Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Jim And Penny Caldwell's Archaeological Findings:


BlackCat

Recommended Posts

BAA- so far so good.  You word things that 'dummies' like me can understand (just about ).  I know what you mean about not sleeping so well last night.  It took me longer to drop off, as these exciting ideas were playing around in my head.  

 

From what you say so far, is it the case that nothing lasts forever, or rather nothing stays the same, because energy and matter seem to be forever alternating or switching from one state to the other?   Sorry, I'm probably getting ahead of you, so take your time.  biggrin.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Note: All Regularly Contributing Patrons enjoy Ex-Christian.net advertisement free.

BAA- so far so good.  You word things that 'dummies' like me can understand (just about ).  I know what you mean about not sleeping so well last night.  It took me longer to drop off, as these exciting ideas were playing around in my head.  

 

From what you say so far, is it the case that nothing lasts forever, or rather nothing stays the same, because energy and matter seem to be forever alternating or switching from one state to the other?   Sorry, I'm probably getting ahead of you, so take your time.  biggrin.png

 

I'm obviously not BAA, but I think I can answer these questions.

 

You are correct: nothing lasts forever. In fact, our universe as a whole is decaying according to the second law of thermodynamics, in a process called entropy. In other words, everything in the universe is going from a more organized state to a less organized state.* Eventually, all of the stars will use up their fuel, all of the energy that can be liberated from the matter in the universe will have been used up, all of the chemical reactions that can occur will have occurred, and then stop. Much, much further down the line, even all of chemistry and subatomic particles will break down into energy, but we're talking many trillions of years for that to happen.

 

As far as I know, energy can't be converted back into matter; once matter is converted into energy, that energy doesn't get reorganized back into matter at any point, at least not through any natural means that I know of.**

 

 

*Creationists like to latch onto this idea as proof against evolution, but what they don't consider is that this is only true of closed systems; since the earth (and all of the chemistry that controls evolution) is continuously receiving energy from outside the system via the sun, this rule won't apply until we stop receiving energy from outside of the earth. However, since we can consider the universe itself to be a closed system, we can say that on the whole, the principle of entropy applies, even though matter is becoming more organized in some locations within it.

 

**On the quantum level, I know that virtual particles pop in and out of existence all the time, so that may be a case of the energy reorganizing itself, but these virtual particles don't actually hang around as part of our universe, so maybe this doesn't count. Also, energy can hit matter and give it a higher energy level, but I don't think this technically counts as energy being converted back into matter, either.

 

 

EDIT: Hope you can forgive me for jumping in here, BAA, but I have so much of this stuff just sitting in my head, and I have no other use for it but to type it out in instances such as this!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Regarding the videos I posted, the idea is that matter going into blackholes may be expelled out of theoretical white holes elsewhere, which, would be looking at the superforce from behind the linear perspective we're discussion now:

...Superforce > quarks / anti-quarks > protons, nuetrons, electrons > atoms / material universe > Black Holes > White Holes > Superforce...

This theory I find interesting.

 

The presence of blackholes in galactic centers is interesting too from that angle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BAA- so far so good.  You word things that 'dummies' like me can understand (just about ).  I know what you mean about not sleeping so well last night.  It took me longer to drop off, as these exciting ideas were playing around in my head.  

 

From what you say so far, is it the case that nothing lasts forever, or rather nothing stays the same, because energy and matter seem to be forever alternating or switching from one state to the other?   Sorry, I'm probably getting ahead of you, so take your time.  biggrin.png

 

BC, you are not a dummy, ok?  PageofCupsNono.gif   And please don't apologize.  We're going at your pace.  Asking questions is good, so please ask away. smile.png

 

Yes, you've grasped a fundamental truth here.

When you have the time please Wiki, 'The Conservation of Energy'.

In very simple terms, energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only conserved by being changed.  One type of energy can be changed into another. Here's a not unfamiliar example.

 

A ripe apple hanging from it's tree (waves to Isaac!) has acquired a little potential energy by being several feet above the ground.  The tree expended chemical energy as it grew, resisting the Earth's gravitational energy as it gained height.  The apple has reaped the benefit of the tree's energy expenditure because it now hangs well above ground level.  When it falls, (assuming a scientist isn't directly underneath it) the apple's potential energy is rapidly converted into kinetic energy by the gravitational pull (energy) of the Earth.  When the apple hits the ground it comes to rest, converting it's kinetic energy into acoustic (sound) energy... BUMP! 

Do you see how there was a complex interchange of energies at work here, BC?  Chemical vs. gravitational. Potential into kinetic and kinetic into sound energy.  Yet none of these energy types were created and none were destroyed - only changed from one state to another. So Yes, matter and energy are constantly changing and exchanging their forms in a delightfully complex and beautiful interplay of interactions.

 

But there's a catch!

 

Remember the 'breakage' of reality during the Big Bang?

This broken universe mirrors the behavior of the apple in that it always seeks to find the lowest state of rest.  That's why I emboldened that word, above.  Things change form, but the net amount of energy in the entire universe appears to be winding down.  The expansion and cooling of the initial fireball was the earliest expression of that.  The 'freezing' of energy into atoms and stars and people is another.  But even such long-lasting things as stars and galaxies don't last forever.  Here's another illustration of the process.

