Is Anyone A Former 'Scientific Creationist'?

Dr Adequate said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
hgc said:
A piece of advice. All discussions with/about hammy ......
Click to expand...

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 ... ) ;)
 
hammegk said:
Wow! That may be the dumbest attempt at an analogy I've ever seen!
Click to expand...
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.
 
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)?".
 
hammegk said:
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)?".
Click to expand...
hammy's magical pixies make their appearance.
 
hammegk said:
And hgc demonstrates, again, that he couldn't buy a clue ...
Click to expand...
Go pick lunch off the trees and give yourself a rest, African style, hammy.
 
Did you stick your banana where the sun don't shine, again? Maybe mama will pick another one for you.
 
hammegk said:
Did you stick your banana where the sun don't shine, again? Maybe mama will pick another one for you.
Click to expand...
*You* are a dirty bird.
 
Ossai said:
Hammegk

Spirit
Ka
N-Zone
Click to expand...

Spirit, immaterial
Ka, immaterial, unless its' empirically validated. What is Ka?
N-Zone, immaterial, unless its' empirically validated. What is N-Zone?
 
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 : "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."
 
hammegk said:
*snip*
Click to expand...

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.
 
You are damn impressive, Doc. Debunking YEC!

None of your converts even mentioned the 'tricky god' hypothesis? (which we both know is undecidable .... ;) )
 
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
 
Ossai said:
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).
Click to expand...
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?
 
Dr Adequate said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Phaycops said:
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 :)
Click to expand...
Truthful, more likely.
 
hammegk said:
None of your converts even mentioned the 'tricky god' hypothesis? (which we both know is undecidable .... ;) )
Click to expand...
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.
 
Dr Adequate said:
Ah yes, the last resort.
Click to expand...
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 ... :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom