Is Anyone A Former 'Scientific Creationist'?

[Dr Adequate]

Anyone here, or... just anyone at all ever?

We have lots of ex-believers in stuff on these forums. And yet I can't remember hearing from an ex-'SC'. In my trawls of the web, I've found one possible case --- I'm going to email him.

But I'm really not sure that it's ever happened. Has any 'SC', ever, ceased his babbling of pseudoscience long enough to look in some real science books and find out that he's wrong?

[hammegk]

Interesting question. There is an alternative: if you a 'materialist', you should in good faith assign 100% probability that your view is correct; if the probabity you assign is not 100%, either you are a closet dualist, or a liar.

[Dr Adequate]

I nominate that for non sequitur of the year. It's only April, I know, but I think I'm on to a winner.

[Hawk one]

If you traverse the published feedbacks in Talk Origins (Which I assume you don't need to be linked to, Dr. A), you might be able to get in touch with someone like that. I have seen quite a few stories that I believe should fit your criteria, and at least some of them will have their e-mail available, so that you can contact them and find out if it was a serious feedback.

Just a suggestion, since I myself have just about always accepted a universe without a creator.

[KelvinG]

Very few creationists every change. It costs too much for that operation to remove their heads from their ass.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by KelvinG
Very few creationists every change. It costs too much for that operation to remove their heads from their ass.
You 100% materialist, or just another silly dualist?

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by hammegk
You 100% materialist, or just another silly dualist?

Heh, heh. Somebody's desperately trying to pick a fight in this thread, isn't he?

[nicholls]

QUOTE]Heh, heh. Somebody's desperately trying to pick a fight in this thread, isn't he?[/QUOTE]

A duellist, perhaps?[

[Abdul Alhazred]

I wasn't a "scientific creationist", but I didn't believe in the theory of evolution until I'd been to college. I had to hold the skulls in my hand before I was convinced.

No, I didn't have a "fundie" upbringing.

[Throg]

Originally posted by hammegk
Interesting question. There is an alternative: if you a 'materialist', you should in good faith assign 100% probability that your view is correct; if the probabity you assign is not 100%, either you are a closet dualist, or a liar.

I'm not generally one to ignore people but the level of ignorance implicit in this statement inspires me. I'm not even going to try to argue.

[Yahweh]

Former JREFer Sparklecat used to be a former YECist and Rapture believer, see her story The Transfiguration of a Believer (url=http://www.skepticreport.com/mystics/transfiguration.htm).

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Throg
I'm not generally one to ignore people but the level of ignorance implicit in this statement inspires me. I'm not even going to try to argue.
Ignorance? Sure, if you say so, less than 100% (=illogical dualist), or 100% materialist (=insane).

Actually consider objective idealism with an open mind.

BTW, I do assign 100% certainty to just one statement, that being "thought exists".


nichols: duelist is correct ... :D

[thaiboxerken]

Hammy, this is the adult table, you belong in the kid's table. Now be a good boy and go play with your geeky friends.

[Throg]

Originally posted by hammegk
Ignorance? Sure, if you say so, less than 100% (=illogical dualist), or 100% materialist (=insane).

Actually consider objective idealism with an open mind.

BTW, I do assign 100% certainty to just one statement, that being "thought exists".


nichols: duelist is correct ... :D

I tried, but I'm just too weak-willed to ignore (and no I do not take "weak-willed" to imply dualism).

I referred to your apparent ignorance of materialism. Rather than simply repeating your assertions, please supply your reasoning in coming to the conclusion that one must be 100% certain of the materialist model in order to be a materialist. Please also supply your reasoning in coming to the conclusion that one need not be 100% certain of the dualist model in order to be a dualist. Once you have done so, it will make sense for me to either acknowledge that you are correct or argue with you.


Sorry for the facetiousness of my previous post but unsupported assertions are terribly irksome.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Hawk one
If you traverse the published feedbacks in Talk Origins (Which I assume you don't need to be linked to, Dr. A), you might be able to get in touch with someone like that. I can only find a couple of short posts over a whole year.

