Is Anyone A Former 'Scientific Creationist'?

[Dr Adequate]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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 : "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

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]

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?