 

When the apple tree ages, stops producing fruit and dies, it'll probably get chopped down and burned.  The wood will be converted into heat energy, smoke, gases and ash.  Now, since energy cannot be created nor destroyed, why can't you gather together the ashes, the gases, the smoke and the heat and remake the tree exactly as it was?  The net amount of energy of the tree is still present, only in different forms - so where's the catch?

 

(Hint!  It's in bold script.)

 

No conversion of energy is ever 100% efficient.  Everything is 'broken' and winding down to find it's lowest state of rest.  So matter and energy can keep on changing forms, but many of these changes are strictly one-way.  Ashes cannot become trees.  Neither can consumed oil or coal be burned again.  Their change is one-way.  Mountains cannot un-erode themselves and seas cannot prevent this mountain-silt from being washed into them.  New mountains and new seas may form, but the original and unique patterns never seem to repeat themselves.  These one-way changes apply to people too.  Errors in DNA replication accumulate, leading to mutations and cancers.  Immune systems become less efficient.  Bones lose calcium.  And so on.  Eventually, these temporary patterns of matter and energy which we call, 'people' are unable to carry on living and they die. 

 

Such changes are both the glory and the pain of life, BC.

I've held exquisitely-beautiful, day-old twin girls in both arms and my diseased and dying parents in the same arms.  My eyes have seen fish dancing like living rainbows in front of my snorkeling mask in the Red Sea.  These same eyes have also witnessed the random carnage of a fatal car wreck on the freeway.  Before I die I hope to see a total solar eclipse with my partner Maureen (in 2017), but I'm also reconciled to the fact that I'll also look upon much pain and misery before my death, too.

 

(Waxing philosophical for a moment.)

I'm sorry BC, but I don't know what it's all about.  I'm probably only beginning to undersand a little of it.  But I do know this.  Together, with the like-minded people in this forum, who are also seeking the truth, I'll die a happier and better person than I ever would have been following a certain religion.

 

Ok, rant over.

 

Please don't get despondent, BC. 

There is much, much more ground for us to cover and many wonderful things to dis-cover.  Imho, Josh P is onto something.  Even though this universe is broken, I contend that it's only one small part of a much larger and richer cosmic ensemble.  Something cosmologists call the eternal Multiverse.

 

Patience!

Small steps first.  I still need to walk with you thru many new and unfamiliar concepts before we can venture into the territory of other universes.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a problem T2M!  :)

 

It's all good.

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

BC, just for a break in the current direction of science and back to the Caldwell's for a minute, I noticed that they were trying to conceal something near the end of the video which they would not discuss publically on the air but alluded to discussing privately with the TV hosts after the program. I suspect it was because they didn't want any possible Muslims watching the program to know about it.

 

And I suspect this to be a reference to some type of "end times" prophecy fulfillment that they believe involves discovering the real Mt. Sinai and something to the effect of a gathering of Christians and possibly Jews that is supposed to take place at that location in the Saudi Arabian desert.

 

Have you been clued in on any of these details by the Caldwell's in private?

 

And if so are you at liberty to share it with us here either in discussion or PM?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Josh P-  No, I don't know any more than what the Caldwells mention in the film.  I checked out Avi Lipkin briefly who the Caldwells mention and his web site may contain more information about this.  http://www.vicmord.com/

 

Here's a short film that touches on what the Caldwell's alluded to:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNnjwk3N98s

 

 

I've received back an email this morning, from one of my 'nets' I cast out.  Here it is:

 

Dear Catherine,

 

Thank you for touching base with ABR about the Mount Sinai in Saudi Arabia discussion.

 

I have not done any more work on the Mount Sinai in Saudi Arabia issue since I wrote on it back in 2000. I think it's a dead issue. The Bible clearly places Mount Sinai in the Sinai Peninsula. For the Biblical case, I would refer you to Professor James Hoffmeier's book, Ancient Israel in Sinai (Oxford, 2005). The Wyatt, Cornuke, Caldwell, Jones crowd uses the "archaeological data" (misunderstood) to interpret the Bible, rather than let the Bible speak for itself.

 

Regarding the Menorah. I would refer you to Michael Macdonald at Oxford University's Oriental Institute. He has examined the pictures and is familiar with them first hand. He commented to Team Cornuke: "Your question about the "Menorah" in the photo from Tabuk (120 km East of J. Lawz). I am sorry to disappoint you, but this sign is not a Menorah but the letter representing the sound [dh] (as in "the"), in the Hismaic alphabet. In this inscription it is the first letter of the prayer dhkrt lt ... "May the [goddess] Lat be mindful of...". It is indeed common in Hismaic inscriptions because this religious formula is frequently used and because the way affiliation to a tribe is expressed is by the expression dh ’l "He of the tribe of ...". The Hismaic inscriptions are dated by scholars to the 1 century BC / 1st century AD. Hardly the time of the Exodus and Wilderness Wanderings! Of course, they dismissed Macdonald's explanation because it did not fit their previously concieved ideas!

 

Some of the inscriptions that have been set forth by these people are outright fakes. See:

Yahweh Inscription Discovered at Mount Sinai!

http://www.lifeandland.org/2009/10/yahweh-inscription-discovered-at-mount-sinai/

 

Was an Archaeological Forgery Mistakenly Portrayed as Authentic?

http://www.lifeandland.org/2012/09/was-an-archaeological-forgery-mistakenly-portrayed-as-authentic/

 

 

On the other hand, should it surprise us to find menorah's in Saudi Arabia? There was a vibrant Jewish community living in "Arabia" (see Acts 2:11) up until the rise of Islam in the region. The menorah was a unique Jewish symbol in the First Millennium AD. For information on the Jewish community in Arabia, I refer you to:

 

Newby, Gordon Darnell

1988 A History of the Jews of Arabia: From Ancient Times to Their Eclipse Under Islam. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Lord bless,

Gordon Franz

 

In addition, ABR has published a number of other articles that deal with the location of Mount Sinai, which you can find at: http://www.biblearchaeology.org/tag/sinai.aspx

 

 

One of my other 'nets' is actually to Michael Macdonald, who is mentioned in this email, so I'll post his reply when I receive it.  I've emailed back a reply that deals with the many points raised by the guys here e.g the water issue.  I mentioned that it doesn't really matter what desert they wandered in, if the plausibility of such a wandering is impossible.  I'll let you know if they reply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought2Much- your input is most appreciated.  Thank you.  biggrin.png

 

BAA- I'm really enjoying this journey you're taking me on.  So far so good..... cool.png  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. That's more damning than even I would have imagined. I'm a little floored at the intellectual dishonesty required for the Caldwells to pass off this "menorah" as a genuine Exodus-era find. I'd thought they were just ignorant and untrained and jumping to conclusions, but now it seems unlikely that they didn't know about these criticisms of their "find." "Hucksters" is suddenly seeming like too gentle and mild a word. My daddy was a RL sailor, and my vocabulary can range from extensive to explosive, so I'll let you imagine from there. I'm really sorry you had to come to it like this, but at least it's the truth, I guess. When the birdcage is broken, you have to walk out of it through metal shards; it'll hurt to walk over them, but then you're out and free.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear BlackCat,

 

May I echo some of what Akheia's just written.  Reading Franz's reply couldn't have been easy for you.  I DO know what it's like to hope-against-hope for some kind of confirmation of what you ardently believe and hope to be true.  I ALSO understand how crushing it can be to discover that it isn't the truth you wanted it to be.  But, as painful as this news is, it's also a place to start afresh - with a clearer understanding of what the truth really is.

 

Recently it's been my privelege to answer your posts and walk with you on the road of discovery.  It pleases and humbles me that you've accepted my offer of help and also enjoyed what I've written.  I don't have much of an opportunity to continue over this weekend, but assuming all is well with you, I'll pick up where we left, early next week.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Akheia and BAA- yes, it was very disappointing, but not as disappointing as I thought it would be.  I still don't believe the Caldwell's are hucksters, but I'm sure they are unknowingly allowing themselves to be deceived (Like I have all these years) and clinging to their foredrawn conclusions of what they hoped to find and what they then found that seemed to 'fit' with their expectations and beliefs.  If we take the Menorah carving, I know why the Caldwells and others, when seeing that carving would have 'seen' a Menorah.  It is an exact representation of Menorahs I have seen.  Their faith which seems very strong, is preventing them from being unbiased and so they will continue to believe they have found biblical evidence.  Because my faith was so weak, I was/am able to break away from these 'fairy stories' and distance myself so that I can really consider the evidence.  The biggest fairy story of all: being able to live again after you have died, is now being challenged via what I am learning with you BAA.  I've always known how ridiculously far fetched, or rather absurd it sounds, to believe that a human can live again, be brought back to life, after they have died, and yet I had learned to suspend my common sense and gut feelings, and went with this outrageous claim. If we take the merely material understandings of how matter and energy behave, then it's not looking good for any chance of 'me'  or 'you' being preserved in 'energy' and recreated in some other form.  BAA, I'm quite busy at weekends too, so you take your time, and whenever you're ready to continue will be great.  I do appreciate the time and effort you are putting into this.  17.gif    Thanks again to everyone who is contributing to this amazing discussion.  biggrin.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Hi all, just back from a cruise to the Bahamas with computers and cell phones turned off for the duration of the trip. 

 

BC, thanks for the info. That's some wild stuff as concerns all of these bat shit crazy Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Listen, I'm starting to believe that the only possible solution to stopping these fanatics from blowing each other off the face of the earth is proper historical, archaeological, and comparative mythological education, and a whole lot of it. And I believe that over time people will start catching onto this more and more as they see positive claims and assertions made which are then countered and refuted by credible evidence to the contrary. This BS about Jews and Christians trying to lay claim to Mecca is just plain outrageous and can do nothing more than to try and create unnecessary conflict where there need not be.

 

I just sat through a nice speech last night on the ship at dinner where the Australian chef and mostly Indonesian, Filipino, and Indian kitchen staff came out to take bows and comment on what a wonderful trip we've had. The head chef quoted the stats of how many nationalities were represented on the ship last night and what a wonderful world it would be if we could manage to get along with one another out in the world in the way that every one got along on the ship. I applauded and thought to myself just how true that is.

 

These people like the Caldwell's and others are in reality fighting for the preservation of archaic superstitions and prejudices that belong to dark age periods. We have to let these dark age level thoughts and ideas drop off because they're largely wrong. And they are very divisive, plain and simple. People like the Caldwell's probably believe that they're fighting for what's right, but it isn't right. It's actually wrong in a lot of ways as you're beginning to see now and will continue to see the deeper you're willing to investigate. And the fruits of fighting for what's wrong in the first place (and unnecessarily so)  is division, war and conflict. 

 

As you can see, something that seems as sure a thing as a menorah isn't exactly so. And even if so, then so what? It doesn't prove the literal interpretation of Exodus any which way we look at it. And it most certainly does nothing to justify intruding into the Muslim lands and sacred sites as if they belong to Jews and Christians instead when they clearly do not. No good can come from such an ill-concieved proposition.

 

It's like I was saying earlier, these images belong to diverse time periods before and after the supposed time of the Exodus. And this shouldn't be too surprising due to the fact that no evidence is found in Egypt of Jewish slaves or the huge dent in the population and local economy of Egypt that such an Exodus most certainly would have made in the archaeological and historical record. The archaeological evidence points to Israel rising up out of the local Canaanite population after the final collapse of the Egyptian run city-state system when people began to congregate in the hill country. And monotheistic Judaism belongs to a much later period than even that:

 

 

I think that it would do you a lot of good to read Israel Finkelsteins "The Bible Unearthed" and Karen Armstrong as shown above.  

Much growth and understanding can come from familiarizing yourself with that material. Because if these myths are not literal history, then what do we know about what was really going on? These books can help answer that underlying question.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Akheia and BAA- yes, it was very disappointing, but not as disappointing as I thought it would be.  I still don't believe the Caldwell's are hucksters, but I'm sure they are unknowingly allowing themselves to be deceived (Like I have all these years) and clinging to their foredrawn conclusions of what they hoped to find and what they then found that seemed to 'fit' with their expectations and beliefs.  If we take the Menorah carving, I know why the Caldwells and others, when seeing that carving would have 'seen' a Menorah.  It is an exact representation of Menorahs I have seen.  Their faith which seems very strong, is preventing them from being unbiased and so they will continue to believe they have found biblical evidence.  Because my faith was so weak, I was/am able to break away from these 'fairy stories' and distance myself so that I can really consider the evidence.  The biggest fairy story of all: being able to live again after you have died, is now being challenged via what I am learning with you BAA.  I've always known how ridiculously far fetched, or rather absurd it sounds, to believe that a human can live again, be brought back to life, after they have died, and yet I had learned to suspend my common sense and gut feelings, and went with this outrageous claim. If we take the merely material understandings of how matter and energy behave, then it's not looking good for any chance of 'me'  or 'you' being preserved in 'energy' and recreated in some other form.  BAA, I'm quite busy at weekends too, so you take your time, and whenever you're ready to continue will be great.  I do appreciate the time and effort you are putting into this.  17.gif    Thanks again to everyone who is contributing to this amazing discussion.  biggrin.png

 

Hello again BC!  smile.png

 

I'm really glad you're enjoying our dialog, but I feel that I must sound a cautionary note.  Yes, you are learning with me - and that's good.  But please don't just accept everything I say or quote.  Please check for yourself.  Question.  Examine.  Inspect.  Analyze.  Compare and contrast.  As you say, this is an amazing discussion (YOU are amazing!) - and may it continue to be so!

 

BC, before I go any further I'd just like to say a few words about the prevailing Christian attitude to the concept of 'complexity arising from simplicity'. 

It scares them witless.  (Or a similar word that sounds very much like, 'witless'.  wink.png )  The first example of this kind of Christian fear-and-loathing came in 1859, when the British naturalist Charles Darwin published, "On the Origin of Species".  His theories posited the idea that complex organisms could arise naturally, evolving from earlier, more simple ones.  This was the opening salvo in a battle that is still being waged.  Here are three examples of the lengths some Christians will go to in their war against the notion of 'complexity arising from simplicity'.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

A bogus, pseudo-scientific concept that was, quite rightly, thrown out of the courts.

 

http://www.christianforums.com/f143/

This is where the Christians go to fight with each other about evolution... the Creationists (who cannot accept that complexity can arise from simplicity) versus the Theistic Evolutionists (who accept that it does, but God guides the process).  What's really painful to behold BC, is how nasty things get!  Accusations of lies, misrepresentation, fabrication of evidence and so on.  Since February 2003 they've been hammering away at each other.  130 pages of 25 threads a-piece and counting!  Neither side will back down and neither side will give up.  So much for brotherly love! 

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/54804-aarons-resurrection

This is our home turf! 

Now, I don't doubt for a minute that Aaron's a really nice guy who genuinely loves Jesus and who thinks we Ex-Christians are all horribly mistaken.  But look at the final sentence of his opening message.  "Only mind can create mind."  Aaron's claiming that only complexity can create complexity.  In this case, he's inferring that only the infinitely-complex mind of God could create the complex minds of us humans.  He finds the idea of simple things causing complex things, impossible to square with his Christian world-view... so he tries to argue against the concept.

 

A WORD OF WARNING, BLACK CAT!

If you read thru Aaron's thread you'll come across another Christian, called Thumbelina.  Please avoid her at all costs and have nothing to do with her.  She is pure, unadulterated poison.  She's been confined to the Den because of her abusive and intolerant behavior.  If she makes any attempt to contact you, please report this immediately to the Moderators.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterns_in_nature

 

If you recall BC, I said that we'd explore how complexity arises from simplicity, by looking at water, fractals and Pi.  The above link covers the first two very neatly.  The only point I'd like to add here is that such things as symmetry, spirals, fractals and chaotic systems occur almost everywhere - not just on planet Earth.  For instance, a Google Images search for, 'spiral galaxy' will show you many beautiful examples.  Enjoy!  smile.png

 

The main thing that I'd like to try and convey to you BC, is that complex things can arise naturally out of very simple arrangements of repeated patterns.  There's no need to invoke a super-natural explanation for them -  as Aaron and his fellow Christians feel compelled to do.

 

About Pi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi

Grade school kids can understand something as simple as Pi, but just look at the wealth of complex properties this apparently-simple number has up it's (metaphorical) sleeve!  You probably know that it's a transcendental number - without resolution, right?  You could go on looking for it's last digit forever and never find it.  So, in one respect, this oh-so-simple number can be thought of as being a glimpse of infinity.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

BC, I've given you a lot of examples to look at, without actually explaining much.  Do you want me to rectify that?  Do you have any questions?  Please remember not to accept what you see without checking and questioning, ok?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi guys,  just got home from a mad day and it's almost bed time (and if I read them now, I'll not sleep easily as my head will be buzzing with ideas, so I'll hopefully read your posts  tomorrow evening (mad again tomorrow til after supper).  Bye for now..........LeslieWave.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Here's another informative set of short video clip about Israelite origins:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Josh P- I've watched 'A history of God part 1'.  My first thoughts are 'is there proof that the ancient bible texts have been altered, as claimed in this film, are we dealing with interpretations or facts?   I'll check out his other videos from the beginning as time allows.   Thank you for linking to it.  I'll hopefully check out the other links over the next few days.  biggrin.png

 

BAA-  I am an impressionable person and rather gullible at times, but I do try to investigate claims and not just accept things, so don't worry.  I'll soon say, if I disagree with you or don't understand anything.  wink.png

 

It might be worth us thrashing out IC at this stage.   I've spent a lot of time investigating both sides, and I'm not convinced that IC is not a possibility.  I attended a lecture of Behe's when he was in the Uk a couple of years ago and I've emailed Ken Miller a few times, and read Miller's book 'Finding Darwin's God'.  Here's something that bugs me: Miller seems to twist Behe's claims about removing a part from a multi-part system.  He walks into court with a part of a mouse trap which he is using as a tie clip.  Behe and his supporters are not saying that parts of a system can't be used else where.  Behe is referring to a particular system.  So in the case of the mouse trap, if you remove any of the 'parts', you will no longer have a functioning mouse trap.  Therefore the mouse trap is irreducibly complex surely?  Now can this apply to a multi part cellular system?  I know the majority of experts say 'no', but there are experts  that question the gradual evolution of certain multi-part molecular systems.  The 'prior templates' that are needed for all the levels of complexity (machines that are needed to build other machines) seems to defy the idea of gradual complexity.  I can't comprehend how a cell with a nucleus etc, could have evolved gradually.  You need all the 'parts' and the molecular machines in order to build the complete cell, so my mind can't grasp how a cell could have evolved bit by bit???blink.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This short film explains the conundrum I pose in my previous post:

 

 

 

 

 

It's worth watching all the chapters, to appreciate the overall picture of ID.  I know there is a lot of politics and religion associated with ID, but not all ID proponents are religious adherents or believers in 'God', so I want to avoid any agendas some may have, and stick to the science, which unfortunately, is nigh on impossible for me, as I don't know much about molecular biology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Josh P- I've watched 'A history of God part 1'.  My first thoughts are 'is there proof that the ancient bible texts have been altered, as claimed in this film, are we dealing with interpretations or facts?   I'll check out his other videos from the beginning as time allows.   Thank you for linking to it.  I'll hopefully check out the other links over the next few days.  biggrin.png

 

BAA-  I am an impressionable person and rather gullible at times, but I do try to investigate claims and not just accept things, so don't worry.  I'll soon say, if I disagree with you or don't understand anything.  wink.png

 

It might be worth us thrashing out IC at this stage.   I've spent a lot of time investigating both sides, and I'm not convinced that IC is not a possibility.  I attended a lecture of Behe's when he was in the Uk a couple of years ago and I've emailed Ken Miller a few times, and read Miller's book 'Finding Darwin's God'.  Here's something that bugs me: Miller seems to twist Behe's claims about removing a part from a multi-part system.  He walks into court with a part of a mouse trap which he is using as a tie clip.  Behe and his supporters are not saying that parts of a system can't be used else where.  Behe is referring to a particular system.  So in the case of the mouse trap, if you remove any of the 'parts', you will no longer have a functioning mouse trap.  Therefore the mouse trap is irreducibly complex surely?  Now can this apply to a multi part cellular system?  I know the majority of experts say 'no', but there are experts  that question the gradual evolution of certain multi-part molecular systems.  The 'prior templates' that are needed for all the levels of complexity (machines that are needed to build other machines) seems to defy the idea of gradual complexity.  I can't comprehend how a cell with a nucleus etc, could have evolved gradually.  You need all the 'parts' and the molecular machines in order to build the complete cell, so my mind can't grasp how a cell could have evolved bit by bit???blink.png

 

Hello BC.

 

Well, you've got me now! 

The life sciences aren't my field of interest, so I can't really say that much about things biological.  Physics, Astronomy and Geology...Yes. smile.png  Evolutionary Biology... No. sad.png

Perhaps Falemon can step into the breach here?

 

All I'll say at this point is that legitimate science can be seen for what it is by it's explanatory and predictive power.  Where is the predictive power of IC?  What does it explain?  What tests does it make that can be falsified? 

 

I find Judge Jones' final rulings quite damning.

IC... does not actually address "the task facing natural selection."  No explanatory or predictive power!

 

Legitimate science makes predictions about reality, based upon the methodology of observation and hypothesis.  Scientists observe reality, formulate a hypothesis about how they think it works and then test this experimentally.  If the experiment confirms the hypothesis, the results are peer-reviewed and then published, so that other scientists can independently perform their own checks.  It may turn out that these other scientists will discover something that eventually that challenges the original hypothesis.  Either because the original was incomplete (e.g.,Einstein's work on gravity, superceding Newton's) or because it was flawed. In both cases science advances because it is self-testing and self-correcting.  That which is a better, more accurate description of reality is accepted, that which is superceded is incorporated under the new, over-arching theory and that which is falsified is discounted.  That which is new and better must always have greater explanatory and predictive power than that which came before it.

 

Now, do you see the above happening within the sphere of IC, Blackcat?

Is IC capable of testing and correcting itself?

Does it make positive explanations about how things work or negative ones about how they don't?

Does it make positive, pro-active predictions about what will be discovered or negative, re-active ones about past discoveries?

 

BC, if you haven't already done so, please go to message #15 in this thread...

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/54804-aarons-resurrection/

...where I reply to Aaron.

 

The points I made to him hold good, when it comes to invoking IC.  By requiring a Super-Natural explanation for the apparent Irreducible Complexity of molecular machines, IC has stepped outside of the Naturalistic paradigm of legitimate science.  Anything that moves beyond the remit of science cannot call itself science.  It's that simple.  It's comparing apples to oranges and the judge saw that.

 

Behe was shooting himself in the foot, when he took the stand and tried to appeal to Supernaturalistic IC to take down Naturalistic science.  It just can't be done.  Science is the study of the natural, not the supernatural.  Therefore, only one naturalistic explanation can falsify another.  Where no current naturalistic explanation is available for something, the only acceptable answer to the question is... "currently unknown".  Saying that a supernatural, Intelligent Designer is the cause of anything is unacceptable and impossible within science.

 

If someone wants to make that claim, they're perfectly free to do so.  But they MUST ensure that they distinguish between the natural (which science can study) and the supernatural (which science cannot study), when they do.  Behe failed to do so, claiming that IC was science, when it isn't.  Nothing that relies on the supernatural to explain or predict something, can be science.

 

BC, I know you'll find this message difficult to take.  I haven't answered your questions about molecular machines and evolution.  Nor can I.  I don't have the werewithall to do so.  But what I can do is to ask you the following.

 

When the answer to a question is... "currently unknown" ...can you see how this conclusion is the most honest one?

 

Can you look past what you want to be true and find the inner strength to accept the "truth as we currently understand it", no matter how emotionally unsatisfying that may be?

 

Do you remember how the Caldwell's claims panned out, in the cold light of reality?

 

And how well you took that not-so-welcome news, on the chin?

 

You see, sometimes the pursuit of the truth asks a great deal of us, BC and isn't it better that I be open and honest with you about this, rather than equivocate or treat you with kid gloves?

 

With all due respect and sincerity,

 

BAA.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Just briefly BC, in the History of God part 1 they are outlining the Documentary Hypothesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

 

Now I've also gone a bit deeper into scholars who question even the DH and point out that nowhere is the Pentateuch found in the literary and historical records until much later yet than suggested by DH, specifically not until around the same time as the Septuagint, which is the Gmirkin model. But I'm sticking with DH for now because it's basically the standard model for the time being. Long story short, these texts were written and then reworked well after the supposed time that the books are supposed to have been written. The books of Moses are in no way traceable to an historical Moses, for instance.

