Just wondering if we can replace the depicted brown stepping …

Comment on Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists” by george.

Just wondering if we can replace the depicted brown stepping stones ostensibly lined up in Lake Superior by with highly polished symmetrical granite cubes? Better surface to walk on – albeit a tad slippery with the polish – but definitive proof of sequence space ID!

That one is for my good pard Wes, with apologies to Dr. Pitman for the non linear humour 🙂

george Also Commented

Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists”
@ Allen

“Atheism is a religion just like anything else that is believed.”

I agree. Any form of belief or non belief in God is a form of religion. It is beyond the realm of science to determine if there is ‘a’ god or not. What science can do and does do is cast doubt upon man created, cultural iteration(s) of god(s) – in other words: what is the likely nature of a creator.

For example, one can argue the mere fact that we can conceive of a god means the possibility exists. Whereas an atheist would argue: if one cannot prove that creation emanated from any of the forms of god(s) that man worships, it proves they don’t exist.

Deism, or ID being the modern form, is an interesting approach to the issue. Why? Because rather than just anthropomorphize God or attribute unknowm phenomena to a deity it looks at the potentiality of divine reason. But such presumed design is always subject to the cold, empirical, investigation of natural cause and effect and of course probematic theodicy – why would such turbulent universe ( at least our solar system) be designed for a creature made in God’s image. But of course Man is very inventive and imaginative in his rationalizations and myths- a bite of a forbidden apple figuratively representing off limits knowledge- and BAM: sin unravels the theretofore perfect yarn of bliss.

Now highly intelligent men and woman – some scientists at that! – like Dr. Pitman understand all this. But faith and belief in a loving god and life hereafter is a potent panacea for all that ‘ails’ the human ‘soul’. “Whatever gets you through the night is all right, all right” And Dr. Pitman has often intelligently appealed to the potential yearning in myself in a compassionate manner. The problem is – in my humble estimation- the search for empirical truth must be totally divorced from wishful thinking or outcomes whatever they may be. When that happens in science – human integrity reigns and knowledge advances.


Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists”
” These are my ideas and I don’t care who else does or doesn’t agree.”

Here lies solipsistic hubris that makes Dr. Pitman a god on to himself. He is not really interested in debating anything, only cherry picking what facts, theories and logic to support his unique brand of YEC. No fear, this is not science. And when we hear his plaintive cry: prove me wrong, let’s have compassion. True wisdom comes when understands that one is often wrong; and recognizes it. This applies to geniuses like Einstein and Hawkings. Science is greater than one person’s ideas. There is a reason why Dr. Pitman will not put his ideas to the test of experimentation or peer review. Einstein did. Darwin did. Not Pitman
though and the reason is obvious.


Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists”
@ Dr.Pitman

“You continue to refuse to answer whether you have ever witnessed a miracle. When was the last miracle?”

You can call me disingenous if you like but your continued evasion of this direct, honest question speaks volumes as to your lack of candour and stacking the rhetorical deck. And when you don’t get your way you say there is no sense in discussing the issue further. You are in great danger of solipsism my friend because the only truth you are prepared to recognize is your own unique brand. That’s not science, that’s hubris of the most dangerous kind. That is why you find such strong reaction to your inflexible approach on this forum. You see, we that believe in rational, non biased, non religious, non atheist, scientific exploration of truth have a duty to confront your mindset. And I can assure this in this I am entirely genuine.


Recent Comments by george

The Creator of Time
Hello Sean

In fairness to you and your readers I feel like we are being redundant on many points and issues. I need to be respectful that this is an Adventist forum that believes and supports YEC not a platform for my agnosticism.

I do appreciate and thank you for the opportunity to lively debate issues.

Respectfully


The Creator of Time
To Sean

“ A hypothesis about the supernatural world cannot be tested, so it is not scientific. The concept of God, Allah, or other supernatural designer(s), capable of designing the whole Universe, can neither be proved nor disproved. Hence, any claims that any supernatural being or force cause some event is not able to be scientifically validated (however, whether that event really occurred can be scientifically investigated).”

And back to you


The Creator of Time
To Sean

“Remember also that the assumption that future discoveries will one day be able to explain everything via mindless naturalistic mechanisms is not science, but a philosophy of naturalism that is very similar to a blind faith religion.”

How does this compare to the assumption that the Bible will be able to predict the end of the world? Scientific in your estimation or perhaps I really don’t understand how science versus religion works


The Creator of Time
Hello Sean

“I began my investigation with genetic evolution since that is my own personal field of expertise. ”

So have you published papers in scientific peer reviewed journals in this regard? Have you done experiments in this regard? Have you published statistical analysis to demonstrate your theory that macro evolution is mathematically possible?

You are always stating that others have to proof you wrong? Really? If you we’re trying to prove Newton or Einstein wrong would you not have to do so before your scientific peers?

Come on now, as you like to say, do you really scientically think all the biodiversity we witness today cane off a floating Ark some 4000 years ago! Is that really a scientific proposition that is provable or just some just so story?

You see I get the design argument but miracles, prophets, Santa Claus, fairies, ghosts, goblins, arks and the like are not proper subjects for science in my opinion. This is why you are seeing religions, including the progressive side of Adventistism moving more towards acceptance of science as reality, because they understand the modern educated mind will reject them if the stories are too fanciful or don’t make sense.

You see I don’t mind you calling ideas of the meta verse just so stories or not currently scientific as being non falsifiable. You have a point there. I don’t mind you advancing design arguments, especially as it relates to the fine tuned mechanisms of physics and organic life. You have good points there. But please, try to objectively use use that same scientific circumspection to the fantastic claims of the Bible and EGW prophecies or even the age of life on earth. Then perhaps I’ll see a bit of rational sense to your overall position.

Cheers


The Creator of Time
Hi Sean

Your real problem of credibility is your double standard of proof. Put your biblical stories of reality to the same degree of circumspection as you put evolution. To really conclude that all the bio diversity that we see in the world today- apart from that that survived in the water- came off an Ark is probably the most unscientific fantastic claim that even all children see as allegory. There is a reason this is not taught as the source of biodiversity in schools Sean. Yet you as a scientist believe it and think it has an evidentiary basis.

Your arguments on design make much more sense because it is certainly arguable that there is a design to the universe based on the anthropiic principle. It is certainly arguable that a designer like God could have designed a universe like ours but also a designerlike God could have designed a cause and effect evolving universe as well. Like Deism I think ID is worthwhile exploring. But I also think science continues to demonstrate mindless cause and effect mechanisms that don’t require design.

You and Behe are focused on irreducible complexity as an underpinning for design – which for you then becomes the stepping stone to biblical creation. Your methodology is apparent to get ‘educated’ minds to buy into a biblically designer God.

You see I don’t mind admitting that there is still much to do when it comes to understanding how physics and biology work. The best minds in the world continue to work, theorize and experiment in these areas. But you dismiss these efforts with a wave of your hand because they fall outside the biblical narrative so they can’t be true. And it is THAT factor Sean that utterly shatters the rational credibilty of
of creation science as an objective endeavour. The boys at the Discovery Institute understood this and have tried to broaden their approach. Deists understood this as well to get away from cultural myth and move towards a more observational basis for understanding the universe. But sadly Sean l, I think you are so entrenched in your biblical paradigm that you cannot see how your double standard of scientific inquiry harms your credibilty as an objective scientist. If I was to cross examine you in a Court of Law I would have a field day on pointing this discrepancy. And believe me, having cross examined many medical experts in forensic matters I do speak from professional experience.

Yes I know I am stating the obvious as many of your fellow ‘progressive’ Adventist colleagues have stayed before, no doubt to no avail. But, without being smug, just as you have encouraged me to look for God, I encourage you to look very deeply within yourself and look for humbly for rational contradiction. Objective humility is the real start to seeking truth.

Cheers