* shakes head *

On the other hand, the following quotations cheered me up no end:The day has an astronomical explanation. The year has an astronomical explanation. The week doesn't. How can you call a week a week with no explanation for it? Creation is the only place you get reference of a week from, so you can't even use week without contradicting yourself.The makers of this website are probably a bunch of loser, outcast, liberal nerds that need to be smacked around. Next make some legit points for your meaningless cause, don't say to be creation vs. evolution either, and don't waste time bashing the truth like I bash your beloved faggot brethren. The truth is out there and will be found, but you are and will remain lost and die and go to eternal damnation. Thank You and have a nice day, faggots!Is science believable? First helium had to pool together to make a star for no reason something had to act on it. Physics says that is improbable without God and it happens billions of times. To make planets asteroids had to collide to make heat to make the round shape, given the vastness of space it is improbable and it happens many times ... Space bends so that mean it is something nonphysical. So if nonphysical things exist that means that thing like God, souls also exist.Using your own words: "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty". Then why teach these things as "truth" to our impressionable school age children? Evolution of species is a documented fact? What merit does it have then, because a "fact" is only a half-truth? I do not want my children being taught half-truths (lies) as absolutes.
:dl:

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Throg
I tried, but I'm just too weak-willed to ignore (and no I do not take "weak-willed" to imply dualism).
Nor do I.


I referred to your apparent ignorance of materialism. Rather than simply repeating your assertions, please supply your reasoning in coming to the conclusion that one must be 100% certain of the materialist model in order to be a materialist. Please also supply your reasoning in coming to the conclusion that one need not be 100% certain of the dualist model in order to be a dualist. Once you have done so, it will make sense for me to either acknowledge that you are correct or argue with you.


Sorry for the facetiousness of my previous post but unsupported assertions are terribly irksome.
Yeah, I know. The sublety underlying my statement is mind-boggling.

Position 1. Materialism=choose body (one way to say it) ...
Position 2. Unsure = dualism (by definition)
Position 3. Idealism=choose mind (one way to say it) ...

Feel free to demonstrate to your adoring fans I'm wrong.

[Francois Tremblay]

Position 1. Materialism=choose body (one way to say it) ...
Position 2. Unsure = dualism (by definition)
Position 3. Idealism=choose mind (one way to say it) ...

Your classification is wrong. The mind cannot exist without the body.

[Hawk one]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
I can only find a couple of short posts over a whole year.

* shakes head *

On the other hand, the following quotations cheered me up no end.
<snip>

Yeah, there aren't too many of those stories. I probably remember reading more than a couple because I read the whole feedback archive a couple months back. Of course, searching for much more than a year back may be as fruitless, as it's uncertain whether or not the e-mail adresses (if even visible) provided then are still in use now.

But on the other hand, it's always a good place for some really far-out quotes, so I guess it wasn't a total loss, eh ;)

[Throg]

Originally posted by hammegk

Yeah, I know. The sublety underlying my statement is mind-boggling.

Position 1. Materialism=choose body (one way to say it) ...
Position 2. Unsure = dualism (by definition)
Position 3. Idealism=choose mind (one way to say it) ...

Feel free to demonstrate to your adoring fans I'm wrong.


There's nothing subtle about it, you are just plain wrong or have re-defined materialism, dualism and idealism to fit your own personal preference, depending how you look at it.

Position 1
This is precisely my position.

Position 2
The only problem with being a dualist who is certain that our nature is dualistic is the basic problem of how do you acquire certain knowledge that is at the route of scepticism. There is no reason that a dualist cannot be as certain of his position as a materialist or idealist.

Position 3
There is no problem with being a idealist on the basis that you think it is most likely (not certain) to represent the most accurate model of reality.


You have confused the issues of one's model of reality with the level of certainty which one ascribes to one's model.

Feel free to demonstrate to your adoring fans that I am wrong.


Incidentally, if I do, as hammegk suggests, have adoring fans please send me money and, if you are female, obscene photographs and/or movies of yourselves.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Francois Tremblay
Your classification is wrong. The mind cannot exist without the body.
At the human HPC level, of course. And less complex neural systems presumably also have an associated "mind", imo.


Originally posted by Throg

You have confused the issues of one's model of reality with the level of certainty which one ascribes to one's model.
No confusion on my part; maybe on yours. Unless you disagree with the statement, if it interacts with "what is" it is the same monism "what is" is. Alternatively, you have body stuff interacting with mind stuff and you are a dualist.

100% materialism on one end, 100% idealism on the other, dualism some mixture of both.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by hammegk

100% materialism on one end, 100% idealism on the other, dualism some mixture of both.

And if we switch back to the usual definition of "unsure" then that might be someone who accepts the dichotomy but feels the evidence perhaps more one way than the other but is willing to change his view with the evidence.

[apoger]

Hammy is a philosophy troll with a giant bag of his own definitions and an almost unending determination to inflict them upon the unwary. He is immune to logic, and delights in gibberish.

You have been warned. :D

[hammegk]

Originally posted by apoger
Hammy is a philosophy troll with a giant bag of his own definitions and an almost unending determination to inflict them upon the unwary. He is immune to logic, and delights in gibberish.

You have been warned. :D
That's as pointed as the top your head, and equally informative. Which definitions do you quibble with? And, logically, why?


Originally posted by Wudang
And if we switch back to the usual definition of "unsure" then that might be someone who accepts the dichotomy but feels the evidence perhaps more one way than the other but is willing to change his view with the evidence.
Agreed. However, that is the definition of dualism, where body & mind are different monisms, yet interact.

BTW, non-interactive dualism is at least logical, even if irrelevant to "thought" as we currently know it.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by apoger

You have been warned. :D

I think he aspires to be as annoying as Ian.

[Vikram]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I think he aspires to be as annoying as Ian.
He's succeeding.

[Vikram]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Using your own words: "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty". Then why teach these things as "truth" to our impressionable school age children? Evolution of species is a documented fact? What merit does it have then, because a "fact" is only a half-truth? I do not want my children being taught half-truths (lies) as absolutes
About a month ago, my ten-year old cousin who lives in Long Island, NY told me that he'd heard somewhere that man came from monkeys. He asked me whether that was true and how that could have happened. I explained evolution to him over the period of a few days and he seemed to grasp the basic concepts immediately. His father got him a children's book on evolution and he read it with great delight.

When I spoke to him two weeks later, he told me that he'd shared his new-found knowledge with his fourth-grade class. After he did, his teacher said to the him, "That's very nice, but remember that evolution is just a theory."

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by hammegk

Agreed. However, that is the definition of dualism, where body & mind are different monisms, yet interact.
Hammy, are you saying that dualism is negatively defined, whereas materialism and idealism are each positively defined? Wouldn't you say that there is a difference between somebody who believes that there is both mind and body, and somebody who is simply not "100% certain" that it is all material, or all ideal? If you are defining "dualist" as anybody who is not 100% sure in their monism, what label would you put on somebody who is not 100% sure of their dualistic assumtions?

[apoger]

That's as pointed as the top your head, and equally informative.


Hammy, didn't you make quite a show of putting me on ignore?
Get some integrity and put me back!

[Throg]

Originally posted by hammegk

No confusion on my part; maybe on yours. Unless you disagree with the statement, if it interacts with "what is" it is the same monism "what is" is. Alternatively, you have body stuff interacting with mind stuff and you are a dualist.

100% materialism on one end, 100% idealism on the other, dualism some mixture of both.

There is nothing inconsistent in the statements
"There is a 90% probability that we are 100% material beings"
"There is a 90% probability that we are 100% immaterial beings"
They are not equivalent or even similar in meaning to the statements
"I am 100% certain that we are 90% material beings"
"I am 100% certain that we are 90% material beings"

Similarly
"I am 100% certain that there we are 50% material and 50% immaterial"
is not equivalent to
"I am 50% certain that we are 100% material and and 100% immaterial"


Please note that I am not suggesting that there is anything at all significant about 90% or 50% in the various cases. These values are used for illustrative purposes only.

[hammegk]

Well, your statements all stake out a dualism position. Now what?

[Throg]

Originally posted by hammegk
Well, your statements all stake out a dualism position. Now what?

That's an interesting assertion. Please justify it.

[Renfield]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
I nominate that for non sequitur of the year. It's only April, I know, but I think I'm on to a winner.

Ham's already got a lock on that award, so I doubt he's too psyched about yet another nomination worthy post.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Throg
That's an interesting assertion. Please justify it.

I know it's tough to see that given 2 possible existants (mind and/or body), if a specified logical position does not contain 100% of one, some of the other is also present.


Originally posted by Mercutio
... what label would you put on somebody who is not 100% sure of their dualistic assumptions?
Dualist.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by hammegk
I know it's tough to see that given 2 possible existants (mind and/or body), if a specified logical position does not contain 100% of one, some of the other is also present. You see, Throg, if you aren't 100% convinced that hammy's drinking vodka, and you're not 100% convinced that he's drinking a coffee liqueur, then you must necessarily believe that he's drinking a Black Russian.

And that's logical, so it is!

[hammegk]

Great post. :hit:

Sounds like you're the one drinking vodka.

[Ossai]

hammegk
I know it's tough to see that given 2 possible existants (mind and/or body), if a specified logical position does not contain 100% of one, some of the other is also present.
Biased!

What makes you that there are only two states and one combination?
There are at least 47 more that you’re ignoring.

Ossai

[hammegk]

Name one that is not included in the choices mind or body.

[Roboramma]

hammegk,
Here's a hypothetical case for you:
I believe that my dog has no white hairs. In fact, I am 99% certain that my dog has no white hairs on it at all. After checking over it multiple times and consulting vets about the chances that it could have white hairs, I am 99% certain that it has no white hairs at all. In fact it would appear that it has only black hairs.
Still, I can't say that I'm 100% certain.
Does this mean that I beleive that it has both black and white hairs?

[hammegk]

Wow! That may be the dumbest attempt at an analogy I've ever seen!

[hgc]

A piece of advice. All discussions with/about hammy should be conducted in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50656).

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Anyone here, or... just anyone at all ever?

We have lots of ex-believers in stuff on these forums. And yet I can't remember hearing from an ex-'SC'. In my trawls of the web, I've found one possible case --- I'm going to email him.

But I'm really not sure that it's ever happened. Has any 'SC', ever, ceased his babbling of pseudoscience long enough to look in some real science books and find out that he's wrong?

Not to derail the thread or anything (I know, I flatter myself), and this is sort of in response to hammy. I always thought this materialist, dualist and whatever the other thing is - immaterialist - stuff was all off the mark in the following ways. over the years I have ingest a wide variety of chemicals - typical anti-seizure drugs - in an attempt to stop migraine headaches which took over my life following neck surgery. These drugs do a lot of weird stuff to your brain.

Last week I woke up in the middle of the night with the absolute certainty - a personal insight, though not an original notion - that there is no indivisible, single entity that comprises the self. Yes, I probably didn't use "comprises" right, but I'm leaving it. I knew with certainty that self is made up of an intricate tapestry of impulses and reactions and stuff all subtlely interwoven to create what we call the self. and just as this collection of stuff can be integrated to created the self it can also be disintegrated in terrifying ways.

Now, some people would infer from this that the self is "an illusion", but that is just a mistaken as thinking the self is some sort of inviolable, spiritual entity like the soul. From my perspective, everything has to made out of something. Everything that happens happens by some sort of mechanism. The fact that it might be theoretically possible to reduce our "selves", for example, to a bunch fantastically intricate tapestry of interconnected mechanisms is not the same as saying we ARE those mechanisms.

In practical reality we could never duplicate anything like genuine human conciousness. We might be able to mimic it, but brains and selves work nothing like computors work. I guess my argument, in as much as I have one, is that we do not need to believe in fairies and spiritual realms to suppose that we are fantastical creatures. Likewise, there is no way we can be reduced merely to the mechanisms by which we operate. It does not take tremendous insight to recognize that we are tremendously more than the sum of our parts, but that does not mean we have to have as our source some supernatural creator in order to have significance.

The core of the immaterialist's arguments lie in the belief that there are some things that happen without mechanisms for them happening - they need to believe that because they think that operating by mechanisms somehow diminishes our wonderfulness (and terribleness) and the wonderfulness of the universe. I think they could not be more wrong. I also think that reductionists who think that were are merely our mechanisms are just as dead wrong and they and the immaterialist actually hold the same predjudices.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by hgc
A piece of advice. All discussions with/about hammy ......

Another piece of advice: Search hgc posts, read a few, and see what you think of him and his value to this board -- ( I'd guess his mama loves him, anyway ... ) ;)

[Roboramma]

Originally posted by hammegk
Wow! That may be the dumbest attempt at an analogy I've ever seen!
Really? Could you enlighten me as to why? I'd be interested to know what the logical difference is between that and saying the following:
I beleive that there is nothing "immaterial". After a lifetime of concidering the subject, and looking at evidence built up by science over thousands of years, I am 99% certain that there is no "immaterial".
Therefore, I believe that the mind is both material and immaterial.
The above is your viewpoint, right? If not, for us dumb skeptics, could you make your viewpoint clear?

Please show me where i went wrong in my analogy. I like to have it pointed out when i'm wrong - I usually learn something.

[hammegk]

If you wish to discuss hair colors, the question will be "What monism is the basis for the hairs perceived by the perceived *you* (a -- perceived -- bag-o-bones & mush), and *you* (the perceiver)?".

[hgc]

Originally posted by hammegk
If you wish to discuss hair colors, the question will be "What monism is the basis for the hairs perceived by the perceived *you* (a -- perceived -- bag-o-bones & mush), and *you* (the perceiver)?". hammy's magical pixies make their appearance.

[hammegk]

And hgc demonstrates, again, that he couldn't buy a clue ...

[hgc]

Originally posted by hammegk
And hgc demonstrates, again, that he couldn't buy a clue ... Go pick lunch off the trees and give yourself a rest, African style, hammy.

[hammegk]

Did you stick your banana where the sun don't shine, again? Maybe mama will pick another one for you.

[hgc]

Originally posted by hammegk
Did you stick your banana where the sun don't shine, again? Maybe mama will pick another one for you. *You* are a dirty bird.

[Ossai]

Hammegk
Name one that is not included in the choices mind or body.
Spirit
Ka
N-Zone

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Ossai
Hammegk

Spirit
Ka
N-Zone

Spirit, immaterial
Ka, immaterial, unless its' empirically validated. What is Ka?
N-Zone, immaterial, unless its' empirically validated. What is N-Zone?

[Dr Adequate]

Back to the original post... anyone remember that?

They can change their minds, if they really have their noses rubbed into reality.

A YEC learns some geology, changes his mind (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm) : "After six months of looking, I finally found work as a geophysicist working for a seismic company. Within a year, I was processing seismic data for Atlantic Richfield.
This was where I first became exposed to the problems geology presented to the idea of a global flood…

I worked hard over the next few years to solve these problems. I published 20+ items in the Creation Research Society Quarterly. I would listen to ICR, have discussions with people like Slusher, Gish, Austin, Barnes and also discuss things with some of their graduates that I had hired.

In order to get closer to the data and know it better, with the hope of finding a solution, I changed subdivisions of my work in 1980. I left seismic processing and went into seismic interpretation where I would have to deal with more geologic data. My horror at what I was seeing only increased. There was a major problem; the data I was seeing at work, was not agreeing with what I had been taught as a Christian. Doubts about what I was writing and teaching began to grow. Unfortunately, my fellow young earth creationists were not willing to listen to the problems…

Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true?"

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either."

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by hammegk
*snip*

Allow me to translate: I don't get enough attention, and that fills me with a need to hijack this thread to get some. Instead of starting my own thread to discuss this issue (which everyone would ignore, because I've been endlessly ranting about these same things on this board and everyone is tired of it) I'll jump in this thread and get my attention at the expense of Dr. A's appeal for information. Dr. A is thoughtful and respected and productive member of the forum. Hijacking his threads are a sure fire way to get the attention I crave.

TIME FOR ME TO GET ON TOPIC! (and a very interesting topic at that, Dr. A!)

Dr. A: I was raised a creationist, but never was a creation "science" believer. Even when I was a believer, I was still a critical thinker. My mother is actually into the creation "science" literature, and I've encountered quite a few of them. My opinion: you're not going to find many people turning away from CS.

Creation "science" takes a lot of effort to believe. You have to fundamentally break your way of thinking. You believe something and work to make the evidence fit the belief. Real science has it the other way, which is much easier. Make your beliefs conform to the evidence!