 

The evidence is pretty clear that ancient Judaism was very polytheistic, YHWH began as one of many Gods, a tribal deity not universal deity, and eventually the older pantheons were narrowed down  to YHWH alone for specifically political reasons of trying to consolidate power and authority to the cult of YHWH. The thing about it is that there are many fragments left behind in scripture that give away the older polytheistic, monolatry, and eventually monotheistic evolution of God and these were evolving man made ideas:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExTFL1FgL9U

 

 

This is also covered very well by Israel Finkelstein in his book along with analysis of the archaeological finds that confirm this. The main thing is that the people who writing about creation, the flood, the Patriarchs, the Exodus, the conquest of Canaan, etc., were doing so from very late time periods and a lot of evidence of the time and era is evident in their ignorance about the more remote periods in which they were writing, such as Canaan not falling all at once in one sweeping military campaign, or Abraham being well before the domestication of the Camel which gives away the later period of the writers working on the Abraham myth, and many more bits and pieces of evidence that scholars have picked up which sort of gives the whole thing away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear BlackCat,

 

I'd like to explain why I can't accept the existence of an Intelligent Designer of reality. 

These are my personal reasons and (I hope) they're well-grounded in logic and the facts.  I'm not asking you to just accept them, but to consider if they make sense.  As I mentioned before, molecular biology isn't something I know much about.  Therefore, my reasoning plays to my strengths and involves (mostly) cosmology, physics and geology.  Don't worry!  I'll be pitching what I write at the same level as before, ok?

 

1.

Was the 'Breakage' of Reality Part of the Designer's Plan?

If we accept that this universe was 'broken' in the very first nanoseconds of it's birth, then did the Designer intend for this to happen or was it just an accident?  If it's the latter, then this casts doubt on the power, foresight and abilities of the Designer.  Hardly the stuff of of an infinitely-powerful God!

If it was intentional, then what was the intention?  Before we can answer this question, it's necessary to examine just what the consequences of this breakage are - assuming that the Designer had some kind of plan in mind for the sentient beings in this universe. 

 

Every human has come to exist in a flawed and temporary body, the construction of which is chronically prone to genetic errors and defects. Eventually, the sheer weight of accumulated mutations in their cells will kill them, assuming that other factors do not do the job first.  Factors such as the deadly effects of disease organisms, natural disasters, violence and accidents. 

 

If the breakage of reality was part of the Designer's plan, then this 'fracturing' is responsible for every ounce of suffering, pain and death (except anything self-inflicted) endured by the human species for many thousands of generations.  Which places the responsibility for all this agony squarely at the Designer's door.  After all, if we accept that the primordial breakage IS part of the plan, then we aren't responsible for it - the Designer IS.

 

Which prompts the next question.  Why?  What could possibly justify so many tears, so much grief and so much suffering?  No answers are forthcoming from an apparently cold and indifferent universe.  If we accept that we can see the hand of a Designer in reality, then we should be honest with ourselves and also accept that 'design' is ALL that we see.  Nothing else.  No purpose.  No greater meaning.  No ultimate reason, writ large across the skies.  The Designer is mute.

 

The words, 'being honest with ourselves' mean NOT looking to any human religions for said meaning/purpose/reason. Doing this is simply an act of cosmic arrogance and hubris.  Who are we to say that the universe was created for our benefit?  No. Being honest means looking at reality from a coolly dispassionate position and evaluating it without imposing our all-too-human desires and prejudices upon it.

 

2.

Why is The Designer So Slow?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale

If we take a look at the Geologic Clock diagram, at the top of this Wiki page, we see the whole history of planet Earth rendered in the form of a clockface.  If we humans are of overriding interest to the Designer, why has it taken so long for us to show up?  If we are central to the plan, why is it that 99.9% of Earth's history has been human-free?

 

The numbers say it all.  The topmost category, "First Hominids" isn't just about us.  It covers every branch of the human family tree since our ancestors first descended from the trees and split off from the other primates.  Please note this. "The two million year Quartenary period, the time of recognizable humans, is too small to be visible at this scale." We Homo Sapiens don't even a rate a whole pixel, even at the largest scale the clock can be viewed at.  Why did the Designer take 4,500,000,000 years to realize the most important part of reality - if that's what we are? 

 

3.

Why is the Designer So Wasteful?

 

Another glance at the Geologic Clock show us that there have been three episodes of 'Snowball' Earths. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth  And what about the Mass Extinctions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

 

251 million years ago, during 'The Great Dying', 96% of all species were wiped out.   Why?  Was this part of the Designer's plan or did almost all life on Earth have to be exterminated and then re-booted in new forms? And what about the Designer's methods of sweeping the planet clean and re-starting?  Were they clean and efficient and merciful to the innocent animal life that was destroyed as part of the 'Plan'?  Sorry, but no.  Not at all.  The Designer seems to be totally indifferent to the suffering of any living thing.  If they have to die, then so be it!

 

The collapse of food chains leading to mass starvation.  Acid rain.  Poisoning by dust and noxious gases. Mile-high tsunamis.  Global fire-storms.  Doesn't make the Designer sound very compassionate, does it?  Nor very far-sighted, either.  Why design whole species and whole environments if you know in advance that you're just going to destroy them?  And if you know that the late-coming humans are going to find their fossilized remains, you'll also have foreknown what they'll conclude, won't you?  That Palaeontologists have no need to invoke an Intelligent Designer to explain life on Earth.  So, if you really are an Intelligent Designer you'll have foreseen all of these things, right?

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

So you see BC, taking these three points together inevitably leads me to conclude that if there is an Intelligent Designer, he/she/it is either a human wish that we project onto an indifferent reality or a supremely incompetent and callous excuse for a Designer.

