacting socially since before the dawn of agriculture? Tens if not hundreds of thousands of years?  This knowledge was ancient before the Bible was ever written. Morality in fact is the way that humans have learned to tame the violent side of their nature and live and work together in groups.

This argument is not academic. Science in the balance has eliminated a great deal of human suffering, and has permitted billions more souls to inhabit the planet than could ever have otherwise existed. In the name of religious authority and an overly literal view of the Bible, treatments that may at some point prevent untold further suffering are being blocked. Now you can comfort yourself thinking that those who suffer here will be compensated in the next life, so in the balance, it is all worth it. Unfortunately, some people piloting large planes at high speed into buildings on 9/11 thought exactly the same thing.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,20:51   

Hey AFDave,

I'm late getting to the party today.  The observation I will make has already been made, but since you didn't address it I will say it again.  Every single event you listed in your Part 1 was a  POSTdiction, not a PREdiction.

Stars with huge energy outputs were observed before you hypothesized "God would make big, powerful stars."

Altruistic behavior was observed before you hypothesized "God would create right and wrong behavior"

People heard voices in their head before you hypothesized "God will send messages to some people"

All you are doing is making some ad hoc rationalizations after the fact.  You are providing absolutely nada in the way of a testable hypothesis or supporting data.

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.

Can you see any flaw in that reasoning?

You're already flying into that fog bank and disregarding your instruments.  Still not too late to pull up and avoid the CFIT.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,02:32   

AF Dave Explains Cain's Wife

Many people ask the question, "If the the Book of Genesis is true, who did Cain marry?"

It's a very good question and there is a very good, scientific answer.  Before I do that, let me say thanks for stopping by and if you want to hear more, check for other "AFDave" articles on this blog or on my own blog (airdave.blogspot.com).  I spend more time here, though.

The short answer is that with no other information than what the Bible gives, we have to assume CAIN MARRIED ONE OF HIS SISTERS.

This raises some obvious questions like "Huh??" and "Yuk!" and "What about biological deformities?" and the like ...

My answer comes from (surprise!;) ... www.answersingenesis.com ... you can find the whole article here http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/cains_wife.asp, but I will extract some of it for you ...

Today, brothers and sisters (and half-brothers and half-sisters, etc.) are not permitted by law to marry because their children have an unacceptably high risk of being deformed. The more closely the parents are related, the more likely it is that any offspring will be deformed.

There is a very sound genetic reason for such laws that is easy to understand. Every person has two sets of genes that specify how a person is put together and functions. Each person inherits one gene of each pair from each parent. Unfortunately, genes today contain many mistakes, and these mistakes show up in a variety of ways. For instance, some people let their hair grow over their ears to hide the fact that one ear is lower than the other—or perhaps someone’s nose is not quite in the middle of his or her face, or someone’s jaw is a little out of shape—and so on. Let’s face it, the main reason we call each other normal is because of our common agreement to do so!

The more distantly related parents are, the more likely it is that they will have different mistakes in their genes. Children, inheriting one set of genes from each parent, are likely to end up with pairs of genes containing a maximum of one bad gene in each pair. The good gene tends to override the bad so that a deformity (a serious one, anyway) does not occur. Instead of having totally deformed ears, for instance, a person may only have crooked ones! (Overall, though, the human race is slowly degenerating as mistakes accumulate, generation after generation.)

However, the more closely related two people are, the more likely it is that they will have similar mistakes in their genes, since these have been inherited from the same parents. Therefore, a brother and a sister are more likely to have similar mistakes in their genes. A child of a union between such siblings could inherit the same bad gene on the same gene pair from both, resulting in two bad copies of the gene and serious defects.

However, Adam and Eve did not have accumulated genetic mistakes. When the first two people were created, they were physically perfect. Everything God made was ‘very good’ (Genesis 1:31), so their genes were perfect—no mistakes! But, when sin entered the world (because of Adam—Genesis 3:6ff, Romans 5:12), God cursed the world so that the perfect creation then began to degenerate, that is, suffer death and decay (Romans 8:22). Over thousands of years, this degeneration has produced all sorts of genetic mistakes in living things.

Cain was in the first generation of children ever born. He (as well as his brothers and sisters) would have received virtually no imperfect genes from Adam or Eve, since the effects of sin and the Curse would have been minimal to start with (it takes time for these copying errors to accumulate). In that situation, brother and sister could have married with God’s approval, without any potential to produce deformed offspring.

By the time of Moses (a few thousand years later), degenerative mistakes would have built up in the human race to such an extent that it was necessary for God to forbid brother-sister (and close relative) marriage (Leviticus 18–20).12 (Also, there were plenty of people on the Earth by now, and there was no reason for close relations to marry.)

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

  
hehe



Posts: 59
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,03:36   

Since it would be easy for "god" to create a partner for Cain, we should assume that there's nothing morally wrong with banging one's sister (or mother, or daughter) as long as deformed children are not born  :D

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,04:24   

Once again, dave: your answer (although it's not yours, you're just parroting every known attempt to explain this) is, like I said, quite adequate- for religion.
It is not, however, scientific.
In a scientific hypothesis, you cannot explain the flaws in your assumptions by making even wilder (and unsupportable) assumptions: that makes the whole hypothesis a joke. So, you may argue about a supposed "genetic perfection" that would make incest possible then (although, if I may add, Cain was born after your entity put a "curse" upon the world, furious that its children- what? Ate an apple it said not to? Sheesh) But there is simply no way to scientifically support that.
For the same reasons, I could explain how your selective reading of your inerrant book failed to see that Cain knew his wife after he fled to Nod, and also that he built a city for just him, his wife, and his son.
Then, of course, you'd check your sites and come back with the pre-cut answers: that Cain was already married, and "knew" here means "had sex" (although his wife was never mentioned before) -and also that the Hebrew word translated here as "city" actually means "small town" that could hold as little as 100 people (which makes you wonder why these people, obviously brothers of Cain, were exiled with him- and, BTW, why don't they tell us what the ancient Hebrew word translated as "knew" in the case of Cain's wife actually meant, too?)
You see, it's all pointless. Assumptions, assumptions, and then more assumptions to explain them- and, the more you make, the more impossible it is to relate them with observations of the real world.
As a logical excercise that helps you defend your religious dogma, all this works fine- and, in fact, that's how it was meant to be used.
As a scientific hypothesis, it totally sucks. Sorry.

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

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,04:39   

Quote (hehe @ April 29 2006,08:36)
Since it would be easy for "god" to create a partner for Cain, we should assume that there's nothing morally wrong with banging one's sister (or mother, or daughter) as long as deformed children are not born  :D

Yes, it seems that, in the universal and eternal moral codes this entity has set from the dawn of time, incest is just fine, as long as no offspring is produced nowadays.

Now it's my mind that whirls with implications...

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

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,04:41   

Dave, are you quite sure you understand what a 'hypothesis' consists of?  And what 'predictions' consist of?

Your predictions do not follow directly from your hypothesis; therefore they cannot be used to confirm your hypothesis.

This matter of logic needs to be settled before we go into the details of why you are wrong.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,04:44   

Quote
(a) A Super Intelligent Being would be expected to design highly sophisticated machines and systems.  So we would expect to find a vast number of wonderful innovations in the universe which at least appear to be designed.
Subjective statements like this are hardly scientific, in my opinion you don't even need a good knowledge of biology to see that nature does not look intelligently designed at all, incompetently designed, or at least designed by Rube Goldberg.

Quote
Our awe of the wonders of nature has increased exponentially. There are three absolute "must reads" on this topic--"Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" and "Nature's Destiny" both by Michael Denton.
I've read the first one. If that is a good example of the quailty of creationiist literature Ill give the others a pass thanks.



Quote
An Incredibly Powerful Being would be expected to build systems of mind-numbing size and power, such as a power generation system to supply power to all His innovative machines, maybe a lighting system so his creatures can see to navigate on the planet, perhaps a water supply and filtration system to provide clean water to His little creations, and so on.
If I was an incredibly powerful being I would create creatures that could see in the dark and survive without water.

Quote
Basically, the argument is that we find this curious "Law of Right and Wrong" or "Law of Human Nature" at work in our every day experience.  If you examine it, you find that it is quite real and applies to all humans regardless of religious upbringing or lack thereof.  Lewis then argues that there necessarily has to be "Something Behind the Law" which caused it to be.  I think he makes his point very well and I agree with him.  Come on, guys, I read Dawkins' stuff, so you can read Lewis' stuff ... let's be fair.
I read Narnia does that count, has Lewis written any science books, people read Dawkins because they want to learn about science, religion is not science. It could also be argued that certain behaivours may have been an evolutionary advantage.

Quote
If there is such a thing as a Being who can "speak" things into existence using advanced scientific principles which humans have not yet discovered
If I was God I would speak things into existence using supernatural principles.

As other people have pointed out you seem to have misunderstood what a prediction is. I imagine you are aware of the prediciton regarding the chromosome fusion in humans as compared to chimps. This was a prediction because we did not know the sequences or the mappings of chimp chromosomes. If we already had the sequences of chimp chromosomes 12 & 13 (Now 2A and 2B) we would already know how they matched up and it wouldn't be a prediction, it would be a retrodiction of a postdiction.

  
orrg1



Posts: 4
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,04:59   

Forgive me for a moment for descending into amateur philosophizing, but you may be repelled by the picture I describe in my previous post. Most creationists would take from my words that if this were reality, our Earth is nothing but an invisible speck, its inhabitants created by accident, leading lives devoid of hope or significance. Because of this, their actions have no meaning. Whether good or evil, they are ultimately unimportant in the whole scope of things.

But this is such an oversimplified, cartoonish view that it is completely incorrect. There is the important fact that we are a sentient life form, and have to date found no evidence of any others. Surely some exist, but they may be rare enough that given the vast distances between them, they might as well all be single creations. So effectively we alone may have the intelligence to probe the truths of our universe. To explore and learn more. This makes human life more precious than ever envisioned in the Bible, while at the same time our toehold in the universe is much more fragile than we have ever believed.

Our morality in this case is not handed down from an infinitely wise being, but the product of thousands upon thousands of years of cultural evolution. Sure, human civilization has been a history of warfare, enslavement, and subjugation, but underlying that, in people's day to day relations there was always empathy and altruism. A group who's every social interaction was defined by the law of the jungle surely could not form an agricultural society, and survive to pass on their violent ways. The moral area that we have evolved the least is in our interaction between rather than within groups. We still have a distinct tribal nature.  The United States is the greatest example on the planet of overcoming this legacy, but it is obvious that we still have far to go.  

So why bother? Simply for the reason that we always have bothered, so that our children, grandchildren, and generations yet untold may use our progress as a starting point, and far exceed it. There are still so many fascinating things to learn, and places to explore. The first step is that we need to learn to accommodate the ultimate number of people that will exist on Earth, without destabilizing the environment and making the planet uninhabitable by humans. At the same time, we need to avoid committing mass suicide (really mass murder by the few with the means) by use of nuclear and/or biological weapons. Then we need to learn how to set up self sufficient colonies on planets and moons in our solar system, so that our tenuous existence cannot be wiped out by a random asteroid, or to find some means to defend against them. Ultimately, we may be able to spread humanity to nearby stars, and at that point, you can't tell me "so what, what is it all for?" It is our distant descendents who will know the answer.

What scares me are not the unbelievers, but the true believers who think that the Earth is ours to exploit at our whim. That it is ok that nuclear proliferation is now rapidly picking up speed. So what, it can only hasten the Rapture, or the return of the Mahdi, when all of the "good" will be taken up into heaven. That there are some at high levels of power, or who are "super-empowering" themselves, as Tom Friedman says, that truly believe this, is what I worry about. If such people had been in charge during the Cuban Missile Crisis, you can read "Hiroshima" by John Hershey or look at Paul Fusco's online multimedia presentation on Chernobyl to get a small feel for what life would have been like.  I worry that our little spark of self-awareness, our intelligence that is strong enough to wrestle deep secrets from nature, that has come into being only after billions of years of development, will be snuffed out. There will be only eternal darkness in our corner of the galaxy, our lost race the victim of ancient superstitions.

Now you may say, wait a minute, won't it have been science who created the weapons of our own destruction?  Science is nothing more than the systematic pursuit of knowledge, and there is no good and bad knowledge. If we did not pursue knowledge, we would not be human. Yes, you may say it would have been better if we had sufficient knowledge to overcome our superstitions before we gained the knowledge enabling our self destruction, but this was not to be. It's in our hands now.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,05:27   

Hey Dave, here's another who thinks life on Earth has no "top of the heap".

Don't be surprised: There's actually quite a few of us- especially if you look into that "intelligent, educated segment of the culture".

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

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

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

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,05:27   

Thanks for all the good input ... I do enjoy posting on this site (as opposed to an ID or YEC site) precisely because most people here DO NOT agree with me ... I have yet to find one that does ... my thought is ... why put sugar into lemonade that's already sweet? I enjoy reading, thinking, writing and debating, and trying to persuade people to adopt the right ideas.  I love living in the USA because more than anything else, the USA is an IDEA for whom our founders risked everything.  At our capitol building in Missouri, it has a saying posted prominently something to the effect of "Ideas are Incredibly Powerful" and they are.  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.  Also, whether we like what is IN the Christian Scriptures or not, the fact is that skeptics have tried for centuries to  do precisely what some people on this blog are trying to do and they have failed.  The Bible DOES in fact appear to be literally true, when one examines it honestly.

Now to answer some objections ...

Occam's Aftershave ... first, you dodged my response to your first objection and now you are bringing up a second.  That's fine, but I would like to hear your answer to my first response.  To respond to your second ... the fact that we observed all these things you mention BEFORE I proposed my hypothesis means nothing.  Remember, we are hypothesizing about something we have never seen.  Someone on this thread said that "we have to explain the phenomenon (God) in terms of other phenomena that are well-understood, and simpler than the phenomenon we are purporting to explain."  He is correct in my view and I think I have done that in my predictions. Further, the Great Founders of Modern Science made many of their great discoveries by doing precisely what I have done in, for example, my Testable Prediction A.  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? Had he or others observed order in the universe BEFORE he made this prediction?  Of course, but this did not invalidate his hypothesis or his predictions.  Does this help?  One other thing to keep in mind as we proceed through my Hypothesis ... many modern scientists have basically "booted out" many previously well accepted "Rules for Science" and have erected some of their own rules.  I understand, they haven't booted everything ... I agree that modern scientists have and will continue to do extremely useful work ... I'm all for this ... my business, my health, my food ... many things have benefited from this process.  But this idea of "Science is not science if it even mentions the possibility of a 'god'" is just foolish.  Theology actually used to be called "The Queen of Sciences" in the Western world and I predict that it will soon go full circle and ascend the throne once more.  Michael Denton's fascinating conclusion to his book, "Nature's Destiny" makes this prediction.  Lastly, I invite you to do two things (a) go ahead and propose your own hypothesis and try to defend it as you have suggested and (b) 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.  This being said, why would anyone simply make statements like "Well, it can't be true" (I hear this alot here at PT) or the converse "It's in the Bible so it has to be true" (I'm accused of this some in spite of the fact that I don't say this) without any attempt at verification whatsoever?  Both statements seem like utter foolishness to me. To me, it is the Evolution Dogmatists that are flying in the fog bank and leading many unsuspecting young students to think like they do.  I am trying to lead those students into some clear air before it's too late.
Quote
Utter rubbish
Don't know how to respond unless you get more specific.
Quote
My Flood is nonsense
(even before seeing my evidence) Another quite original response similar to the one above--I'll show you plenty of evidence in good time -- Points 5 & 6 of my Hypothesis -- we're only on Point 1 right now
Quote
Cain's wife
A very common question and a good one ... I give my answer here ... http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;t=1956
Quote
"Speaks" is a temporal act
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.
Quote
Have I ever read a book on evolution?
Yes ... many of them.  How can I NOT?  They are EVERYWHERE!  I have to work real hard to find my kids some science books that DON'T have some form of the Evolution Religion worked in.  By the way ... I have trouble finding museums for my kids that don't preach "Evolution and Millions of Years" also, but that's about to change!  See this link ... http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/
Quote
Further, it completely abuses the principle of parsimony, which leads us to accept for consideration the hypothesis that asks us to make the fewest and the best supported assumptions.
I think I have observed this principle well ... how have I not?  Can you be specific?
Quote
Beliefs such as yours cannot be BOTH honest and rational; attempting to pretend to rationality only undermines your honesty while adding nothing rational to your beliefs. Is this what you really want?
If modern Dogmatists of the Evolution Religion are the ones setting the rules for what is rational and what is not, then, of course, it follows that they would think people like me are NOT rational or logical.  If however, we return to some of the Pre-Darwin principles of science which in my opinion have been WRONGLY booted out, then I think I would be considered to be both rational and logical.
Quote
I don't anticipate that you'll get much traction here with the evidence you present and I can't imagine you expect to; nor, however, do I expect this will deter you. So, before the ritualized but necessary debunking begins,
That's a very good description -- "Ritualized Debunking" -- it almost conjures up images from Dan Brown's novel of Sophie's grandfather and his secret ritual dance.  Obviously, that would be a stretch, but it interesting to watch some of the same "rituals" we saw in organized religion--the medieval Roman Catholic Church--being carried out today by another bastion of power--Acedemia.
Quote
Please don't try to present evidence for a young earth or a global flood, it's not funny any more.
I will soon, but you don't have to listen if you don't want to.
Quote
Why oh why does anything about god matter in even the slightest bit to humans?
Funny isn't it?  There were almost 500 responses to "The God Meter" thread on the main PT site.  People love to talk about God and I think I know why!  I would like to officially propose to the moderators of PT that they start many more "God" topics.
Quote
Looks pretty ad hoc to me.
 Wonderful.  How and why?
Quote
The Old Testament was passed down orally through generations. The four Gospels were all written long after the death of Jesus, differ in details.
No. THIS is the oral tradition that has now been thoroughly debunked.  Go read Josh McDowell's "Evidence That Demands a Verdict, vol 2" and his "New Evidence That Demands a Verdict" and Lee Strobel's "The Case For ..." books.  No one has ever found any JEDP documents and writing is now known to have occurred LONG before Moses, which was the basis for the Documentary Hypothesis in the first place.  Dan Brown is actually doing Christian apologists a HUGE favor by getting people to examine many of the lame assertions such as this which have been put forward by skeptics then debunked for centuries.
Quote
Also, how well does your hypothesis survive this test: if the various religious texts are indeed the Word of God, wouldn't we expect them to largely agree with each other?
No. We must critically examine each of them as they arise.  Many Christian apologists have done this through the centuries.  I'll try to give you some reading sources for this soon.
Quote
If I were creating a hypothesis about how the universe came to exist, the last thing I would predict would be personal greeting cards from its creator to individual humans.
 Really?  Why not?  Can you imagine you and your wife (or husband) having some kids, then giving them some greeting cards at Christmas and at Birthdays?
Quote
Most engineers I know try to design simple systems.
 Really?  So you think an Boeing 777 is simple?  Is the Space Shuttle simple?  How about a Pentium chip?  Simple?  Hmmmm ... don't follow you there ...  
Quote
Would an all-powerful entity, that made an entire universe for one species, waste so much space and energy for nothing? If the sun is an amazing power plant created for us alone, why are there so many others (billionz and billionz of them, as that late evil atheist would say), larger and more efficient, that burn in vain?
 I would not say they are all in vain.  For example, I think all those stars and galaxies are beautiful, don't you?  Is it in vain that my wife likes to decorate my house with pretty things?
Quote
Also, where do you see this sense of "right and wrong" in the universe outside ourselves? Where exactly are these "laws" written in the universe? in the stars? the earth? where?
Good question.  Others had this question also.  I will do a separate post with some explanation of this.  Look for "AF Dave Explains CS Lewis' Morality Laws" soon.
Quote
afdave, I'd say you'd have more fun posting on umcommon descent where people who think like you tend to gravitate
See my "Sugar in Lemonade" remark above.
Quote
Oh and I have read Lewis, he doesn't bring anything new to the table either.  If you have read one Christian apologist you have read them all.  They all play by a different set of "logic" rules, make stuff up as they go along, make extreemly subjective and unproveable claims, all of which kills any chance of a meaningful discussion.
Yes.  They play by rules that we "underlings" with smaller, less-evolved brains can actually understand.  Sometimes modern "intellectual elites" speak in such erudite terms that I sometimes wonder if THEY UNDERSTAND THEIR OWN STATEMENTS THEMSELVES!
Quote
Here is an introductory lesson in critical thinking for you: 1) The fact that many people make the same claim, and have done so for a very long time, is not evidence that their claims are true.  An idea's popularity is not an indication of its validity.
Did I say that my hypothesis is valid because it's popular?  Where did I say that?
Quote
Oh my, wild assertions person meet wild assertions person.
You'd think I was hypothesizing that the moon was made of green cheese.  These aren't wild assertions.  There's a lot of reasonable people (many of them got their PH.D's in secular universities, then rejected Evolutionism because it didn't make any sense to them) who not only have put forward these same assertions, but they have arrived at them independently from their own research.
Quote
Don't you think the authors of the Bible would have changed Genesis if they could have seen this image?
No.  The idea that early humans were somehow dumb and didn't know anything about science is an invention of modern skeptics.  There is now all kinds of good evidence that there was a vast amount of scientific understanding back to 3000BC and before.
Quote
Why did God invest so much effort into this tiny dust speck,  but now interacts with the material world more weakly than a neutrino?
Why would you and your spouse invest so much time and effort into having a tiny baby who screams and yells and totally rearranges your life? One word.  LOVE.  I could give you the Bible verse if you like, but if you are anything like Arlen Chatfield, you probably know it already.
Quote
In the name of religious authority and an overly literal view of the Bible, treatments that may at some point prevent untold further suffering are being blocked.
Can you elaborate?

OK ... fire away again!

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

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,06:18   

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.  And if this does not convince you, maybe you should set up your own "Ministry" to convince people of you and your fellow skeptics beliefs.  Maybe you could get invitations to churches if you were convincing enough.  Rent a sports stadium and have big conferences and promote your view in a big way!  This is America ... go for it!

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

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,06:23   

Dave, what we've patiently explained to you is that you cannot propose a "scientific" hypothesis where the very observations you try to explain are also used as testable predictions. Your, quite lengthy, reply, basically boils down to "Nuh-huh".

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?

I'm afraid I can't put it in a plainer way. Your arguments belong in theology, not science. You may try to display some honesty yourself and admit that, before you start implying that we are not "honest" when we read the bible and fail to see how it's literally true.

At least, please try and do some reading on the scientific method, to understand what it is. That's not much to ask...

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

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,06:40   

Also, regarding your response to me... Here's something that might help you understand why all this you've been saying is not science:

If the "prediction" from your "hypothesis" is that "God would create a unique and mostly efficient power plant just for us", how is that verified in a Universe of billions of galaxies?

If the prediction actually is "God would create a unique, special power plant just for us... and then, create a bajillion larger, more efficient and durable ones just because they're pretty", then how on earth does this "prediction" derive from your hypothesis? (other that trying to explain what you already see, of course... :) )






...You had "mysterious ways" at the tip of your tongue just now, dint'ya?  ;)

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

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

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

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,06:55   

I don't want to waste too much time on this nonsense, but I'll dismantle one of your predictions on the incredibly off chance it will help you.

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


Let's look at just ONE major assumptions this involves:

It is impossible for such a Supernatural Being to exist unless that Being sends written messages.

Now, does this actually make sense to you?

--------------
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.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,07:01   

Hi AFDave,

Quote
... first, you dodged my response to your first objection and now you are bringing up a second.  That's fine, but I would like to hear your answer to my first response.  To respond to your second ... the fact that we observed all these things you mention BEFORE I proposed my hypothesis means nothing.  


My objection WAS my answer to your first response.  You can name 10,000 observations after the fact, but none of those observations are predictions that logically follow from your hypothesis.

"A God with a sense of esthetics would make a beautiful blue sky.  WOW!  Look at that, the sky is blue!"

Why not green, or purple?  If the sky was green, you'd claim it as evidence for God too, wouldn't you?

"A God with a sense of humor would create a group of goofballs that choose to be willfully ignorant of 150+ years of verified and cross-correlating scientific evidence!"

OK, you got me on that one :D

Then there's always the flip side that you avoid

"A kind, loving God would protect and nurture his children." Gee, there's ebola, and cancer, and tsunamis in the Pacific that kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Oops.

And speaking of dodging responses, I asked you

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.

Can you see any flaw in that reasoning?


Well?

A couple of final point (for today)

First:  You were fairly warned that if you try to BS your way through the technical details of the sciences involved in discussing the ToE, or a 6000 year old Earth, etc. you are going to get your ass handed to you on a plate, and you most deservedly will.  Getting your scientific understanding from a Christian Apologetic site like AIG is like trying to understand a hundred years of aircraft history and design by reading Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.  If you are serious about understanding, you must go to the primary scientific literature (many scientific papers are available at PubMed), or at a minimum sites that reference the primary scientific literature.  There are many good "neutral" sites on the web, like the U.C. Berkeley Museum of Paleontology, for example.

Second:  With all due respects, trying to "prove" the existence of God by examining the physical world is a fool's errand.  Religion is a matter of individual faith, and trying to "prove" that your particular flavor of religion is the only *correct* is not only foolhardy, it's an insult to the intelligence of people who have already formed their own individual ideas based on knowledge that you lack.

Have a good weekend, chat more soon.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,07:12   

Why so jumpy alluva sudden? What happened to your thick skin?

Quote
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.

Maybe I should... But now I'm talking with you.
Quote
And if this does not convince you

A stand-alone Argumentum ad Verecundiam (especially a highly disputable one) never convinces me.
Quote
maybe you should set up your own "Ministry" to convince people of you and your fellow skeptics beliefs.