I had a revealing conversation with a CS friend of mine a long time ago. I simply asked "Is science correct about the speed of light?" "Yes." "Is science correct on the distance between Earth and the stars?" "Yes." "So if Andromeda is 2.38 Million light years away..." For a moment, he was stunned. Mind blown. Then "I'll have to think about it and get back to you."

In other words, "I need some time to try to make this evidence fit my belief." He's a hard christian "science" believer to this day.

[hammegk]

You are damn impressive, Doc. Debunking YEC!

None of your converts even mentioned the 'tricky god' hypothesis? (which we both know is undecidable .... ;) )

[Ossai]

Hammegk
Let me take them one at a time.

Spirit, immaterial – you’ve just made a claim prove it. Sprit isn’t material (it’s eternal) or immaterial (it changes).

Ka, immaterial, unless its' empirically validated. What is Ka? – The third of the soul, see above.

N-Zone, immaterial, unless its' empirically validated. What is N-Zone? – Ficta(sp?)

Ossai

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Ossai
Hammegk
Let me take them one at a time.

Spirit, immaterial – you’ve just made a claim prove it. Spirit isn’t material (it’s eternal) or immaterial (it changes).

No interest, thanks.

The choices were Material=body=physical, or immaterial=mind=not-physical.

If you think "spirit" is Material, who am I to tell you different. Science and empiricism will tell you you are wrong though.

We can begin to dance with dimensions 5 on up I suppose, since science can't empirically examine those areas either.


Ka? Ficta? Why not gooble-de-gook too?

[Phaycops]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Back to the original post... anyone remember that?

They can change their minds, if they really have their noses rubbed into reality.

A YEC learns some geology, changes his mind (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm)

Thanks, Dr. A. I found that very interesting. I, personally, have never, ever met a geologist who was a YEC. I guess I've been lucky :)

I remember reading an interesting "conversion" article at Internet Infidels. They have several, though I don't know that any of them pertain to YEC in particular.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Phaycops
Thanks, Dr. A. I found that very interesting. I, personally, have never, ever met a geologist who was a YEC. I guess I've been lucky :)

Truthful, more likely.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by hammegk
None of your converts even mentioned the 'tricky god' hypothesis? (which we both know is undecidable .... ;) ) Ah yes, the last resort.

Yes, hammy, if we hypothesize an omnipotent being who wishes to deceive us all, then anything could be true. The sky could be green. I could have six legs. Creationists could be right.

But you don't invoke the 'tricky god' to argue against blue skies or humans being bipeds. No, you only need to hypothesize that God is a liar when confronted with a truth you don't like.

Rather then you being wrong, God can be insincere.

Wow.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Ah yes, the last resort.

Indeed. Deal with it, with all the good intentions and hubris you can muster, knowing that in the final analysis, wejustdunno.

Nor do I need to hypothesize anything contrafactual to science as it stands ... :)

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by hammegk
Indeed. Deal with it, with all the good intentions and hubris you can muster, knowing that in the final analysis, wejustdunno. This is the same thing again. Yes, your hypothesis of an Omnipotent Liar is possible... so yes, I justdunno whether I have six legs, or whether the sky is green. Or this evolution thing, he could be lying to me about that. Okay. Now give me an argument that singles out evolution as particularly wrong, more than any other fact that your Omnipotent Liar hypothesis could explain away.Nor do I need to hypothesize anything contrafactual to science as it stands ... :) No, you don't. The hypothesis of the Omnipotent Liar will cover every eventuality. Enjoy!

[hammegk]

Enjoy? Why?

I lean towards Strong Anthropic Principle.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by hammegk
Enjoy? Why? Well, because you brought the Cosmic Liar Principle up.I lean towards Strong Anthropic Principle. Well, at least we've got a preference out of you.

Now, please say:

(1) What is the Strong Anthropic Principle --- according to you?
(2) Is there any reason why this Principle should come into conflict with the idea that species evolved from a few forms or one according to the laws of reproduction, variation, and natural selection?

[hammegk]

It is the question of intent vs. random accidents. Do you believe the periodic table, that quarks combine as they do, that bosons, fermions and baryons interact as they do, for example, are "accidents"?

For Darwinism, even Darwin noted that the number of abiogenetic events cannot be determined. You feel that you and and pond scum share some common ancestor. I don't; the baramin concept -- with cross species similarities specified by the same 'intent' mentioned above -- suits me better.

And I suspect life striving towards 'intelligence' (by increasing what we perceive as structural complexity) to be a universal phenomena.

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by hammegk
And I suspect life striving towards 'intelligence' (by increasing what we perceive as structural complexity) to be a universal phenomena.

Structural complexity depends on the observer. If I sent you an encrypted message with a one time pad and a series of completely random characters, it would be impossibe for you to determine which message had "structural complexity" and which was simply random. How would you propose to measure evidence of this so-called "intelligence" or "structural complexity?"

And just what do you mean by "universal?" I hope you don't mean that every particle in the universe is trying to gain structural complexity? There's a Second Law somewhere that contradicts that idea...

[hammegk]

Originally posted by delphi_ote
Structural complexity depends on the observer. If I sent you an encrypted message with a one time pad and a series of completely random characters, it would be impossibe for you to determine which message had "structural complexity" and which was simply random. How would you propose to measure evidence of this so-called "intelligence" or "structural complexity?"

What we perceive as structural complexity appears required for intelligence (e.g. our brain); it's unknown if that complexity is sufficient. I'd say no.


And just what do you mean by "universal?" I hope you don't mean that every particle in the universe is trying to gain structural complexity? There's a Second Law somewhere that contradicts that idea...
Under the concept that gravity offsets all other, positive, forms of energy (unknown if balance is actually zero, and Heisenberg is probably/possibly around) groupings of "particles-- whatever a particle might actually be" form what we perceive as complexity using local energy to do so. And being damn good at finding local energy in useful form, I might add, 2nd Law & all.

[Roboramma]

Originally posted by hammegk
If you wish to discuss hair colors, the question will be "What monism is the basis for the hairs perceived by the perceived *you* (a -- perceived -- bag-o-bones & mush), and *you* (the perceiver)?".
Could you please explain how this has anything to do with my question about the equivalence of my analogy to your statement? For example, because I can't seem to understand your vague statements, could you just take part of what I said and tell me where the difference is?
That'd be great.

Oh, and by the way, I do understand what you mean about perception. But my question was about the equilvalance of one belief to another, so perception doesn't really come into it, does it?

PS Sorry Dr. A, he can be hard to resist.

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by hammegk
What we perceive as structural complexity appears required for intelligence (e.g. our brain); it's unknown if that complexity is sufficient. I'd say no.

Complexity, information, and intelligence depend on the observer and context. There are equations in various contexts to represent things like these concepts, but without a definition or any context, all of this talk about brains and sufficency is pointless.

You also ignored my request for a definition of "universal." Instead, I was treated to incomplete sentences using physics terms in nonsensical ways. You're writing to intentionally confuse so you seem intelligent. You're not writing to communicate. Despite your best efforts to sound intelligent and talk down to everyone, I see you're just blowing smoke and rambling about things you don't understand. I know you'll come back with a sarcastic comment about my intelligence, but somewhere inside I'm sure you're burning that someone called you out on this.

I think you probably have some interesting opinions and thoughts... pity you're too insecure to share them. I'll gladly listen to you when you have something to say and say it in an intellectually honest way (i.e. define the terms and context about which you are speaking and use complete sentences to impart your understanding of the subject to your audience.)

Until then, I think I'll spend some quality time with my Playstation.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Roboramma
Could you please explain how this has anything to do with my question about the equivalence of my analogy to your statement?
Look at it this way. Assume that the monism is body/physical/material/non-living; the hairs/color/attributes that are perceived is all of that monism. Same comment if you assume the alternate mind/not-physical/?living?; the hairs are that monism.

If you are unwilling to assign 100% certainty to your monism, you must be a dualist, which has no relationship to things that are within a monism.


Oh, and by the way, I do understand what you mean about perception. But my question was about the equilvalance of one belief to another, so perception doesn't really come into it, does it?
Hmmm. I'd say perception is all we have, and in fact what all existants have.


Originally posted by delphi_ote
Complexity, information, and intelligence depend on the observer and context. There are equations in various contexts to represent things like these concepts, but without a definition or any context, all of this talk about brains and sufficency is pointless.
Gee, I thought we were chatting at human level & brain complexity.


