Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Expand Messages
  • Sidney Hagen
    Dear Nathan: You and I are very close on our definitions of faith. I reject the premise postulated by the great late 20th century philosopher Archie Bunker who
    Message 1 of 2 , Aug 11 5:01 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Nathan:

      You and I are very close on our definitions of faith.
      I reject the premise postulated by the great late 20th
      century philosopher Archie Bunker who said faith is
      believing something that no one in his right mind
      would believe. (This is belief just cuz)

      Hypothetical example: I have a 1991 Caddilac Seville
      in my yard.

      Hypothesis 1:

      I can believe that a team of engineers worldwide
      designed the components of the car and formed them in
      a factory in Detroit. I base my belief on the
      evidence of intelligent design I see in the car.

      Hypothesis 2:

      I reject the idea that there is any intelligent life
      in Detroit. I believe that the car came into
      existence by a set of natural mechanistic processes.

      I postulate that the bulk of the car is iron so my
      yard was a prehistoric iron deposit. I conclude that
      the surrounding dirt must have eroded away over
      millions of years, and left a deposit in the exact
      shape of the steel shell and frame of the car. The car
      must have also been in an oil pocket to produce the
      tires plastic and engine oil. Washing sands of the
      sea made the silica deposits which eventually became
      the computer module. Precise prehistoric flashes of
      lightning programmed the E PROM in the module. This
      process must have taken billions of years because of
      all of the details of creating the wiring harness by
      alternating copper deposits, and drying hydrocarbons
      to shield the wires. The whole earth must have only
      gone though its phase of oxidizing and entropy in
      recent history because even though car was formed over
      billions of years it only shows about 12 years of
      rust. I don't see various other cars in earlier
      phases of evolution in my neighborhood. Like just the
      shell eroding out of the iron deposit but I know they
      must exist. I think how great it is that this
      mechanistic process could vulcanize the rubber in the
      tires but not char the paint on the rims. How did the
      process keep from getting paint on the tires. I look
      at every complex device in my life and assume that
      some natural process developed it.

      Who has faith that is "belief just cuz". You guys
      must think that every one who plays the lottery wins
      every time. How can you observe life in all its
      complexity, and not see intelligent design in the
      creator.

      I make no apologies for accepting creation by faith.
      I realize that no debate will produce faith in someone
      else. But which belief system requires more faith?

      Take care,

      Sid

      P.S. You can explode null space in a lab. The recipe
      is found in the anarchist cookbook. Bored high school
      video gamers do it as alternative to black powder pipe
      bombs. Just kidding :)

      The problem here (aside from the obviously facetious
      suggestions --
      aside from the problems inherent in figuring out how
      to exploding a
      null-space in the labratory, who would be around to
      record the
      results?) is that you're confusing "faith" as the word
      is normally used
      ("belief just cuz") with "reasonable assumption" to
      fill in gaps in a
      data set. I don't know where Christopher Columbus was
      when he
      was thirteen; but I don't think that instance of
      ignorance justifies me
      in calling into question his existence in the
      historical record.

      Nathan


      On 10 Aug 2002 at 5:52, Sidney Hagen wrote:

      > Dear Nathan:
      >
      > You have some valid points worth considering.
      >
      > My point on testifiable, and falsifiable.
      >
      > Reproduce macroevolution in a laboratory, under the
      > observation of a scientist. Create life from an
      > inanimate object with a camera on your test tube on
      > national TV.
      >
      > Almost every major point of evolution takes a major
      > leap of faith on the part of the scientist.
      >
      > 1. All matter came from an explosion of nothing X
      > billion years ago.
      >
      > Explode nothing and produce matter in a lab. No one
      > observes this, mainstream science believes this
      > without seeing it.
      >
      > 2. One of the balls of matter cooled and just
      > happened to get exactly all of the right combination
      > of elements to produce life. A few flashes of
      > lightning and you have life.
      >
      > We have years of research on what conditions are
      > favorable to produce life. We have can chemically
      > synthesisize the primordial sea. We can produce the
      > lightning bolts. Creating life ought to be a common
      > Chemistry 101 lab experiment.
      >
      > 3. The amino acids in the primordial sea become
      cells
      > with DNA patterns that replicate themselves.
      >
      > Show me someone's lab notes that demonstrates the
      jump
      > from a brew of organic chemicals to a one celled
      > organism.
      >
      > 4. One celled life evolves into more complex life.
      >
      > If this is the basis for life we should see millions
      > of organisms in transition from one celled to more
      > complex life.
      >
      > At every stage of development of evolution the
      > scientist has to conjecture a hypothetical situation
      > which could have produced the next stage of
      > development in the process. Most of these
      > hypothetical situations are outside of his realm of
      > his experience, observation, and reproducibility.
      > Every gap in the process that logic wont bridge his
      > faith will.
      >
      > Take care
      >
      > Sid Hagen
      >
      >
      > --- Nathan Shumate <nathanshumate@...>
      wrote:
      > > On 8 Aug 2002 at 16:38, Sidney Hagen wrote:
      > >
      > > > All scientists start with a frame of reference
      > > based
      > > > in their personal faith. If you start with the
      > > faith
      > > > based assumption that the supernatural doesn't
      > > exist.
      > > > Then any theory on origins which references the
      > > > supernatural is discounted as religious
      > > superstition
      > > > because it disagrees with your faith based
      > > assumption
      > > > that their is no supernatural.
      > >
      > > Incorrect. The problem with most supernatural
      > > explanations is that
      > > they are either non-evidentiary (like how most
      > > miracle-workers can't
      > > perform under controlled conditions) or they
      > > pre-suppose a
      > > suspension of natural laws, which is kind of hard
      to
      > > demonstrate
      > > logically.
      > >
      > > > "Cremo & Thompson's work incorporates the
      > > > > supernatural realm. The
      > > > > supernatural is a matter of belief and cannot
      be
      > > > > proven correct or
      > > > > otherwise."
      > > >
      > > > Neither creationism or mainstream
      > > paleoanthropology
      > > > are testifiable and falsifiable. Both start
      with
      > > > faith based assumptions and see science filtered
      > > > through their frame of references.
      > >
      > > Incorrect. Mainstream paleoanthropology is indeed
      > > testifiable and
      > > falsifiable. Check your older textbooks and see
      the
      > > conclusions
      > > which have since been thrown out or revised
      because
      > > further
      > > evidence became available -- a direct application
      of
      > > the scientific
      > > method. "Scientific creationism," on the other
      > > hand, assumes a
      > > divine cause which is by definition not subject to
      > > research; if one
      > > chooses, one can presuppose that God built the
      Moon
      > > yesterday
      > > with all of the overlapping impact craters intact,
      > > and implanted the
      > > memory of its existence into the collective memory
      > > of humankind for
      > > His own mysterious purposes. Now THAT's not
      > > falsifiable.
      > >
      > > > "Copernicus does not participate in any
      mainstream
      > > > > science research, nor
      > > > > do they produce a comparable amount of results
      > > > > published in peer-
      > > > > reviewed journals. In other words, they do not
      > > > > operate within any
      > > > > recognized scientific parameters."
      > >
      > > That's a wholly other issue, stemming from the
      fact
      > > that there WAS
      > > no "mainstream science research."
      > >
      > > > Was his theory incorrect because it was out of
      the
      > > > mainstream of his day. (Don't beat me up because
      > > the
      > > > Church opposed Copernicus)
      > > >
      > > > It is an ad Homenium fallacy to say theory is
      > > outside
      > > > the mainstream and therefore incorrect.
      > >
      > > True, but that's an argument so simplified it
      bears
      > > little relation to
      > > reality. Copernicus' hypothesis was perfectly
      > > scientific because it fit
      > > the known set of data better than the standing
      > > geocentric hypothesis.
      > > Now that we DO have a scientific research
      community
      > > with peer-
      > > reviewed research dating back a couple of
      centuries,
      > > there's plenty
      > > of data to support the most basic scientific
      theora,
      > > and fairly rigorous
      > > scrutiny and debate of lesser matters. If I
      wanted
      > > to propose
      > > something completely other than the current solar
      > > system model
      > > (that the Earth is dumbell-shaped and orbits a
      huge
      > > ham sandwich,
      > > say), I'd have to be able to show how my construct
      > > better explains a
      > > massive amount of data better than the generally
      > > accepted theory.
      > > (If I were a Creationist, of course, I could just
      > > say, "God wants it to
      > > appear as if we're on a sphere, orbiting another
      > > sphere, for His own
      > > mysterious reasons. But trust me, it's a dumbell
      > > going around a
      > > sandwich. Says so right here in my holy writ
      which
      > > I accept as
      > > undebatable axiomatic Truth.")
      > >
      > > Nathan
      > >
      > > Nathan
      > >