Indoctrination is not my thing, thanks.
Quote
Maybe you could get invitations to churches if you were convincing enough.  Rent a sports stadium and have big conferences and promote your view in a big way!  This is America ... go for it!


...

...Um, you are aware that you're babbling now, right? Relax, man. Like I said, I have no problem with you using all these arguments to defend your dogma in theological discussions. That's why they were made. Just don't try to pass it off as science. That's all I'm saying.

--------------
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 2006,07:52   

Quote (improvius @ April 29 2006,11:55)
I don't want to waste too much time on this nonsense, but I'll dismantle one of your predictions on the incredibly off chance it will help you.

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


Let's look at just ONE major assumptions this involves:

It is impossible for such a Supernatural Being to exist unless that Being sends written messages.

Now, does this actually make sense to you?

And what about the fact that the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Koran to name a few, don't agree with each other?

Can't God keep his story straight? Why does he tell people different stories and watch them kill each other over who has the true one?

If he wants us to know what he thinks, why didn't he write it in the sky with Adam's language? Or every human language? Why do his words have to be transcribed by human hands. Are we to believe that he can kill every first born in  Egypt and turn  Lot's wife into salt but he can't write a message in the sky?

  
dhogaza



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,09:46   

Quote
When the first two people were created, they were physically perfect.

I could swear that I read somewhere that Adam was missing a rib ...

  
stephenWells



Posts: 127
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,09:58   

Here's a neat prediction based on evolutionary theory:

Land vertebrates are descended from sea vertebrates.
The transition occured in the late Devonian (appearance of first amphibians in the fossil record).
Transitional forms would be fish-like creatures living in shallow water, whose fins have weight-bearing adaptations (e.g. digits).
Therefore, if we look in rocks that were laid down in the late Devonian from shallow-water (river delta) sediments, we should find transitional forms.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Tiktaalik.

Now, what does AFDave's "hypothesis" have to say on the subject?
If this creator God known how to make land creatures, sea creatures, and amphibians, each according to their kind, then no transitional form should exist.
Tiktaalik exists.
Dave's hypothesis is falsified.

Go, and sin no more :)

  
stephenWells



Posts: 127
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,10:11   

Since the book of Genesis is not true, the question is entirely moot.

AFDave, haven't you noticed, that Genesis 2 4:25 is a different creation story, which contradicts the one in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 1:3? In Genesis 1, God creates all the animals ( verses 24-25 ) and then creates man and woman (vv 26-27). In Genesis 2, God creates a man (v 7), then creates all the animals afterwards (18-20) and finally creates a woman from the man's rib (21-22).

So Dave, did God create the animals before or after man? Have fun trying to explain that one :)

Keywords: P-document, J-document.

BTW Dave, have you read the Epic of Gilgamesh? Or the Eddas? There are other fun myths out there as well, you don't have to stick to just one.

  
hehe



Posts: 59
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,11:16   

Quote
Yes, it seems that, in the universal and eternal moral codes this entity has set from the dawn of time, incest is just fine, as long as no offspring is produced nowadays.


Yes, of course. Moreover, since this "god" was supposed to forbid incest later, it either proves that she is a moral relativist, or the Bible is not inerrant  :D

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,11:32   

Excellent ... keep 'em coming ... I'll be doing a single mass rebuttal on Monday morning ...

And who knows ... maybe even a retraction or two if your arguments are good enough ... I'm an open-minded guy!

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

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,11:46   

I've met God!  And She's black!!

:D

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

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

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,11:48   

Yes, I've read many of the myths and they help confirm my theory that the Christian Bible is inerrant ... we'll cover that under Point 9 of my "Creator God Hypothesis".  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.

You make a good point, however, that I should add some more information into my hypothesis between Points 2 & 3 which specifically addresses the Cain's wife issue.  I did mention that my hypothesis is a draft and I am open to additions and changes as they become necessary.

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.

I appreciate all the comments ... see you Monday!

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

  
Jay Ray



Posts: 92
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,12:04   

Biblical literalism is transparently illogical and ultimately boring as actual debate.  Why has AFDave come here to parrot the AiG script to us?  Is it a ministry of some sort?  

As someone arguing as a supernaturalist, Avocationist was much more interesting.  Too bad she fled AtBC. :)

  
UnMark



Posts: 97
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,12:49   

Dave, this seems to be your hypothesis: I believe in God.  God made "stuff."  "Stuff" exists.  Therefore God exists.  That's all.  Thanks for wasting my time hoping you'd have something new or creative while presenting only the same old banal canards.

I read Strobel's Case for Christ.  Before reading it, I was a skeptical "Christmas and Easter" Christian.  After reading it, I'm an atheist.  Anyone with some functioning gray matter should have been able to see just how abysmal it is.  I wrote this on another forum:
Quote
Strobel spent the first half of the book using straw man, special pleading, begging the question, bifurcation, and a few other fallacious arguments to attempt to prove the Gospels accurate and reliable. It failed miserably to answer any questions or provide any solid evidence to bolster its case, and I spent a good portion of the book either yelling at or laughing at the author, his "experts," and their inanity. The second half of the book then proceeded to use it's "proven to to be accurate reliable" Gospels as the only source of evidence regarding the existence ot Christ. After reading what was hearlded as one of the best Christian apologetics books I was convinced only of the intellectual dishonesty of Strobel, his experts, and the rest of the Christian Apologetics movement.


[quote="afdave"]
Quote
Have you ever read a book on evolution?
Yes ... many of them.  How can I NOT?  They are EVERYWHERE!  I have to work real hard to find my kids some science books that DON'T have some form of the Evolution Religion worked in.  By the way ... I have trouble finding museums for my kids that don't preach "Evolution and Millions of Years"....[/quote]

I've never quite come up with a suitable response when someone says stuff like this.  I finally read one in an editorial some months ago...  Dave, I thank you for deliberately making your kids as stupid as possible.  I thank you because no matter how "normal" my children turn out to be, they will undoubtably be better educated than yours.  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!

Dave, how do you explain away the mountains of radiometric datings that prove the earth is some 4.5 billion years old?

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
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.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2006,23:48   

Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,00:02)
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?

Are you trying to make a proepr comparison here?  A better one would be:
woudl you rather live in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, or America?  
Asking if people would rather live in Ancient Egypt rather than modern USA is rather like asking if you would like to do without your glasses, modern dentistry etc.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2006,23:51   

No no, answer her.  I want to see afdave and carol have an argument.  It would be interesting...

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,00:54   

Quote
It is not Afdave and his ilk.
My goodness ... I've been called ILK again ... that's twice now!  Carol, I hope we can become friends even if we never end up agreeing.  I'm glad to find out that you are Jewish because I don't have many Jewish acquaintances here in Kansas City.  I love hearing what Jewish people have to say though because I hold the Jewish nation and people in very high esteem.  
Quote
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!
Can you tell me what your basis would be for not reading the Hebrew word 'yom' as a literal day?  In all my study of the Hebrew scriptures, it appears to me that the word 'yom' is almost always one, 24 hour day.  My opinion is that some people think it is NOT a 24 hour day in Genesis only to accomodate what they believe to be incontrovertible evidence of the supposed long ages of evolutionary geology.

Faid-- You raise some very good points.  To answer them broadly, I have found that the difficulties clear up if I take away my 20th century presuppositions and frame of reference.  If we acknowledge the possibility that life was VERY different in the beginning, things become a lot clearer.  First, the Bible is very clear that the ante-diluvian patriarchs lived very long lives.  There are several independent lines of evidence supporting this, which I will get into in proper sequence.  Josephus tells us that the old Jewish tradition is that Adam had  33 sons and 23 daughters.  Josephus also tells us that one of Cain's descendants had 77 children by two wives.  (Antiq., Book 1, Ch. 2) Wow, those were tough women!  My hypothesis (short version) on this topic is that Adam and Eve and their near descendants were vigorous, model specimens of humanity--Ken and Barbie, if you will.  They probably had ZERO genetic defects and quite possibly were taller and stronger than modern humans. (notice that this is opposite of modern evolutionary speculation, but consistent with the evidence we see of accumulating deleterious mutations over time) If Cain was like his father, he had many children and they in turn had many more children.  My hypothesis asserts rapid population growth in the ante-diluvian world.  The Bible does not state that Enoch was Cain's firstborn. If he was not, there could have been MANY children and grandchildren BEFORE Cain and his clan moved to Nod.  Even if Enoch was his firstborn, we do no violence to the text by proposing that there could have been a 50-100 year time span between having Enoch and building the city.  Remember, 100 years was only a little over 10% of their entire lifespans.  As for why the writer use the word 'yada' (translated 'knew') instead of 'had sex with,' I could ask this question ... when you are at dinner parties, do you say to your friends, "Well, when my wife and I first met, we had dinner, went to a movie, then went to my house and had sex."  Probably, you don't talk about your private affairs, but if you do, you probably use some polite euphemism such as "we went to my house and 'made love.'  Of course if you are like 'hehe' you might have used the term 'banged.' I know this does not answer everything yet, but if you stick with me, I think you are going to be amazed at how clear everything becomes.

Rilke's GD-- Thanks!  And thanks also for your comments on my other thread.  I have taken yours and other helpful comments I received and clarified the structure of my "Creator God Hypothesis."  I want as many constructive comments on the structure and rules of my little debate as possible before moving ahead with additional points.

Midnight Voice and UnMark-- those are very easy examples to explain, but they are not my focus right now.  If you want a quick answer, Google search "Christian Research Institute" with the 'Bible Answer Man', Hank Hannegraf.

As for the 2 accounts of creation ... which came first?  Animals or Man.  No time now ... stay tuned!

hehe -- 'banging' ones sister apparently was fine with God in the beginning if you were married to her.  Again, there was no prohibition against this that I know of until the time of Moses by which time accumulated mutations would have posed a problem to close marriages with close kin.
Quote
I've met God!  And She's black!!

And her name is Condi ...!  Condi for president in '08!

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

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,02:16   

I said ...
Quote
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.


Correction:  this should read ....

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

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

  
Carol Clouser



Posts: 29
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,02:42   

Afdave,

We are friends and "ilk" is not a word that connotes otherwise.

As far as "yom" is concerned, you really need to read up on that and many other Hebrew-related issues. I think I have already recommended one great book to you (Landa's IN THE BEGINNING OF) and there are others. I will not get into the whole analysis here. Suffice it to say that "yom" is used in three different ways in the Hebrew Bible, quite often in the sense of "a period of time characterized by some development or feature". This cannot be decided by vote, but by context. As an example of "yom" used as "era" even in the context of numerals consider Hosea 6:2 (I think, doing this from memory right now).

Hope this helps.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,02:43   

Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,05:54)
Faid-- You raise some very good points.  To answer them broadly, I have found that the difficulties clear up if I take away my 20th century presuppositions and frame of reference.  If we acknowledge the possibility that life was VERY different in the beginning, things become a lot clearer.  First, the Bible is very clear that the ante-diluvian patriarchs lived very long lives.  There are several independent lines of evidence supporting this, which I will get into in proper sequence.  Josephus tells us that the old Jewish tradition is that Adam had  33 sons and 23 daughters.  Josephus also tells us that one of Cain's descendants had 77 children by two wives.  (Antiq., Book 1, Ch. 2) Wow, those were tough women!  My hypothesis (short version) on this topic is that Adam and Eve and their near descendants were vigorous, model specimens of humanity--Ken and Barbie, if you will.  They probably had ZERO genetic defects and quite possibly were taller and stronger than modern humans. (notice that this is opposite of modern evolutionary speculation, but consistent with the evidence we see of accumulating deleterious mutations over time) If Cain was like his father, he had many children and they in turn had many more children.  My hypothesis asserts rapid population growth in the ante-diluvian world.  The Bible does not state that Enoch was Cain's firstborn. If he was not, there could have been MANY children and grandchildren BEFORE Cain and his clan moved to Nod.  Even if Enoch was his firstborn, we do no violence to the text by proposing that there could have been a 50-100 year time span between having Enoch and building the city.  Remember, 100 years was only a little over 10% of their entire lifespans.  As for why the writer use the word 'yada' (translated 'knew';) instead of 'had sex with,' I could ask this question ... when you are at dinner parties, do you say to your friends, "Well, when my wife and I first met, we had dinner, went to a movie, then went to my house and had sex."  Probably, you don't talk about your private affairs, but if you do, you probably use some polite euphemism such as "we went to my house and 'made love.'  Of course if you are like 'hehe' you might have used the term 'banged.' I know this does not answer everything yet, but if you stick with me, I think you are going to be amazed at how clear everything becomes.

It's only clear if you want to believe it is clear, dave. I have bolded every aspect of your explanation that is an unsupportable assumption (often to explain other assumptions), and also underlined the parts that seem unfounded compared to modern scientific knowledge -or even compared to the actual text. There's not much left, is it?

But like I said: That does not necessarily make them logically wrong. They can work as theological arguments, that help you defend a position of inerrancy of the bible. They CANNOT be used as scientific arguments to establish an "inerrant bible" hypothesis. I hope we agree on this.