You also ignored my request for a definition of "universal." Instead, I was treated to incomplete sentences using physics terms in nonsensical ways.
Er, universal = all the universe so far as I know.


You're writing to intentionally confuse so you seem intelligent. You're not writing to communicate. Despite your best efforts to sound intelligent and talk down to everyone, I see you're just blowing smoke and rambling about things you don't understand. I know you'll come back with a sarcastic comment about my intelligence, but somewhere inside I'm sure you're burning that someone called you out on this.
If you say so .... ;)


I think you probably have some interesting opinions and thoughts... pity you're too insecure to share them. I'll gladly listen to you when you have something to say and say it in an intellectually honest way (i.e. define the terms and context about which you are speaking and use complete sentences to impart your understanding of the subject to your audience.)

Until then, I think I'll spend some quality time with my Playstation.

Have fun with your Playstation. :)

[Dr Adequate]

I found another one (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/Paluxygullibility.html) : "I am no newcomer to young earth creationism. I grew up with it. I believed it. Then I discovered it was wrong. I've had many, many years of experience with YEC. I'm used to the habitual carelessness with details, the attitude of remaining obstinate in error, and the endless repetition of anecdotal stories that characterizes so much of the YEC community. These are straightforward facts that non-YECs who have experience with YECs attest to, and there are even some YECs who have honestly acknowledged that these are problems characteristic of the "YEC culture." (Indeed, before I became a non-YEC, I was one of those YECs that acknowledged that.)"

[Dr Adequate]

Another heartwarming story (http://genesispanthesis.tripod.com/inspiration.html)For a very long time I was content to explain away the mounds of evidence supporting evolutionary biology as well as mainstream geology and cosmology. Particularly the fossil record - which I feel I can safely say that I was much more well-versed in than the majority of prominent creationists (Gish et. al.), was rather easy for me to dispute in my deluded creationist mind.

After a while, I became very aware of the dishonest tactics used by creationists such as Gish and Morris, and developed a growing contempt for the majority of my fellow creationists/Christians. Though I was determined to help give creationism scientific respectability and aid in restoring the good name of the Christian religion...

Yes - I had the evidence, the information, and the knowledge of how evolutionary biology works - yet I did not have the intellectual integrity to admit to the truthfulness of evolutionary theory and kept denying that this incredibly intricate law and set of 'trends' in nature could possibly have any validity.

Then, in september of 1999, the bomb dropped. I picked up my issue of the National Geographic and saw what else on a page advertising an upcoming issue; but Sinornithosaurus millenii! It had long steak-knife-shaped teeth like a T. rex, a long, muscular tail, hyper-extendable "switchblade" claws on the hind legs like Velociraptor mongoliensis, a narrow snout that looked almost like a bill, a bird-like pubic structure, and worst of all - feathers!

I simply stared at the page for a few moments, muttered "oh ****!" to myself a few times, and got up to check the N.G.News web site. This wasn't just some artistic depiction of what a reptile/bird might look like - and it was no hoax. It was a small dromaeosaurid ("raptor") with killing claws, razor-sharp teeth, and a pair of wing-like arms complete with plumage. My heart sank, and my gut churned. This was it - the one proof of evolution I had always asked for but never thought would come to light. In my mind, I was betting that even if evolution were true, the chances of finding such a beautiful example of transition would be slim enough to be dismissed as impossible. And yet here it was - proof. And he would have gotten away with it too...

[SezMe]

It may be a bit of an aside - not as bad as hammy's though - but I wonder how anyone who got a degree from the ICR could possibly get hired as a geologist by an oil company. The mind boggles. Have you, Dr. A, ever seen this facet discussed?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by hammegk
For Darwinism, even Darwin noted that the number of abiogenetic events cannot be determined. You feel that you and and pond scum share some common ancestor. I don't; the baramin concept -- with cross species similarities specified by the same 'intent' mentioned above -- suits me better.
Alright, quarks fit together like they should - and that implies Strong Anthropic Principle. But, the near universality in genes from pond scum to human to chimp doesnt imply common ancestory - so, do you think an omni-designer created everything, for its own musings, virtually identical?