Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation

From: George Hammond (nowhere_at_nomailspam.com)
Date: 10/06/04 

Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 02:50:15 +0000 (UTC)

"stew dean" <stewart@webslave.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2b68957a.0410041518.5b497aa1@posting.google.com...
> "George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.com> wrote in message
news:<l5-dnUVpYd8LFfzcRVn-hQ@comcast.com>...
> > "stew dean" <stewart@webslave.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:2b68957a.0410040238.23ae42ae@posting.google.com...
> > > "George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.com> wrote in message
> > news:<GsKdnYViRIwGXsLcRVn-gg@comcast.com>...
> >
> > > > > > Isaac Newton is famous for saying:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "In lieu of all other evidence, I take the
human
> > thumb
> > > > > > to be sufficient proof of God."
> > > > > > (Isaac Newton)
> > > > >
> > > > > Isaac Newton was often wrong, again I mention Alchemy. Also the
above
> > > > > is an argument from incredibility. Or to put it another way -
that's
> > > > > so amazing it must be designed! Not an arguement but a lack of
one.
> > > >
> > > > [Hammond]
> > > > Yeah well you're just a techonerd who doesn't know the metphorical
> > > > symbolism of the thumb e.g.:
> > > >
> > > > thumbing a ride
> > > > under ones thumb
> > > > thumbs up
> > > > green thumb
> > > > all thumbs
> > > > thumbnail sketch
> > > > rule of thumb
> > > > Tom Thumb
> > > > thumb thru a book
> > > > twiddling your thumbs
> > > > suck your thumb
> > > > thumbscrews
> > >
> > > I'm trying to see your point here. Everyone has thumbs so they are
> > > used as the basis of a lot of cultural references. Is there a point
> > > other than that?
> > >
> > >
> > > > Newton could have used the human eye, the semicircular canals,
> > > > or any of a dozen more amazing examples than the thumb.
> > >
> > > Exactly, the eye has been used a lot by IDers. Go to talkorigins and
> > > see the argument from both sides.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > You're fulla crap too.
>
> George can you start an argument without shooting yourself in the
> foot?
>
> > Do you realize the rectus muscles of the eye are
> > precisely "Cartesian".... there are two muscles which move the eyeball
> > Righ-Left, and two muscles which move the eyeball Up-Down... set
> > in a perfect "crosshairs structure" and this cross-structure (Cartesian
> > structure)
>
> Well yes - that's how it evolved because it is the best solution. If
> you need to move something in two axis then right-left, up down is how
> you do it.
>
>
> > is connected to and physically aligned with the 3-axes of the
> > semicircular canals which measure head movement Left-Right and Up-down,
> > .... for christs sake any designer of military gun tracking or guided
missle
> > design would recognize this immediately as "inertial guidance vision
> > control". It is a far stronger candidate
> > for "intelligent design" than the Thumb for chrissakes
>
> You're right, it is a stronger candidate for intelligent design, the
> whole eye is, but it's been refuted more times than I care to mention.
> Evolution happily explains it.

[Hammond]
I'll take issue with that. I (along with Dembski) do not believe that
"blind Evolution" is sufficient to explain it. I claim that there is
a "Supernatural Selection" operative in Evolution besides the
mere "Natural Selection" cited by Darwin. IOW I would replace
the statement"

                 "Survival of the fittest"
                               (Darwin)

with the new (post SPoG/ID) statement:

                 "Survival of the Godliest"
                              (Hammond)

The SPoG shwos that especially in higher animals, there is a significant
"growth deficit" in all animals, and that this causes "God" which is the
functioning of this ungrwon (partially grown) part of the brain, and
therefore contributes a "supernatural intelligence" to the behavior of any
animal. This "Supernatural Intelligence" dramatically impacts "Natural
Selection" so called, and causes the "apparently supernatural appearance
of unexplained jumps" in Evolutionary development. and this is what
explains the historical belief that "clever mechanisms" such as the eye
are "divinely Created".... in fact THEY ARE.... in fact.... the
FIRST EXAMPLE of actual "real physical miracles" are the so
called "gaps in the Evolutionary record" and "unbelievable"
occurances such as the "eye", "vistibular system", "Krebs cycle",
"bacterial falgellum" etc. etc.

         THE "MISSING LINK" OF DARWINIAN THEORY
                 IS IN FACT THE EXISTENCE OF
                 "SUPERNATURAL SELECTION"
                      OR "GOD", SO CALLED.

<snip rubbish heckling>

[Hammond]
And BTW... I'll tell you another thing. "Supernatural Selection" is
simply a "corrollary" of the SPoG. IOW ID is simply a "corrollary"
to SPoG. Of course I can only prove this on the macroscopic
(brain) level. However, if it can be established at the "biomolecular"
level which Dembski seems to believe.... it would strike me as
an OBVIOUS "first detection" of the existence of "Life After Death"
so called. I have a funny feeling that this is where Dembski is
headed (he's only 44) and is going to leave his calling card to
history.... just a funny feeling.
   I do know for instance that a "bacterium" has a "Secular Trend"
growth deficit (so do plants for instance)... which means the
"phenomena of God" is active in bacteria and plants... very low
levels (almost purely molecular) living organisms. If ID is active
at that level, it means there must be some form of "bimolecular
intelligence" which can be identified. This would indicated that
there must be "biomollecular intelligence" active in the human brain.
  so far the SPoG only suggests that "Life After Death" may
be a "immense time dilation" at the moment of death so that
Life After Death would actually be "life before death" which only
APPEARED to extend beyond death. But for this to be true,
there would have to be a biomolecular mechanism which could
read out, say 10 years of information, in a fraction of a
second (say a nanosecond.. which is the fastest that death
could physicially occur... speed of light). This mechanism would
have to be biomolecular at a minimum to obtain such information
speed of transfer.... and like I day... if Dembski is right about
"biomolecualr ID"..... he may be the first one to actually detect
such a mechanism....... cripes.......... and actual detection of
LIFE AFTER DEATH may be on the horizon!!!

> Stew Dean
>

====================================
   SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
        1st mirror site:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
        2nd mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
     new site (under construction):
http://home.comcast.net/~proof-of-god
====================================

Relevant Pages

  • Re: a good person is a person who...
    ... as children, and we make up the most egregious lies to defend them, ... there would only be one immortal species; it is the inclusion of death ... in the process of life that makes evolution work, ... Evolution is just a natural process. ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: surprising letter from a creationist to me
    ... bible is real evolution is a lie" and went on from there. ... has to be true in order for me to have eternal life." ... success with is a direct confrontation of the fundy's fear of death. ... I do not understand the fear of death, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: surprising letter from a creationist to me
    ... David Cloud himself wrote back and said "If the ... bible is real evolution is a lie" and went on from there. ... People like Cloud are motivated mainly by fear of death, ... has to be true in order for me to have eternal life." ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OT: Death
    ... Human beings and the lives of human beings are a lot more sophisticated mentally/psychologically/emotionally, etc. than evolution would need them to be. ... Why have we evolved all of this complexity if the objective of life is to do nothing more than replicate genetic material? ... I've been told that I have an old soul, and that old souls naturally "sense" this, and that the world right now is mostly young souls, who don't sense this as readily. ... If I'm wrong, I will have lived more at peace with life and death than those people, so I'm happy to be wrong about it, and I'll never know the difference anyway. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Death
    ... the first thing to be known about death is that death ... Life is neither born nor dies. ... The mind is a robot. ... Nobody has ever died, I declare, and nobody is ever going to die. ...
    (soc.culture.indonesia)