 

Both options seem equally unattractive and illogical to me.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

I look at the situation a little differently.

 

The cosmos itself is responsible for the existence and creation of life, intelligent or otherwise. We can view nature as having a type of intent, perhaps an urge towards intelligent life where ever and whenever the conditions become suitable. Here's a brief example from Eric Lerner:

 

... the idea that the evolution of humankind is purely an accident, divinely engineered or otherwise, ignores the vast mass of evidence that there are long-term trends in biological evolution. Over these millions of years there has been an irregular but unmistakable tendency toward adaptability to a greater range of environments, culminating in human adaptation to virtually any environment. Over this period the intelligence of the most developed animals on earth has risen with increasing speed, from trilobites, to fish, to amphibians, to the dinosaurs, to mammals, to primates, to the hominid apes and the direct ancestors of humankind.

 

Of course, through this long period there have been many chance events, many zigs and zags, advances and setbacks, which determined the exact timing and mode of the development of a creature capable of social evolution. Yet this unpredictability in no way erases the long-term tendency that makes the development of higher levels of intelligence, and eventually something resembling human beings, all but inevitable - as inevitable as the development of amino acids in a primal chemical soup.
Thus we find that the apparently improbable accidents of the universe are neither the products of a random and incomprehensible cosmos nor evidence for a designing creator. Rather, they are misinterpretations of the general evolution of the universe.

 

This view is clearly not supernatural intelligent design. It's entering the possibility that it's not a complete random accident nor the result of a supernatural designer.

 

I think that people get confused when seeing an apparent intention in nature and jump to the conclusion that an advanced supernatural designer is behind it all, when it may just be how the natural evolution of any given universe and life within a universe unfolds, maybe over and over again eternally. We haven't come back around to the multiverse scenario again, but it does apply to these questions of life and evolution.

 

I think it's safe to say that sure there's design in nature, but of course nature itself is the designer of whatever designs do exist. Nature is not all-knowing, infallible, etc., like a mythological deity. It seems to work on a trial and error basis and that's what the collected evidence of design in nature amounts to - a trial and error process of evolution with it's many zigs and zags along the way which produces advancing creatures eventually capable of social evolution.

 

Guided evolution may be too strong of a word to use when traveling down this path. I'd say a primal urge is more along the lines of what seems to be evident in long term tendencies like Lerner is describing above. Joseph Campbell had similar insights regarding a type of primal urge in nature that is more or less evident under close examination.

 

I don't excuse the possibility that there may be some function that may lie ahead in which intelligent life forms in a universe serve a necessary part of universal evolution in much more advanced stages than we are in currently. There may be some deeper reason yet as to why life has evolved in the universe and persisted in the way that it does towards creatures capable of social evolution, even though it's an fallible and imperfect process. But this is coming from a Pantheists view of things unlike a Monotheists view of things. The Monotheist has real problems when facing the fallibility of design and trying to link that fallibility back to an infallible deity. But that's what I was getting at earlier about the wide spectrum between right wing Monotheism and far left wing Atheism.

 

The truth may lie somewhere inbetween....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@BC: 

 

First of all the intelligent designer argument is not just about the first cellular form and ignores the reality of evolution, attributing the changes to the designer. I can send you videos that can show you how evolution actually works, as in, you will be seeing it in action. It is a wonderful device.

 

Second of all it is important to realise what the real ingredients for life are. It is not the cell, but the producer of the parts. Various molecules may spout about at some point, and it is just a matter of time before a suitable event occurs in which all parts are created close enough to form a cell. It has low odds, but with billions of years at our disposal the odds of an occurrence is much more likely.

 

Scientists have already created self replicating organisms.

 

I noticed you mentioned reducible complexity. I would imagine that initially you would just have simple self replicating organisms that perform simple functions. Evolution applies not just to DNA but also the network of interaction between organisms. So you can have, for instance, three organisms performing complimentary tasks.

 

Now imagine a tree. At the root is the basic system formed by the three organisms interacting together. These three organisms replicate themselves, but during replication errors take place (as DNA does) which results in branches of different forms, where one branch is the unaltered system and the other branch is the system with the replication error. Some branches will be dead ends because as the system is not sustainable whilst some branches will be successful. Soon you end up with a situation where you have hundreds of branches, but now the branches are interacting with other branches, creating an entirely new tree.

 

Spontaneity may have played a part in some of the organisms, but with billions of years to spare you get plenty of opportunity to ignite the process of abiogenesis. The whole ID perspective is terribly short sighted, evolution works, period smile.png And of course if you are curious I will show you some videos to see evolution in action. I will warn you though, the videos are aimed at computer programmers so you will hear plenty of terms like "search space", which may require more videos to know about those subjects too, but it is easy enough to grasp once you get past the terminology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi guys.  Sorry I've not had a chance to reply.  I've had a busy few days.  I've got some me time now this weekend, so Ishould catch up.  Speak soon.  biggrin.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Josh P - these hypotheses seem to make sense, so I'll look into this more deeply.  Thank you for linking to these films.  I'd not heard of this before now and it certainly seems to make sense of some things I'd wondered about before.  I'll let you know how my studies go.  biggrin.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.