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

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,02:53   

Quote
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?
Simply because if they say it is supporting religion it violoates the establishment cause. The reason people get on at them about it is that they constantly claim that ID has nothing to do with religion, but also write articles like the one you posted.

Quote
Stephen C. Meyer notes that "The natural and historical sciences employ such logic [abductive] routinely.
William A. Dembski notes that you need to discount all possible natural explanations first, and I dont think we have done that. Remember the existance of a God does not disprove evolution.

Quote
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.
Quote
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)
Perhaps it would be useful if you could state your main problems with evolution, as I am not sure what they are (apologies if I missed them somewhere else). Also what is the truth about evolution you refer to, over on UD many of the things that they said evolutionists were hiding I was actually taught in school. Maybe if we understood what your specific problems were then we could help.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,03:16   

Just my 2 drachmas:

Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,00<!--emo&:0)
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.


The above discussion says nothing about testable predictions, and your flawed perception of them that I was explaining in that quote -and anyway, I think the term "abductive reasoning" is used here (inventing a hypothesis (B) that explains (A) = good reason to believe (B) is true = proof that (B) is true) is way over the line of logic and into the realm of logical fallacy.

Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,00<!--emo&:0)
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.

Then, can you admit that all your examples were part of your hypothesis, NOT "testable predictions", so we can move along? You still have to cover 2), though.

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

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,03:21   

Quote (Chris Hyland @ May 01 2006,07:53)
Maybe if we understood what your specific problems were then we could help.

AFD does not want help.  He is absolutely convinced, and the facts of life will never change his mind.  It is amusing to point out his mistakes and total lack of intellectual honesty, but his mind, unlike that of scientists, is fixed and unchanging.

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

  
hehe



Posts: 59
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,03:41   

Quote
hehe -- 'banging' ones sister apparently was fine with God in the beginning if you were married to her.  Again, there was no prohibition against this that I know of until the time of Moses by which time accumulated mutations would have posed a problem to close marriages with close kin.


Thank you for accepting that "god" is a moral relativist. Why shouldn't we be? ;-)

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,03:43   

Quote (MidnightVoice @ May 01 2006,08:21)
AFD does not want help.  He is absolutely convinced, and the facts of life will never change his mind.  It is amusing to point out his mistakes and total lack of intellectual honesty, but his mind, unlike that of scientists, is fixed and unchanging.

Agreed.  He is not here to learn.  He is here to prove to himself how right he is by rationalizing away any logical objections to his faith.

--------------
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.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,03:44   

Faid-- I am not sure which (2) you are talking about ... I have restated my hypothesis in a hopefully less confusing way.  I admit I was not as clear as I could have been.  See the discussion above.  The updated version can be found here ...

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;t=1958

Chris-- I will do a post stating my main difficulties with ToE under the "AF Dave Wants you to prove Evolution" thread,

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

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,03:53   

hehe-- I do appreciate your light view of life ... I might disagree with you about God being a relativist, but gotta love your wit! Cheers!

Faid--  It's only unsupported HERE in this post.  I can't take the time or space right now to support it all.  But as I said, if you stick with me, I think you will see that alot of it IS supported very well.

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

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

Quote
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'"


So your argument could be accurately restated as:

-If there is a God, he MIGHT send written messages.
-People who claim they receive written messages from God MIGHT actually be receiving written messages from God.
-Since there are people who claim they receive written messages from God, there MIGHT actually be a God.

So you can either make this a logical argument built on ridiculous assumptions, or render it meaningless by accepting the above ambiguity.  Or you can just change the meaning of "logic" to help you rationalize this junk.  I guess we shouldn't be surprised, since IDers have already tried changing the meaning of "science".

--------------
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 2006,04:14   

afdave, Carol claims you are totally wrong in your interpretation. Why don't you and Carol battle it out a bit, so that the rest of us unholy heathens can have a chuc... eh.. learning experience?

So, who is right, you, or Carol? You cannot both be right, and both claim to be speaking for God. Who must we believe then?

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,04:39   

Quote (guthrie @ May 01 2006,04:51)
No no, answer her.  I want to see afdave and carol have an argument.  It would be interesting...

Godzilla vs. Mothra?

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,04:42   

And afDave goes for the jugular:
Quote
Can you tell me what your basis would be for not reading the Hebrew word 'yom' as a literal day?  In all my study of the Hebrew scriptures, it appears to me that the word 'yom' is almost always one, 24 hour day.  My opinion is that some people think it is NOT a 24 hour day in Genesis only to accomodate what they believe to be incontrovertible evidence of the supposed long ages of evolutionary geology.
I'm impressed: he's already managed to nail Carol.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,05:11   

Quote
Or you can just change the meaning of "logic" to help you rationalize this junk.

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

Now how is this "junk" logic?

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

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,05:28   

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

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

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

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

Maybe this might help you finally understand.


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

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

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

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

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,05:32   

Quote
There is reason to suspect that B is true (not proof, obviously, but reason)


Afdave, so you have a "suspicion" that there is a god. I have a "suspicion" that you are wrong and that he/she does not exist.

As you admit, you base your suspicion on something for what there is not the slightest bit of proof.

I base my suspicion on that there is NO EVIDENCE/PROOF of any kind, for ANY god.

Not just that, but you say of people share your suspicion. Now, there are hindus, jews, muslims, pagans etc. What makes your suspicion better than theirs? And, I must point out, but if the Muslim suspicion is right, then you are doomed anyway, so you have to prove that your suspicion is better than anyone else's. Just to point something else out, but your suspicion/perception also differs from what a lot of Christians have. So, how do we know you are right in your "revelation" of God??? Can you prove it? No? Is there reason to regard your suspicion more highly than other people's suspicion? No?

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,05:48   

Renier--

I understand that you have the opposite suspicion, and I believe that you also could try to make Inferences to the Best Explanation for YOUR suspicion.  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.

You are RIGHT ON about having to judge between different supposed 'revelations.'  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.


Would you all mind hopping over to my "Updated Hypothesis Thread" to add new posts?

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

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,06:03   

Incest is all the rage in the bible.  Nothing new here.

Chris

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

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,06:11   

Quote
after I present credible evidence that we should expect some Super-Intelligence to exist


You know you would be the first human being EVER to do that, don't you? I'm not holding my breath though...

  
hehe



Posts: 59
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,06:17   

Dave, you did not address the point again. Is incest objectively immoral or not? (If it is forbidden for mere utilitarian reasons, it is not immoral.)

  
tacitus



Posts: 118
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,06:23   

Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,08:53)
Faid--  It's only unsupported HERE in this post.  I can't take the time or space right now to support it all.  But as I said, if you stick with me, I think you will see that alot of it IS supported very well.

That's cute -- one of Kem Ham's favourite attacks on evidence from deep time (fossils, geological record, etc) is the idiotic "Were you there?  No, but God was."  Sees to me that since you're such a fan of Ken Ham's work, you'd realise that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.  You have no earthly way of proving that the human race has appreciably more harmful genetic mutations today than 6,000 years ago. Were you there?

Claiming that harmful genetic mutations have increased to the point of reducing our lifespan to 10% of what it used to be 6,000 years ago is about as sensible as claiming the speed of light is a fraction of what it used to be (in an attempt to get over the embarrassing fact that we can see galaxies which are billions of light years away).

Scientists have catalogued many genetic mutations in the human genome.  None of them has come close to being responsible for a dramatic reduction in lifespan (without being accompanied by some form of gross mental or physical abnormality).  Embarassingly enough for you, though, is that we *do* share many of the same genetic mutations as our cousins the chimps and gorillas, and in such a way that all-but proves we share a common ancestry with our fellow great apes.

If you don't believe me, have a look at this post on endogenous retroviruses.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,06:39   

Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,08:53)
hehe-- I do appreciate your light view of life ... I might disagree with you about God being a relativist, but gotta love your wit! Cheers!

Faid--  It's only unsupported HERE in this post.  I can't take the time or space right now to support it all.  But as I said, if you stick with me, I think you will see that alot of it IS supported very well.

Besides his joking, hehe actually has a point. According to the eternal laws set by god from the beginning of time, if a man has a vasectomy, is it ok to marry his sister? I ask you in all seriousness- because that's what this theory for Cain's wife seems to imply.

As for not supporting your view here, then you haven't explained anything yet, right? Untill you do, however, think about this: If you weren't trying with all your heart to prove that the bible is inerrant, would you ever be so eager to assume that, in this paragraph:

Quote
[...]and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

A hundred years have passed between the first and the second sentence? Why does it seem so plausible now, except that you want to believe it?

You may not wish to see it, but everything you do is reverse reasoning. You feel the bible has to be inerrant, so cain's wife must have been his sister. It must have been ok to marry his sister, so human beings must have had some kind of "genetic perfection" whatever that was. There must have been many people for him to build a city for, so that one space on a page, between "she bare Enoch" and "and he built a city" must have been 100 years long (making the book that explains the universe one of the most misleading documents ever).

Would you believe any of these wild assumptions if they were made about any other book than the bible? And yet, it is all your arguments that are like that in your hypothesis.

I only hope that some day you'll be bold enough to admit to yourself that your faith comes from your feelings, not your logic. It has nothing to do with logic.

That is not necessarily a bad thing; on the contrary. It's just that it does not help trying to use logic alone to defend it. Great philosophers have failed to do so in the past: Your faith is not science, and it cannot compete with science in its field. And it shouldn't have to.

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

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

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

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,07:38   

Quote
[...]and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.


Let me just show you one thing here ... the plain reading of this is very clear that there was SOME time lag b/t baring Enoch and building the city ... do you see this?  Babies don't build cities.  Grown up men do.  How much time elapsed?  I cannot tell, but we are unjustified in saying categorically that this is definitely an example of error.  Why can we not allow the writer some license to hit high points in a historical narrative?  This is very common practice.  Again, though, I am not saying anything yet about the Bible being proven to be true.  At this point in the argument, that is an open question.

As for my supposed pre-committment to the Bible, I don't know how else to tell you that I am doing as best as any human can of NOT being biased.  To tell you the truth, I didn't care a whit about the Bible growing up even though I was force fed it with a firehose.  I cared about the normal things boys care about ... fast cars, fast girls, etc.  But in college, I began to search for ultimate truth, and I tell you ... it could have gone either way.  I was not exactly a compliant child (actually kind of a rebel), so I did not have any great love for my parents belief system.  I do have an exercise that I want to propose on my other thread which I hope will at least allow us to agree on the ground rules for the debate.

hehe-- Your question has only become a question in modern times with the advent of vasectomies, but I would have to guess that God's opinion would be that your scenario would be OK with Him from one angle (absolute moral code), but not OK from another.  I would guess that He would say not to do it because you would no doubt get into failed vasectomies, etc. with the resulting deformities.

I've never been asked that question!  It's a funny one!

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

  
stephenWells



Posts: 127
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,08:00   

Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,05:54)
Quote

As for the 2 accounts of creation ... which came first?  Animals or Man.  No time now ... stay tuned!

How much time could you possibly need to answer such a simple question? I'll help you out and give you three options:

A) Genesis 1 is correct (animals before man ) and Genesis 2 is wrong.

B) Genesis 2 is correst (man before animals) and Genesis 1 is wrong.

C) The man and woman created in Genesis 1 are not the same as the man and woman created in Genesis 2 (traditional attempt at reconciliation, leading to e.g. Lilith legend), further details to follow.

Now all you have to do is type A, B or C and then explain in more detail later. Easy, eh?

  
hehe



Posts: 59
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,08:26   

OK, Dave, so not every "god"'s commandment establishes a moral rule. Some are simply utilitarian.

Given that the New Testament supercedes the Old Testament (unless you keep kosher and follow all 600+ rules of the OT, you will agree with me  :p ), and NT has no rule against incest, incest is OK if precautions are taken  :D

  
tacitus



Posts: 118
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,08:26   

Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,12:38)
hehe-- Your question has only become a question in modern times with the advent of vasectomies, but I would have to guess that God's opinion would be that your scenario would be OK with Him from one angle (absolute moral code), but not OK from another.  I would guess that He would say not to do it because you would no doubt get into failed vasectomies, etc. with the resulting deformities.

Incest derived offspring can be perfectly normal. There have been cases in the past where family inbreeding took place over several generations without any serious problems.  Sure, there is a much higher risk of abnormalities but it's not a certainty.  With the right genetic screening, it will one day be possible to reduce the risks to a minimum. Does that make incest right?

Anyway, the whole discussion is pointless.  If God said it was okay then and not now, then what other explanation do you need?  After all, God said it was okay for Joshua to commit genocide a number of times while conquering Israel, not to mention condoning the murder of thousands of babies, children, mothers and fathers, and the rape of their surviving virgin daughters.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,08:51   

Quote
Incest derived offspring can be perfectly normal.

Haven't a good many island populations of whatever been seeded by a single pregnant female? Maybe inbreeding increases the odds of doubling bad traits, but it works the same with good traits. Maybe the resulting population is even stronger as a result (strong traits reinforce, bad traits that get reinforced die out).

Humans are willing to have plenty of disadvantageous characteristics so long as we avoid expressing them any more often than necessary. Trading one extraordinarily capable person for one congenital loser is considered a Bad Trade. But that's social, not biological.

  
Aardvark



Posts: 134
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,10:35   

This is why there isn't much good Xtian porn about; all they want to see are brothers and sisters going at it and virgins being gang-raped by angels.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,10:50   

AFdave, tell us how some of the characters in the bible were able to live to be as old as 700 years.  

Bonus question - why is it that the only people who ever lived to be 700 or even 200 years old are all in the bible and no one has pulled this off since then.

Chris

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

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,11:12   

Hey, no offense, but I'm going to let you guys knock yourselves out with the virgins and the angels and I'm going to hop back over to my main topic of interest on my other thread here ... you only have so many hours in a day ... go to the Christian Research Institute (Hank Hannegraf) if you really want to sort all this out ...

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

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,11:31   

So you are running away Afdave... alas...

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,11:42   

Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,12:38)
Quote
[...]and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.


Let me just show you one thing here ... the plain reading of this is very clear that there was SOME time lag b/t baring Enoch and building the city ... do you see this?  Babies don't build cities.  Grown up men do.  

Dave, I'm gonna let you find out yourself what's wrong with what you just posted.

It shouldn't be that hard.

Don't feel embarrassed when you do, however: I dont believe you're a fool or anything. I just think you don't think at all, not when you're questioning your beliefs. You don't even try. And it's normal.

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

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,11:53   

Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,10:11)

Here's my logic ...
1) We hypothesize a Super-Intelligent Creator ... we can only imagine Him somewhat like a human mind because that is what we are familiar with, but much more intelligent ... this is my "B"
2) We observe a Surprising Fact that all over the world, people claim to have received messages--written and oral from some 'god' character ... this is my "A"
3) LOGIC:  If B were true, then A would follow naturally based on our own experience with Intelligent Agents (i.e. they communicate verbally and in writing)
4)  CONCLUSION:  There is reason to suspect that B is true...

Now how is this "junk" logic?

Simple. It's assuming what you're trying to prove.

You guess there's an all-powerful being who, by definition can do anything.

You see something. It doesn't even have to be surprising; it can be anything at all. But if it is surprising, it makes your "logic" more fun.

Therefore, because you've seen something, there must be an all-powerful being.

It's basically "junk logic," Dave.

And "suspecting something is true" is a meaningless concept. Given the number of half-eaten cookies scattered all over America every December 25th, I have "reason" to suspect that Santa Claus exists.

These kinds of "arguments" are weak to the point of non-existence. They might work great at your Sunday afternoon church meeting, but they're going to get blown away in no time in front of a sophisticated audience, which is what you have here.

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

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

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,11:58   

Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,10:48)
Renier--

I understand that you have the opposite suspicion, and I believe that you also could try to make Inferences to the Best Explanation for YOUR suspicion.  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.

Before you waste our time with your "cosmic fine tuning," and "anthropic principle" rant, you should probably know that many if not most of the people here are familar with "The Privilged Planet," and are unimpressed.

If that's where you're going, save yourself the trouble. We've been there, read that, laughed.

--------------
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: May 01 2006,16:29   

Oops! It was Cain, not Enoch that built the city ... good eyes Faid!  You must be a doctor or something ...

Now why again does that matter?  Are you concerned about the fact that he built a city for only 3 people.  Did I not clear that up already?  I plan on giving a lot more detail as I walk through this whole thing on the other thread.

Quote
I just think you don't think at all, not when you're questioning your beliefs. You don't even try. And it's normal.

Now why do you want to insult me like that?  I was starting to like you!  Naaa ... I still do ... and I bet you make reading errors once in a while yourself.

Have a good night!

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

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,17:30   

Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,21:29)
Oops! It was Cain, not Enoch that built the city ... good eyes Faid!  You must be a doctor or something ...

Now why again does that matter?  Are you concerned about the fact that he built a city for only 3 people.  Did I not clear that up already?  I plan on giving a lot more detail as I walk through this whole thing on the other thread.

Quote
I just think you don't think at all, not when you're questioning your beliefs. You don't even try. And it's normal.

Now why do you want to insult me like that?  I was starting to like you!  Naaa ... I still do ... and I bet you make reading errors once in a while yourself.

Have a good night!

That was not meant as an insult, afdave. Sorry if you saw it that way.

Think of it this way: A man is madly in love with a woman. There is plenty of evidence, however, that the woman is cheating on him. Friends see the obvious, and tell him. But he just does not listen. He disregards telltale signs and proof that, if he'd seen in any other woman, He'd label her "cheater" from a mile away. He looks, but he doesn't see.
Does this make him a fool? No. He might have an IQ of 165 and act that way- and worse. He's no fool -he's just in love.

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

  
UnMark



Posts: 97
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,17:36   

Carol, given the rigor of several of your past posts, there was some discussion about whether the person using your moniker was actually you.  I guess that settles the debate. :)  Regarding yom: would not the Fourth Commandment be somewhat nonsensical were not a literal day implied in Creation?  I swear I asked this once on PT directly, but I don't recall if an answer was offered.

Dave, wouldn't it make considerably more sense to simply state that the Bible focusses only on one particular lineage in the Creation Story in Genesis, and that all the rest come from other separately created tribes/lineages?  It makes sense, it doesn't contradict anything else in the Bible that I'm aware of: why the inane illogic to support incest and a bunch of unsupportable hunches?

  
Carol Clouser



Posts: 29
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,19:08   

UnMark,

What Genesis does is take the history of the evolution of the universe and life on earth and divide it into seven overlapping periods of development (not presented in chronological order). A good argument can be made that these are not arbitrarily chosen just to get to the number seven, but that they are based on some sense of what is most important to human beings and their perception of their place and role in the universal scheme of things. Perhaps you and I, if asked to list what we thought was most important to us in the history of the universe, would come up with a different set of developments. Be that as it may, much scholarly and theological discussion has already been invested in shedding light on this matter but it is only tangentially related to your question.

The fourth commandment demands that we (that is the children of Israel), in symbolic recognition of this and to impress upon us the importance of emulating God, divide our work cycle in an analogous fashion, actively manipulating and redesigning our environment as needed during six "human eras" (days) and then ceasing and desisting for one human era, the seventh day, just as God has done.

Hope this makes sense to you.

I am not sure what to make of your comments re the rigor of my "past posts". Is that a backhanded insult or compliment? I am sometimes constrained by time considerations from writing at length, so some of my posts can sound cryptic and abrupt. I apologize for that.

  
tacitus



Posts: 118
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,19:54   

Quote (UnMark @ May 01 2006,22:36)
Dave, wouldn't it make considerably more sense to simply state that the Bible focusses only on one particular lineage in the Creation Story in Genesis, and that all the rest come from other separately created tribes/lineages?  It makes sense, it doesn't contradict anything else in the Bible that I'm aware of: why the inane illogic to support incest and a bunch of unsupportable hunches?

Most young-earthers would argue that if we are not all descended from Adam and Eve then we have not all inherited  Original Sin meaning that there was no need for Jesus to die on the cross since we did not need to be "saved".  In other words, if the events in Genesis did not literally happen the way it was written then there's no point to the rest of the Bible.

To them the issue of inerrancy is like a house of cards. If you pull on one of them, their whole building comes crashing around them, leaving them with nothing.  

That's why they are so dogmatic about the issue of origins. If a young-earther can't find a way to reconcile their faith with a non-literal Genesis, then they're never going to accept anything science has to offer in this area since it directly contradicts their beliefs.

There are old-earthers who still believe in Biblical inerrancy--the Reasons to Believe outfit and the infamous David Heddle spring to mind--but they are far fewer in number than young-earthers and feel the squeeze from both sides--from the young-earth creationists who hate how they mangle the literal meaning of the Genesis text to get past a young Earth and global flood, and from the rest of Christianity who feel no need to treat early Genesis as a historical document.

Of course the most reasonable interpretation of Genesis is that it's just one of many creation myths that intertwine an prehistoric attempt to account for how we got here with some kind of moral message.  Many Christians quite happily accept the morality tale without having to make a big deal about its historical veracity.  I suspect afDave does not.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,01:03   

Quote
Dave, wouldn't it make considerably more sense to simply state that the Bible focusses only on one particular lineage in the Creation Story in Genesis, and that all the rest come from other separately created tribes/lineages?

No, because that would force me to accept the inane, illogical position of Evolution with no Intelligent Agent which is far more problematic concerning the real evidence.  More later.
Quote
Of course the most reasonable interpretation of Genesis is that it's just one of many creation myths that intertwine an prehistoric attempt to account for how we got here with some kind of moral message.  Many Christians quite happily accept the morality tale without having to make a big deal about its historical veracity.  I suspect afDave does not.

You suspect right!  And there is a very good reason which we will get into.  So are you telling me that I'm a different YECer than you've encountered before?  I hope so, because then if nothing else, reading my stuff will be some new entertainment for you :-)
Quote
Does this make him a fool? No. He might have an IQ of 165 and act that way- and worse. He's no fool - he's just in love.
You might be interested to know that I was madly in love with a girl in 1983, proposed and was about to get married, when suddenly a whole string of hard evidence hit me in the face one night. I already knew this stuff ... I had just been sweeping it under the rug.  I struggled with the decision a long time and finally broke off the engagement. So I know how to rise above my feelings and make hard decisions.  Now people do say that "it takes one to know one" so to speak ... could it be that the situation you are describing is YOUR situation?  Maybe YOU are so "in love" with the idea of "millions of years" and "chance origins" and "no God" (not sure if that is one of your positions) and "the Bible is a nice myth" that you are blinded by the truth?  There is no question that this is possible with all of us. Faid-- At first glance, it appears to me that you see many APPARENT problems in the biblical record and it sounds like you say something like "unless all these apparent problems are cleared up, I would never believe in biblical inerrancy."  Well, here is an alternative position for you to consider which I think works better.  Make the PROPOSITION (or Hypothesis, if you will) that the Bible is inerrant.  Then begin a rigorous study of the apparent contradictions ... start by going to a Christian bookstore and getting a good book on the subject (I think Geisler writes on this topic) ... if you then find that you can prove the errors after considering much evidence, then discard or modify your hypothesis.

Pardon me if my answers are very short over here ... I will be spending most of my time over on my other thread and would welcome your comments there.  I will be discussing the First Point in my Hypothesis today.

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

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,01:58   

Quote (afdave @ May 02 2006,06:03)
Quote
Dave, wouldn't it make considerably more sense to simply state that the Bible focusses only on one particular lineage in the Creation Story in Genesis, and that all the rest come from other separately created tribes/lineages?

No, because that would force me to accept the inane, illogical position of Evolution with no Intelligent Agent which is far more problematic concerning the real evidence.  More later.
Quote
Of course the most reasonable interpretation of Genesis is that it's just one of many creation myths that intertwine an prehistoric attempt to account for how we got here with some kind of moral message.  Many Christians quite happily accept the morality tale without having to make a big deal about its historical veracity.  I suspect afDave does not.

You suspect right!  And there is a very good reason which we will get into.  So are you telling me that I'm a different YECer than you've encountered before?  I hope so, because then if nothing else, reading my stuff will be some new entertainment for you :-)
Quote
Does this make him a fool? No. He might have an IQ of 165 and act that way- and worse. He's no fool - he's just in love.
You might be interested to know that I was madly in love with a girl in 1983, proposed and was about to get married, when suddenly a whole string of hard evidence hit me in the face one night. I already knew this stuff ... I had just been sweeping it under the rug.  I struggled with the decision a long time and finally broke off the engagement. So I know how to rise above my feelings and make hard decisions.  Now people do say that "it takes one to know one" so to speak ... could it be that the situation you are describing is YOUR situation?  Maybe YOU are so "in love" with the idea of "millions of years" and "chance origins" and "no God" (not sure if that is one of your positions) and "the Bible is a nice myth" that you are blinded by the truth?  There is no question that this is possible with all of us. Faid-- At first glance, it appears to me that you see many APPARENT problems in the biblical record and it sounds like you say something like "unless all these apparent problems are cleared up, I would never believe in biblical inerrancy."  Well, here is an alternative position for you to consider which I think works better.  Make the PROPOSITION (or Hypothesis, if you will) that the Bible is inerrant.  Then begin a rigorous study of the apparent contradictions ... start by going to a Christian bookstore and getting a good book on the subject (I think Geisler writes on this topic) ... if you then find that you can prove the errors after considering much evidence, then discard or modify your hypothesis.

Pardon me if my answers are very short over here ... I will be spending most of my time over on my other thread and would welcome your comments there.  I will be discussing the First Point in my Hypothesis today.

Typical guy: all talk, no action.  You keep promising data, but you never deliver.  In that sense you are exactly like every other creationist we've seen.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,03:48   

Quote
here is an alternative position for you to consider which I think works better.  Make the PROPOSITION (or Hypothesis, if you will) that the Bible is inerrant.

This sort of statement desperately calls for posting that wonderful cartoon where the scientist says "Here are the facts. What conclusions can we draw from them?" and the creationist says "Here are the conclusions. What facts can we find to support them?"

