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

From: stew dean (stewart_at_webslave.dircon.co.uk)
Date: 10/06/04 

Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 07:39:29 +0000 (UTC)

"George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.com> wrote in message news:<ULudnVXqnv0Qw_7cRVn-pw@comcast.com>...
> "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.

This doesnt suprise me, many creationists also don't accept it. I
personaly have debated for several years with those who don't accept
it. So far no one has explained why it can't happen.

> I claim that there is
> a "Supernatural Selection" operative in Evolution besides the
> mere "Natural Selection" cited by Darwin.

Then you would need to demonstrate, practically, how that selection is
added into the mix. I hold that there is no need for additional
selection and that if you looke at the multi thousands of years

Welcome to the world of talk origins. You're now in much trodden
ground.

 IOW I would replace
> the statement"
>
> "Survival of the fittest"
> (Darwin)
>
> with the new (post SPoG/ID) statement:
>
>
> "Survival of the Godliest"
> (Hammond)

This is not in Spog or ID. What you need now is a new 'theory' that
includes this. I would also like you to demonstrate a understanding of
evolution before you attempt to explain why you think it doesnt work.
Or are you saying it does work but needs augmenting?

> The SPoG shwos that especially in higher animals, there is a significant
> "growth deficit" in all animals,

Growth deficit implies there is a 'perfect' size. Also the growth
thing, to be blunt, just explains why some animals are bigger than
others. This effect leads to them being treated differently by the
environment. In some situations smaller animals may far better than
larger ones.

> and that this causes "God"

This makes zero sense. How can the creates that god created cause god?
 Also why would they physical size of something create something else?
So far I havnt seen you address this.

> 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.

No part of this makes sense to anyone apart from yourself. You are
assuming that brain growth is linked to something - not sure what
here.

I think your logic has broken down so I can't go anywhere with this
arguement until you can explain yourself in terms that include a
degree of logic.

<rest snipped>

 
> [Hammond]
> And BTW... I'll tell you another thing. "Supernatural Selection" is
> simply a "corrollary" of the SPoG.

<rest snipped as it doesnt relate to the argument>

Look if you want to claim that there is part of the brain that is a
radio for god then great, just do that. My brain is fully formed
judging by my hat size and I don't have a radio to god, oddly enough
it tends to be those with a lower IQ who are more likely to believe in
god. You are more likely to find a religous person in a prison than
you are in a university.

You are now in areas that you do not cover in your Spog (I know you
think you covered them but this is new to you). I say let's put Spog
to one side and explore your own understanding.

First let's explore evolution. Why is it impossible for evolution to
create a human? What, of the existing evidence, do you find hard to
accept?

Stew Dean

Relevant Pages