      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
      http://www.hotjobs.com
    • Nathan Shumate
      Dagnabbit, I did it again! Here s the response I sent Sid: ... Now, you just KNOW I m not going to argue a slanted analogy with you, right? :-) (You base your
      Message 2 of 2 , Aug 11 3:00 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Dagnabbit, I did it again!

        Here's the response I sent Sid:

        On 11 Aug 2002 at 5:01, Sidney Hagen wrote:

        > Dear Nathan:
        >
        > You and I are very close on our definitions of faith.
        > I reject the premise postulated by the great late 20th
        > century philosopher Archie Bunker who said faith is
        > believing something that no one in his right mind
        > would believe. (This is belief just cuz)
        >
        > Hypothetical example: I have a 1991 Caddilac Seville
        > in my yard.
        >
        > Hypothesis 1:
        >
        > I can believe that a team of engineers worldwide
        > designed the components of the car and formed them in
        > a factory in Detroit. I base my belief on the
        > evidence of intelligent design I see in the car.

        Now, you just KNOW I'm not going to argue a slanted analogy with
        you, right? :-) (You base your belief on having seen other cars,
        having seen cars put together and taken apart, having read first-
        person accounts of Henry Ford's life, having seen footage of the
        interior of automobile categories, etc.)

        > I make no apologies for accepting creation by faith.
        > I realize that no debate will produce faith in someone
        > else. But which belief system requires more faith?

        The problem with the assumption of intelligent design is that it also
        wants an "out" for any time that the design seems illogical. If the
        intelligence of the designer is the evidence for special creation, then
        why did He/She/It/Them design the human back so poorly for
        bipedalism, or give humans an eye almost identical to, but containing
        more optic flaws than, that of the octopus, or give rabbits such an
        inefficient digestive tract that they have to re-chew their own feces to
        get the nutrition out of their diet? The special creationist must
        answer, "Shucks, that must be just how God wanted it." But if the
        creation is supposed to prove the creator, then why must we invoke
        the creator to explain the created?

        And just to let you know where I'm coming from, I'm a very devoted
        Christian. I believe absolutely in the existence of a personal God.
        However, I've also given myself permission to believe that baggage-
        free -- i.e., I don't presuppose that I have to accept the Genesis
        account as literal, or that the earth is flat, or that Negroes are meant
        to be slaves, or that I have to vote Republican, or any of the other
        propositions that have at times been defined as "necessary" if one is
        going to believe in God "right." The evidence I see supports the idea
        of gradual descent with modification by natural selection; I thus find
        myself believing in a God who has worked through the ever-so-
        subtle manipulation of natural processes.

        "Faith" is an interesting subject, because I've never believed the real
        thing to be an irrational belief. As Paul says, it's the "evidence of
        things not seen" -- proof and knowledge inputed directly, without the
        mediation of the senses. It's evidence, but because it comes directly
        from above to the mind and soul, it's not quantifiable, and thus it
        can't be relayed to another person. So I always find attempts to
        prove a faith-based proposition by quantifiably-factual means (the
        entire "creation science" movement) as inherently suspect.


        ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
        Nathan Shumate
        The Cold Fusion Media Empire
        http://www.coldfusionvideo.com
        http://www.fusiontees.com
        http://www.nathanshumate.com

        "Where a calculator on the ENIAC is
        equipped with 19,999 vaccuum tubes and
        weighs 30 tons, computers in the future
        may have only 1,000 vaccuum tubes and
        perhaps only weigh 1.5 tons."
        - Popular Machanics, 1949
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.