And here we have afdave saying "First, assume your conclusions. THEN, go out and find any *possible* support for them. If you can't find any, you just aren't trying, because the conclusions are assumed, and can't be wrong."

And RGD wants data? There we have it: doctrinal certainties optionally backed by selective misrepresentations. Optional because since the doctrine is certain, nothing else is particularly relevant anyway.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,03:54   

Quote
You might be interested to know that I was madly in love with a girl in 1983, proposed and was about to get married, when suddenly a whole string of hard evidence hit me in the face one night. I already knew this stuff ... I had just been sweeping it under the rug.  I struggled with the decision a long time and finally broke off the engagement. So I know how to rise above my feelings and make hard decisions.

I'm really sorry you had to go through all that- it's not something I'd wish for anyone. Now, apologizing in advance for any discomfort this reminiscence might give you, can you tell me if you remember how you felt then? How you saw things? If so, are the thought processes and the feelings you have now for the inerrancy of the bible more comparable to "I examine all the evidence and conclude my girl loves me", or "I know my girl loves me, and no evidence I've seen has convinced me otherwise"?
Those two lines of thought are not identical... But I see you've already answered that. See below.
Quote
Now people do say that "it takes one to know one" so to speak ... could it be that the situation you are describing is YOUR situation?  Maybe YOU are so "in love" with the idea of "millions of years" and "chance origins" and "no God" (not sure if that is one of your positions) and "the Bible is a nice myth" that you are blinded by the truth?  There is no question that this is possible with all of us. Faid-- At first glance, it appears to me that you see many APPARENT problems in the biblical record and it sounds like you say something like "unless all these apparent problems are cleared up, I would never believe in biblical inerrancy."

Certainly it's possible with all of us- who can delve into the minds of every man? However, looking at the big picture, there is a crucial difference. I am not emotionally charged towards one side; I have no reason to. I do not, for instance, think my immortal soul might be in danger if I do not accept the inerrancy of the bible.
Or that my moral worldview, and everything I hold sacred, will collapse if my beliefs turn out to be wrong. Making up my mind, or changing it, has no world-crumbling consequences. I'm not the spokesperson of all the powers that be; I'm just a man.

(Oh, by the way, of course I believe that all inconsistencies in the bible must be cleared without doubt before I accept it's inerrant- that's what inerrancy means, after all. "Inerrancy" is not a relative term. What would you say to someone that told you Jesus was "mostly" without sin? See? Now, you feel that way because you believe that a Savior without sin is an absolute; well, the Inerrancy of the bible is an even greater one -logically speaking, not theologically. Either it's true, or it's not.)

So, having no moral or spiritual bond towards any side, I can examine the evidence first, then accept the side they point to. But it seems you think this is not right:
Quote
Well, here is an alternative position for you to consider which I think works better.  Make the PROPOSITION (or Hypothesis, if you will) that the Bible is inerrant.  Then begin a rigorous study of the apparent contradictions ... start by going to a Christian bookstore and getting a good book on the subject (I think Geisler writes on this topic) ... if you then find that you can prove the errors after considering much evidence, then discard or modify your hypothesis.

Dave, this is exactly what science must not do.
Well, that's not something anyone should ever do, I think, but let's stick to science for now... Assuming your theory is right, and then trying to come up with all the data supporting it, and disprove all other data whatever the cost, can eventually help you "prove" just about anything: From cold fusion and Lysenko's genetics to martian canals (or martian face) and hollow earth.
In fact, most (if not all) of the major blunders in the history of science had this kind of reasoning as a starting point: Most of the great breakthroughs came by people who looked at the data first and then came up with successful theories to explain them, after years of hard work- or, sometimes, after a sudden epiphany.
Do you have a reason to think that the Lord walks with you when you follow the first path, and scorns you when you follow the other?
Now, I know what you are going to say: That's the evolutionists who do that, who turn away from the facts, and if you read this book etc.
I'm sorry, there is just no easy way to say this: That's simply a lie.
It's not your lie, however: Neither is it your fault.
Like I said, I do not beleive you are a liar for jesus: I just believe that you, like many others, unfortunately, has been systematically misled by people who are.
People who try to twist reality and distort facts to promote their views- and, often, make a buck in the process; people who cannot claim ignorance for their actions, and their deliberate misleading, with their books and tapes and sites and "museums", can only be attributed to malice.
And people like you, who turn to them seeking evidence that would validate their worldview- you are their favorite prey.
I only hope that, when you start posting all your proof for a young earth, you will let us demonstrate that to you.

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

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,04:15   

AFDavesays
Quote
Well, here is an alternative position for you to consider which I think works better.  Make the PROPOSITION (or Hypothesis, if you will) that the Bible is inerrant.  


For the last two months there has been a wingnut posting over on the TheologyWeb Natural Science page, arguing for Geocentricity (i.e. the sun, planets, and stars all rotate around a stationary Earth).

This Bible Inerrancy proponent bases his belief on passages such as Ecclesiastes 1, verse 5:

Quote
The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.


and Joshua 10:13:

Quote
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.


Many people have patiently explained the copious scientific evidence that shows this is wrong, from satellite launches that must take into account the Earth's rotational velocity, to observed stellar parallax, to the measurable wobble in the Earth's rotational axis caused by the mass displacement of the tides.  The Bible Inerrancy guy refuses to listen to any evidence - according to him it's everyone else who has a "closed mind".

How do you feel about that bit of Bible inerrancy? Do you think the whole universe revolves around a stationary Earth?  Why or why not?

I don't mean to distract you from your task of publishing your scientific evidence for YEC, but think about this on the side and answer when you can.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
Tim



Posts: 40
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,04:30   

Quote (afdave @ April 29 2006,11:18)
This is America ... go for it!

Ummm ... no ... this is not America.

This is the internet.

Many of us who are reading your guff aren't (gasp! ) in or even from America. Imagine that!

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,04:36   

Chuckle. Assume the bible is inerrant, then research this assumption at a Christian bookstore. Works for dave...

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,05:45   

Quote (afdave @ May 02 2006,06)
You suspect right!  And there is a very good reason which we will get into.  So are you telling me that I'm a different YECer than you've encountered before?  I hope so, because then if nothing else, reading my stuff will be some new entertainment for you :-)

No, Dave, you're the same kind of YECer we've seen a million times before. The same lack of logic or debating skills ("absolutely unsupportable assertion here. More later."—but then the "more" fails ever to arrive).

Your assertions are entertaining purely for their utter inanity, nothing more.

--------------
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: May 02 2006,17:34   

Quote (Carol Clouser @ May 02 2006,00: 08)
The fourth commandment demands that we (that is the children of Israel), in symbolic recognition of this and to impress upon us the importance of emulating God, divide our work cycle in an analogous fashion, actively manipulating and redesigning our environment as needed during six "human eras" (days) and then ceasing and desisting for one human era, the seventh day, just as God has done.

Hope this makes sense to you.

It makes much more sense than any YEC position I can think of, and is a position/view I wish more Christians would adopt.

Quote (Carol Clouser @ May 02 2006,00: 08)
I am not sure what to make of your comments re the rigor of my "past posts". Is that a backhanded insult or compliment? I am sometimes constrained by time considerations from writing at length, so some of my posts can sound cryptic and abrupt. I apologize for that.


ugh - stepped on my foot again.  No offense was meant.  I don't follow every thread here or at PT, but the few posts I've seen at PT compared to the two or three I saw here prior to this thread were very abrupt and appeared almost to be two different people.  That's actually why I used that Eminem line earlier in this thread. . . .


Quote (afdave @ May 02 2006,06: 03)
Quote
Dave, wouldn't it make considerably more sense to simply state that the Bible focusses only on one particular lineage in the Creation Story in Genesis, and that all the rest come from other separately created tribes/lineages?

No, because that would force me to accept the inane, illogical position of Evolution with no Intelligent Agent which is far more problematic concerning the real evidence.  More later.

I must have my eyes on backwards.  No matter how many times I reread what I wrote, I cannot get from "maybe God created many familes, but only one is focussed on in Genesis" to "evolution with no divinity involved."  I can think of a number o explanations, but I'll reserve judgement until you can explain how I'm misreading myself.

(Edited to add response to Carol in lieu of double-posting)

  
Carol Clouser



Posts: 29
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,19:18   

Unmark,

Of course a better question would be, in what sense are we currently in an era of "rest" when we know that evolution is an ongoing process, just as it was during some of the other six eras.

It seems to me that God, via the Bible if it is divinely inspired, is telling us that henceforth evolution will not lead to anything as drastically new and overpowering (on earth) as the appearance of humankind some 20,000 years ago. If I am correct about this, we have here a specific prediction we can hold the Bible to. Only problem is you and I will not be around long enough to see it disproven. (It can never be firmly proven since one can always claim that in the future it may yet be disproven.)

Too bad.

  
tacitus



Posts: 118
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,20:55   

Quote (afdave @ May 02 2006,06:03)
Quote
Dave, wouldn't it make considerably more sense to simply state that the Bible focusses only on one particular lineage in the Creation Story in Genesis, and that all the rest come from other separately created tribes/lineages?

No, because that would force me to accept the inane, illogical position of Evolution with no Intelligent Agent which is far more problematic concerning the real evidence.  More later.
Quote
Of course the most reasonable interpretation of Genesis is that it's just one of many creation myths that intertwine an prehistoric attempt to account for how we got here with some kind of moral message.  Many Christians quite happily accept the morality tale without having to make a big deal about its historical veracity.  I suspect afDave does not.

You suspect right!  And there is a very good reason which we will get into.  So are you telling me that I'm a different YECer than you've encountered before?  I hope so, because then if nothing else, reading my stuff will be some new entertainment for you :-)

Dave, just think for a moment.  In the very same comment you first call Evolution "inane" and then you ask me if I think you're a different (kind of) YECer...

I think you already know my answer.   :)

  
bystander



Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,21:18   

Quote (stephenWells @ May 01 2006,13:00)
Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,05:54)
Quote

As for the 2 accounts of creation ... which came first?  Animals or Man.  No time now ... stay tuned!

How much time could you possibly need to answer such a simple question? I'll help you out and give you three options:

A) Genesis 1 is correct (animals before man ) and Genesis 2 is wrong.

B) Genesis 2 is correst (man before animals) and Genesis 1 is wrong.

C) The man and woman created in Genesis 1 are not the same as the man and woman created in Genesis 2 (traditional attempt at reconciliation, leading to e.g. Lilith legend), further details to follow.

Now all you have to do is type A, B or C and then explain in more detail later. Easy, eh?

Back to reality, I was reading on the infidels.org forum about the OT document theory which is (excluding apologists) the current most accepted theory about the OT origins. The theory is that there were a number of authors and a couple of editors for the OT. Genesis was written by two authors and blended by an editor and when you read genesis split like this it makes more sense as a narrative. So genesis 1 and genesis 2 have different authors. I suppose rather than throw out one of the myths they kept both (A little why the contradictions in the Gospels were kept and even a modern biography might have different versions of the same events).

Though Cain's wife has me flumoxed. Even 3000 years ago people were not stupid. You think they would have put in some explanation around it.
Michael

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,21:23   

Quote (afdave @ May 02 2006,06:03)
... that would force me to accept the inane, illogical position of Evolution with no Intelligent Agent ...

Define "Intelligent Agent," Dave.

That phrase is used by two people in two different ways. It's used by Dembski to mean "God." And it's used by Marvin Minsky to mean a simple computational capability that can work in a massive parallel systems.

In Minsky's view, human intelligence is built up from the interactions of simple agents, (or intelligent agents) who are themselves mindless. He describes those interactions as constituting a "Society of Mind", hence the title of his book:

The Society of Mind
http://www.amazon.com/gp....=283155
http://www.emcp.com/intro_pc/reading12.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Mind

Evolution itself, as Danny Hillis demonstrated, is potentially such an Intelligent Agent even though it is mindless. Thus your claim that you must accept Evolution with no Intelligent Agent is false from a Minsky perspective and only true from a Dumbski perspective.

  
Carol Clouser



Posts: 29
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,02:40   

Bystander,

I repeat what I have stated on other threads - there are no two creation stories in Genesis, nor is there a shred of evidence for more than one author. Anyone with a good grip on Biblical Hebrew should know this. The myth of two creation stories has been propagated by so called "scholars" with jobs to justify, most of whom have a tenuous grip on Hebrew at best.

The first chapter in Genesis provides a general overview of the history of creation, covering only highlights. The second chapter reviews these highlights with more elaboration and detail. The Bible itself makes this abundantly clear by beginning the second chapter with the comment, "These are the generations of... in the era when God created...." The widely established rule in all the Hebrew Bible is that it is not organized chronologically. You may not like this writing style, but the author did not ask nor care about your opinion.

So chapter one does not state that animals came before humans, not does chapter two state that humans came before animals.

The fact that God is referred to differently in places also does not imply two or more authors. That is like encountering a text about Queen Elizabeth and upon discovering that in chapter one she is referred to as "the queen" and in chapter two she is referred to "queen Elizabeth" and in chapter three she is referred to as "Elizabeth" and concluding on that basis that each chapter had a different author. Malarky!

It behooves scientists to approach Bible-related issues with the same dispassionate objectivity that they (supposedly) reserve for scientific work.

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,02:50   

Quote (Carol Clouser @ May 03 2006,07:40)
Quote
Bystander,

I repeat what I have stated on other threads - there are no two creation stories in Genesis, nor is there a shred of evidence for more than one author.
What a pitiy that no ones agree with you.  While it must be enjoyable (and certainly fits in with your martyr complex) to be the 'lone voice of reason', your inability to actually support your position with anything but bad logic and bad Hebrew is embarrassing to intelligent Jews everywhere.

Quote
Anyone with a good grip on Biblical Hebrew should know this.
Anyone with a good grip of Biblical Hebrew can see that you are forcing interpretations that do not fit.
Quote
The myth of two creation stories has been propagated by so called "scholars" with jobs to justify, most of whom have a tenuous grip on Hebrew at best.
Liar.  You really should try to get your facts right, Carol.

Quote
The first chapter in Genesis provides a general overview of the history of creation, covering only highlights. The second chapter reviews these highlights with more elaboration and detail. The Bible itself makes this abundantly clear by beginning the second chapter with the comment, "These are the generations of... in the era when God created...." The widely established rule in all the Hebrew Bible is that it is not organized chronologically. You may not like this writing style, but the author did not ask nor care about your opinion.
Nor did the author care about your opinion.

Failure to support your case with anything but your personal opinion (or Landa's, since you don't appear to have opinions of your own) does not make an argument.

Quote
So chapter one does not state that animals came before humans, not does chapter two state that humans came before animals.
Factually incorrect.  Perhaps you ought to try reading the book, rather than pontificating about it.

Quote
The fact that God is referred to differently in places also does not imply two or more authors. That is like encountering a text about Queen Elizabeth and upon discovering that in chapter one she is referred to as "the queen" and in chapter two she is referred to "queen Elizabeth" and in chapter three she is referred to as "Elizabeth" and concluding on that basis that each chapter had a different author. Malarky!
What a good thing then that scholars don't make the argument for that reason!  What a good thing that you offer your personal and second-hand opinion as somehow superior to the work of more than two thousand years of scholars.

Quote
It behooves scientists to approach Bible-related issues with the same dispassionate objectivity that they (supposedly) reserve for scientific work.
Perhaps, then, you ought to demonstrate some of this objectivity.

See above.

  
bystander



Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,16:40   

Hello Carol,

My post was meant for the evdence based people on this forum who might be interested in the current mainstream position. I am not able to come to these forums enough to hold any kind of debate. Sure this position might be overturned but that's science *shrug*. Your comment about scholars sounds more like sour grapes than anything else because rather than holding a party line they seem to spend most of their time squabling.

Carol, I have seen you talk about what you believe but not the details (I think we are supposed to buy some book or other). Has it been debated anywhere on the internet? If not why not put forward you position in the Bible Criticism and History area of the Internet Infidels forum. I know that it is an atheism site but a lot of Christians and other Theists go and debate there (quite a few are knowledgeable in Hebrew and Greek) as the site is generally free of fundie trolls.

There was a debate their recently about explaining Genesis based on a "Gap" theory. This was also based on reinterpreting the original Hebrew which sounds similar to what you are trying to do. Although, his translations are a trifle forced.

Michael

p.s. It would also be good to see a defence against the archaelogicial evidence of the Bible namely:

. No evidence of Jews being in Egypt
. No evidence of a large group of people wandering around the desert for forty years.
. Town of Ai that was supposed to be conquered had ceased to exist long before the supposed battle.
. Jericho didn't have walls around the time the walls were supposed to have been blown down.
. Prophesy that Tyre was to be razed to the ground never happened.

The current people defending these aren't doing a particularly good job.

I find it ironic that all this effort is being spent by DI and the creationists on evolution when archaeology and Bible scholarship are quietly doing more damage to their beliefs than evolution ever could.

Michael

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,23:03   

Tacitus said ...
Quote
Claiming that harmful genetic mutations have increased to the point of reducing our lifespan to 10% of what it used to be 6,000 years ago is about as sensible as claiming the speed of light is a fraction of what it used to be


Hey Tacitus ... I know a good eye doctor I could recommend that could prescribe some eye glasses or contacts so you could accurately read what I write ... but if it was not an eyesight problem and you are going to deliberately misrepresent what I write, then kindly get off my thread so I don't have to waste my time correcting your mistakes ...

I said that by the time of Moses, genetic mutations would have accumulated enough to make close marriages unsafe, hence the anti-incest laws.  Get it?

The long lifespans prior to the Flood are a different matter.  I will give more details on this later on my other thread.

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

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,23:16   

I think HEHE was asking back there somewhere if God is a moral relativist, since brother/sister marriages were OK in the beginning, but not by the time of Moses ...

Good question ...

No, I don't believe He is.  But I think there is a common misconception about WHY God makes certain rules.  Some people think that God just arbitrarily made up a bunch of rules.  From my reading of the Bible, it is clear to me that God made rules FOR THE BENEFIT of people.  This is a perfect example.  In this case, God's rule was: Brothers, don't marry sisters.  Why?  Because of accumulated harmful mutations.  So God is not saying there is anything INHERENTLY wrong with brother/sister marriages ... he is only saying there is NOW something PRACTICALLY wrong with it.  Saying that God is a moral relativist because of this would be like saying that catalytic converter laws for motor vehicles are somehow "morally relativistic."  A long time ago, there were no such laws.  Now they are necessary due to the proliferation of automobiles.

HEHE's funny special case about a man with a vascectomy marrying his sister (I take my hat off to you, hehe, this is a good one!  I like the way your mind works!) would simply be a judgment call I suppose for lawmakers and/or individuals, the risks being failed vasectomies, etc.

Does this help?

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

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,23:40   

Norm--

Sorry to take so long to get back to you on the Danny Hillis Genetic Algorithm question.  GA's do not simulate the real conditions we find in the natural world and thus do not 'prove' evolution.  As Don Batten writes,
Quote
However, GAs do not mimic or simulate biological evolution because with a GA:

A ‘trait’ can only be quantitative so that any move towards the objective can be selected for. Many biological traits are qualitative—it either works or it does not, so there is no step-wise means of getting from no function to the function.

A single trait is selected for, whereas any living thing is multidimensional. A GA will not work with three or four different objectives, or I dare say even just two. A GA does not test for survival; it tests for only a single trait. Even with the simplest bacteria, which are not at all simple, hundreds of traits have to be present for it to be viable (survive); selection has to operate on all traits that affect survival.

Something always survives to carry on the process. There is no rule in evolution that says that some organism(s) in the evolving population will remain viable no matter what mutations occur. In fact, the GAs that I have looked at artificially preserve the best of the previous generation and protect it from mutations or recombination in case nothing better is produced in the next iteration. This has a ratchet effect that ensures that the GA will generate the desired outcome—any move in the right direction is protected. This is certainly the case with Dawkins’ (in)famous ‘Weasel’ simulation—see Weasel Words and Dawkins’ weasel revisited.

Perfect selection (selection coefficient, s = 1.0) is often applied so that in each generation only the best survives to ‘reproduce’ to produce the next generation. In the real world, selection coefficients of 0.01 or less are considered realistic, in which case it would take many generations for an information-adding mutation to permeate through a population. Putting it another way, the cost of substitution is ignored (see ReMine’s The Biotic Message for a thorough run-down of this, which is completely ignored in GAs—see Population genetics, Haldane’s Dilemma, etc.).

The flip side to this is that high rates of ‘reproduction’ are used. Bacteria can only double their numbers per generation. Many ‘higher’ organisms can only do a little better, but GAs commonly produce 100s or 1000s of ‘offspring’ per generation. For example, if a population of 1,000 bacteria had only one survivor (999 died), then it would take 10 generations to get back to 1,000.

Generation time is ignored. A generation can happen in a computer in microseconds whereas even the best bacteria take about 20 minutes. Multicellular organisms have far longer generation times.

The mutation rate is artificially high (by many orders of magnitude). This is sustainable because the ‘genome’ is small (see next point) and artificial rules are invoked to protect the best ‘organism’ from mutations, for example. Such mutation rates in real organisms would result in all the offspring being non-viable (error catastrophe). This is why living things have exquisitely designed editing machinery to minimize copying errors to the rate of one in about 10 billion (for humans).

The ‘genome’ is artificially small and only does one thing. The smallest real world genome is over 0.5 million base pairs (and it is an obligate parasite, which depends on its host for many of the substrates needed) with several hundred proteins coded. This is equivalent to over a million bits of information. Even if a GA generated 1800 bits of real information, as one of the commonly-touted ones claims, that is equivalent to maybe one small enzyme—and that was achieved with totally artificial mutation rates, generation times, selection coefficients, etc., etc. In fact, this is also how the body’s immune system develops specific antibodies, with these designed conditions totally different to any whole organism. This is pointed out in more detail by biophysicist Dr Lee Spetner in his refutation of a skeptic.

In real organisms, mutations occur throughout the genome, not just in a gene or section that specifies a given trait. This means that all the deleterious changes to other traits have to be eliminated along with selecting for the rare desirable changes in the trait being selected for. This is ignored in GAs. With genetic algorithms, the program itself is protected from mutations; only target sequences are mutated. Indeed, if it were not quarantined from mutations, the program would very quickly crash. However, the reproduction machinery of an organism is not protected from mutations.

There is no problem of irreducible complexity with GAs (see Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box). Many biological traits require many different components to be present, functioning together, for the trait to exist at all (e.g. protein synthesis, DNA replication, reproduction of a cell, blood clotting, every metabolic pathway, etc.).

Polygeny (where a trait is determined by the combined action of more than one gene) and pleiotropy (where one gene can affect several different traits) are ignored. Furthermore, recessive genes are ignored (recessive genes cannot be selected for unless present as a pair; i.e. homozygous), which multiplies the number of generations needed to get a new trait established in a population. The problem of recessive genes leads to one facet of Haldane’s Dilemma, where the well-known evolutionist J.B.S. Haldane pointed out that, based on the theorems of population genetics, there has not been enough time for the sexual organisms with low reproductive rates and long generation times to evolve. See review of ReMine’s analysis of Haldane’s Dilemma.

Multiple coding genes are ignored. From the human genome project, it appears that, on average, each gene codes for at least three different proteins (see Genome Mania — Deciphering the human genome. In microbes, genes have been discovered that code for one protein when ‘read’ in one direction and a different protein when read backwards, or when the ‘reading’ starts one letter on. Creating a GA to generate such information-dense coding would seem to be out of the question. Such demands an intelligence vastly superior to human beings for its creation.

The outcome in a GA is ‘pre-ordained’. Evolution is by definition purposeless, so no computer program that has a pre-determined goal can simulate it—period. This is blatantly true of Dawkins’ ‘weasel’ program, where the selection of each letter sequence is determined entirely on its match with the pre-programmed goal sequence. Perhaps if the programmer could come up with a program that allowed anything to happen and then measured the survivability of the ‘organisms’, it might be getting closer to what evolution is supposed to do! Of course that is impossible (as is evolution).

With a particular GA, we need to ask how much of the ‘information’ generated by the program is actually specified in the program, rather than being generated de novo. A number of modules or subroutines are normally specified in the program, and the ways these can interact is also specified. The GA program finds the best combinations of modules and the best ways of interacting them. The amount of new information generated is usually quite trivial, even with all the artificial constraints designed to make the GA work.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/genetic_algorithm.asp

--------------
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 04 2006,00:01   

Quote
A single trait is selected for, whereas any living thing is multidimensional. A GA will not work with three or four different objectives, or I dare say even just two.
Yes it will, it then becomes a multiobjective genetic algorithm.

Quote
In fact, the GAs that I have looked at artificially preserve the best of the previous generation and protect it from mutations or recombination in case nothing better is produced in the next iteration.
This guy really needs to look at some more GA's then.

Quote
This is certainly the case with Dawkins’ (in)famous ‘Weasel’ simulation—see Weasel Words and Dawkins’ weasel revisited.
Not a genetic algorithm.

Quote
Perfect selection (selection coefficient, s = 1.0) is often applied so that in each generation only the best survives to ‘reproduce’ to produce the next generation.
A. Certainly not always and B. We don't always wan't to perfectly simlulate evolution we just want a good answer.

Quote
The ‘genome’ is artificially small and only does one thing.
Unless you use a multiobjective algorithm.

I think the point seems to be that genetic algorithms aren't perfect simulations of biological evolution. I don't think they were ever supposed to be. The idea was to use specific ideas from evolution to solve problems. You can say that is doesn't generate much information, and thats fine the point is it solves the problem that we can't in novel ways. Most creationists say that evolution can't generate 'information' either, thats fine too. It still works whether we say it can generate information or not.

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,00:02   

Afdave, did you even UNDERSTAND what you just quoted? Parrot!

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,03:07   

Quote
I think the point seems to be that genetic algorithms aren't perfect simulations of biological evolution. I don't think they were ever supposed to be. The idea was to use specific ideas from evolution to solve problems. You can say that is doesn't generate much information, and thats fine the point is it solves the problem that we can't in novel ways.

Thank you for clearing that up.  I think a better thing to say would be that 'Genetic Algorithms use specific ideas from the nature of Selection and Adaptation.'  Using the term 'evolution' confuses people, including apparently Neo-Darwinists.

This example was offered up to me as supposed 'evidence' that biological evolution (i.e. molecules-to-man) has in fact occurred.  

So I take it that whoever it was that offered that to me was in error, right?

And yes, Renier, I did understand most of it.

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

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,03:19   

To be fair to Norm Doering, I found his quote ...
Quote
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.


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

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,03:27   

Quote (Chris Hyland @ May 04 2006,05:01)
I think the point seems to be that genetic algorithms aren't perfect simulations of biological evolution. I don't think they were ever supposed to be.

Biological evolution works with millions of years and millions of individual organisms. In the case of bacteria and insects, trillions upon trillions of individuals.

No computer simulation can match those kind of resources.

However, some genetic algorithms are meant to model and ask questions of biological evolution. For example, Avida:

http://www.krl.caltech.edu/avida/home/research.html
http://devolab.cse.msu.edu/projects/
http://www.carlzimmer.com/articles/2005/articles_2005_Avida.html

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,03:40   

Hi Dave,

The "vasectomy" part of the example was mine, I think. And no, it was not meant as a joke.
Think of this: You say that your all-knowing, benign entity made laws for the benefit of its children, and later changed them when new circumstances (circumstances he must have known would come to pass from the begining of time, if I may add) emerged.
Well guess what: Circumstances have changed again. It is entirely possible for a person to marry knowing that they will never have children, with much more certainty than even Sarah did. You don't like the vasectomy example? Fine, replace it with a woman who had an hysterectomy. Or whatever. And do not try to evade this by changing the subject to what human lawmakers would do: The question is clear. Since an ancient divine rule was necessarily changed for no other reason than to avoid newly emerging concequenses, wouldn't elimination of the possibilty of those consequenses mean it would apply again? If God allowed incest when offspring were not a problem, then would a person completely incapable of having offspring, who commits incest, sin in the eyes of the lord?
It's a simple question, that derives from your theory. Don't try to pass it off as a joke. It only hurts your argument.

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

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

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

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

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

Quote
Since an ancient divine rule was necessarily changed for no other reason than to avoid newly emerging concequenses, wouldn't elimination of the possibilty of those consequenses mean it would apply again? If God allowed incest when offspring were not a problem, then would a person completely incapable of having offspring, who commits incest, sin in the eyes of the lord?
That is very good logic and I do follow it.  From my understanding of Scripture, the word "sin" simply means "opposition to the will of God."  The primary guideline which we have to determine the will of God is the Bible as far as I know.  We have the one written guideline against incest at the time of Moses, but there are other guidelines for marriage in Scripture which may or may not apply, i.e. one question I can think of is "What is the Biblical PURPOSE of marriage?"  Remember that IF God approves of brother/sister no-offspring marriages NOW, this would mean  He would be approving of a marriage which WILL NEVER have any kids.  Notice that this situation, too, would be different than my supposed Cain's Wife scenario.  My tentative answer without further study would be that this unique situation still would not meet God's approval because one of his designs for marriage is to have children, but it does not appear  to me to be some kind of "heinous sin," but I could be wrong ... maybe He's fine with it.  

I'm curious what you are driving at ... are you considering doing this?  Are you concerned that you would somehow "fall out of Grace" under the Catholic conception of this term if you did?  Do you know someone who is?  Like hehe? :-) Or are just trying to investigate if you think God is consistent?

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

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1014
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,05:24   

Hey Dave, how come humans don't have "perfect genes" any more?  It almost sounds as if the genome is malleable and changes over time, sort of the thing that evolution would predict.  However, I fail to see where a perfect creator making perfect beings would invent a changing DNA of just the kind that is required for evolutionary changes.

So, let's see how creationism/ID entails the kind of genetic material that is predicted by evolutionary scenarios, and which requires the incest taboo/prohibition.  Or any evidence for your claims whatsoever, including evidence that Adam and Eve existed and were "perfect".  Come on, you're such a skeptic, I'm sure you've got all of this evidence at hand, much more than the millions of pages of research that we have on our side.

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

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

   
bourgeois_rage



Posts: 117
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,06:11   

Glen, clearly God made DNA so that brothers and sisters could not marry.

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

   
Carol Clouser



Posts: 29
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,11:57   

Afdave,

You speculations regarding God's motives in prohibiting incest are nothing more than that, just speculation. The Bible offers no reason for the prohibition, so the ban is in effect whether or not your (or my) speculations are applicable. To assume otherwise, Afdave, is to open the door to anyone who wishes to find some excuse for not abiding by this or that commandment - all one needs to do is find some rationalization for God's commandment that would not be applicable under certain desired circumstances and, presto, the prohibition has evaporated.

Are you willing to shoulder this responsibility?

Since God expects His creatures to abide by his commandments, it makes no sense to propose that God's world would of necessity be based on violations of those commandments, such as Cain marrying his sister. So your theory has no merit. The correct explanation is as I described above.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,03:38   

Well, we could go on to argue whether God thinks it's a sin to marry unless you can have children... But I must say this takes our train of thought too far from this thread's subject. My point, as you may have guessed, is another:
Quote
I'm curious what you are driving at ... are you considering doing this?  Are you concerned that you would somehow "fall out of Grace" under the Catholic conception of this term if you did?  Do you know someone who is?  Like hehe? :-) Or are just trying to investigate if you think God is consistent?

 :)  Respectively: No, no, no, and yes.

Well ,not if god is consistent himself, but if all those people who insist that their view represents the one, absolute, literal and indisputable Truth™ are consistent with reality. See how many assumptions we have made so far, each to explain the other? Now, all these work (sort of) if you're already firm on your beliefs, and try to find possible ways to justify them- they do not work, however, when you are looking for the truth; and that is what science is supposed to do.

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

  
switchtech



Posts: 1
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,22:30   

Quote
AFDAVE'S CREATOR GOD HYPOTHESIS

TESTABLE PREDICTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS FOR POINT 1

POINT 1:  THERE IS A GOD
My hypothesis is that there is a Super Intelligent, Highly Moral [added], Incredibly Powerful Being


(Counter point 1)
This is not testable or observable - at least not recently.  This IPB appears to prefer not to reveal itself to modern people.

 
Quote
TESTABLE PREDICTIONS FROM POINT 1
(a) A Super Intelligent Being would be expected to design highly sophisticated machines and systems.


(Counter prediction a)
The vast majority of life forms on this planet are designed with a multitude of nonsense and errors in the DNA.  A highly intelligent being would avoid such nonsense and errors.

 
Quote
(b) An Incredibly Powerful Being would be expected to build systems of mind-numbing size and power, such as a power generation system to supply power to all His innovative machines, maybe a lighting system so his creatures can see to navigate on the planet, perhaps a water supply and filtration system to provide clean water to His little creations, and so on.  


(Counter prediction b)
Chaos is highly complex, capable of mind numbing scale and energies and capable of apparent patterns (especially to a pattern seeking life form such as the human) - life forms that evolve within such a system would adapt to the system, sensing in it an innate beauty and rightness - a creator need not be implied.

 
Quote
© A Highly Moral or Ethical Being would be expected to "build in" some Laws of Right and Wrong into his universe.  


(Counter prediction c)
Where is the right and wrong but in our minds?  In the "natural" world, everything is prey and/or predator (only photosynthesizing forms are not necessarily eating other life).  In a true right and wrong universe, no thing would incur harm to feed another.  In the accidental universe, one would expect no hard coded right and wrong.  A vast number of creatures in the wild will kill and eat their own kind (and so we observe).  Only in a social structure are concepts of right and wrong relevant.  Only in human society are such concepts truly meaningful.  One does not require a creator for right and wrong - one requires humans.  I have read C.S. Lewis.  His fiction is fine.  His apologetics are tedious.

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


(Counter prediction d)
We would expect in an imperfect accidental order for complex systems to have odd faults, such as hearing voices and seeing what is not.  We find many current examples of such disorders in society today.  In other times these people were considered possessed, or hearing the voice of god, or both.  (Actually that still happens today, too).  We would also expect to find people searching for answers and trying their best to explain such cruel phenomenon as hurricanes, earthquakes, and floods.  Lo and behold, the ancient mythologies are rife with such explanations.

 
Quote
(e) We would expect to hear many claims of "Supernatural Experiences" such as people hearing voices, seeing visions of shining beings, out-of-body experiences, etc.  


(Counter prediction e)
I think this is the same as the previous response.

 
Quote
(f) If there is such a thing as a Being who can "speak" things into existence using advanced scientific principles which humans have not yet discovered, then I would predict that there would be some sort of relationship among matter, energy and "nothingness."


(Counter prediction f)
If the universe sprang into being via some big bang, initially as tremendous energy then cooling to matter we would expect to find some sort of relationship between matter, energy and nothingness.  Hey, we do!  We might also observe that the metaphorical fabric of the universe is unpredictable and predictable all at the same time (again, we do)... because life is possible in this universe, some certain facets of the universe are constant and repeatable (or life couldn't continue) but because it sprang from nothing, there then must be chaotic bits at the basic level that we can not predict (or potentially understand).

 
Quote
(g) If there is such a thing as a Being who "lives outside of time" viewing the future and the past with equal ease, then I would predict that Time is not an infinite concept, but is something which is not absolute and can be manipulated, possibly even a "created thing" with a beginning and an end.  


(Counter prediction g)
Given the immense scale of the universe, we might expect to find some linked relationship between space and time such that movement through one affects the aspects of the other.  (Hindsight being 20/20 and all)

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


(Counter questions)
What good are my hypotheses?  Do they predict anything about the universe not yet discovered that may yet be discovered by exploration and experiment?  Why should I trust a document written 3 or 4000 years or so ago when there are other documents much older that offer more original solutions to my questions about how the universe works - or perhaps I should listen to the most recent  . . . How to decide?  By education, of course.

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


(Personal disclosure)
I am not a scientist, nor do I play one in the movies.  I am a skeptic, though not by profession.  I maintain communications systems for a living and play at science for fun.  In the past I've tried my hand at writing fiction (nothing remotely publishable), photography, astronomy and aviation - all at the amateur level.  At the middle of my life I decided to return to college to get my degree (many moons ago I was as a physics major - now I'm a computer science major at a Catholic University)

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


(Personal comment)
I don't aim to convince anyone that I am right (although I will likely post my opinion with a confident air).  I would prefer people listen to my ideas, correct me where I'm wrong, and decide what is true.  The only real truth for a skeptic is repeatable, provable, and incontrovertible - perhaps not always all at once.  But don't take my word for it  . . .

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,05:03   

AFDAVE said

 
Quote
So if you want me to convert, you might try the calm, rational technique, rather than the "Rant/Rave/Rotten Tomato" technique


Oh yeah? Convert to what? Rational thinking?From what ?
For someone boasting about how tough they are, you seem to be remarkably thin skinned.
The old 'turn the other cheek' is not a call to to behave stupidly in the face of cognitive dissonance it is a method to ensure the so called faithful don't change their minds when fed to the lions, as a cult forming technique it is almost perfect and drives the lions owners mad with rage, which destroys from within ,as the old pagan Romans found to their chagrin. If they had taken more notice of the psycho politics they would have stolen the idea for themselves....oh right ...Emperor Justinian did just that, with one caveat....Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and the bishops can have the sheep's brains. The call by JC at his sermon on the mount not to insult people needlessly follows a similar thread, not a postmodernist political correctness to act with sweetness and light promoting mindlessness or mendacity but a method to claim the moral high ground where the attacker discredits himself by his projected anger, a central theme in Zen too BTW. In JC's case he should have listened to his own words when he took on the money changers but then he was nothing if not a radical, a point completely washed from history in today's Fundamentalist churches. In other words the Fundies are much more concerned with materialistic wealth and a desperate grasp for more (material and converts) at the expense of those outside their belief group, that the actual message of their figurative head is conveniently forgotten and obscured by a whole raft of ancient ideologies rationalizing ignorance,war and pillage.
Take the redefinition of 'materialism' itself, old JC said it would be tougher for a rich man to ...etc etc.... was against it. So what do the Fundies do ? Redefine the religious constraint against actual materialistic greed to actual natural material. The Catholic church is partly to blame here , how can you justify owning more land, bricks, mortar, and vast incomes for thousands of years all the while suppressing natural knowledge?....easy make nature evil and god outside of man and they get to say what the one true word of god is and HE doesn't like natural materialism (but not good old mammon..god forbid). Pity the renaissance removed the church as the commercial center of society and could, indeed needed to independently fund science. The late 1800's Fundies were a reaction to modernity and the rise of power of the secular state  so they replaced rationalism and the new mechanical understanding of nature which they confused with the new  mechanistic  role people had to play in society to survive, as though they were machines with a call to a higher power ..their own, very seductive to a disenfranchised lower class and strangely to their robber baron masters . What