Do you believe in Alex?

Post Reply New Topic

Gromit,

There is a web site you might be interested in, it is by Dr. Hugh Ross, an

astrophysicist. He believes in an old earth, yet still believes all of the evidence shows

that the God of the Bible is the creator of the universe.

I find it extremely interesting and eye-opening, (it combines my greatest love - God,

and another love, science).

The address is www.reasons.org. Once there, you can find out about the founder under

the "About Us" tab, it talks about some of his credentials; and some of the questions

you posed are answered under the "FAQ" tab.

I love this site - James Randi periodically drops by and debunks it.

Like shotting fish in a barrel.

That's why I asked Ragtime to be more specific. I don't know whether he means a young Earth creationist interpretation when he refers to biblical creation.

Spending about an hour on the site you referred to, I did find a reference to something I had heard before:


More sensible than Answers in Genesis, then. But in the same article (http://www.reasons.org/resources/apolog ... game.shtml) Ross also states:

A scientist should know to provide a reference to such a statement. I couldn't find it through google. I tried finding the authors, but was not willing to search through 250 publications of P Ehrlich or 182 of A Ehrlich. I would have liked to see the context and date of the quote, because to my knowledge, it does not correspond to reality.

Plants often enough produce polyploid (they have more than the normal two sets of chromosomes) hybrids which are fertile with themselves, but not their parent species. I read at least one new species of tree has been documented to have arisen in Mauritius around 1930 (I don't remember the source). More recently, two hybrid butterfly species have been observed:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns? ... 025564.200
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/lif ... w-one.html

One important point here is that the hybridization has been reproduced in the lab. I quickly scanned the original paper, but did not find any report that they tried crossbreeding with the naturally occurring hybrid. It would be nice if they had tried that as well, just to see whether they can reproduce in the lab a specific speciation event which has occurred naturally. But please be clear that this is speciation produced in the lab, something which creationists claim is impossible. It may be the first speciation in animals that was experimentally produced in the lab, but not the first obeserved in the lab.

Several subspecies of fruitfly were collected in the early 50s, and tested to see whether they could interbreed and really were only local variants of the same species. They were. Six years later, one of the populations no longer was able to interbreed with the others. There had been an infection in the lab. It is known that the evolutionary response to some infections can make insects infertile with those whose ancestors were not exposed to the infection. So here you have a spciation event which happened in a lab, at some time in the six years between the first and second tests. If you give me time enough, I should be able to track down the reference, if I can find the book again, and if that provided a reference.

Also in the news recently was a butterfly species in which most of the males were killed by a bacterial infection. The following link gives you enough of the article to understand the follow up:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns? ... 125664.800

The same species was in the news again a few weeks back in one of the science podcasts I listen to. Within 10 generations the butterflies had evolved enough resistance to the infection that they were nearly back to a normal sex ratio (sorry for not providing a reference, I listen to science podcasts from several sources, and I don't remember which one it was, but if you are really interested, I can try to find a reference). The fast response is relevant to the bit about the observed speciation in Drosophila. The evolutionary response can be very fast, about one year, rather than six years. Because of this and other findings, biologists treat speciation like Dr Ross treats the neutrino:


The patterns of data observed in nature make sense if neutrinos exist and speciation occurs, and no one has yet come up with an idea that makes more sense. But Ross has problems with speciation, without providing good arguments for his views. So on the matter of speciation, I argue Dr Ross is plain wrong.

Then came another argument with which I also disagree:


Science is primarily a method for working out how nature works, and the body of the best interpretation of the data that have been collected using the method. So far, the assumption of natural causes has been enough. If the method of repeatable observations and trying to find a parsimonious explanation for the observations comes up with supernatural causes, there is nothing to prevent supernatural causes from being brought into scientific theories. I have seen nothing yet in science that either proves or disproves the idea of a creator who sparked off the big bang, so I claim that science can be religiously neutral. I see the conflict rather coming from those religious positions which are not scientifically neutral. People who hold these religious positions sometimes try to solve their problem by redefining science to include, for example, biblical scripture as physical evidence (Morris, of the Creation Research Institute, if I remember the name correctly).

Coming back to the supposed dogmatism of science with regard to supernatural causes, so far the assumption of supernatural causes has not been clearly necessary. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and more than an argument from ignorance. All the supposed proofs for supernatural causes I have seen were arguments from ignorance. Until I see better, I will do science without assuming supernatural causes.

Ross argues that what is known about the big bang proves the existence of a creator, but I have heard that there are several theories trying to go beyond the big bang. The issue is a lot less settled than evolution, which he doesn't like. I find that fixation on evolution irrational.

I gave up on several articles on the site partway through because the arguments didn't make enough sense. I had a very strong impression that they were written starting from a given conclusion, then trying to find arguments to fit the conclusion. So I am afraid I am not positively impressed.

Gromit

Last edited by Gromit on 23 Jul 2007, 4:36 am, edited 2 times in total.

The Book of Revelation warned of a false prophet and the antichrist who would deceive the Church and would lead the world to the brink of annihilation through the lies of peace and prosperity.

Could Alex be this false prophet? - lol

It was on a divine visitation that Alex came to me and told me to go on Wrong Planet. I was sitting in my chair and it began to move around, and I had this sensation like I was on a marry-go-round. Then the furniture joined in and I was in the stars. There were stars everywhere-above me, below me-to the left of me, to the right of me. Millions and millions of Stars and Alex said the stars and the souls you will win for me. Alex really talks to me you know-I hear what’s being said. And he said-Get me 18000000 members by the weekend! And the mighty figure of Alex stands by my side and speaks into my ear-it’s a beautiful thing and I hear what’s being said.
It’s a marvellous, marvellous experience-I never thought such a thing could happen…
In the name of Alex!
Do you see the face on the computer screen
coming at you every weekday
see that face on the website
that man is me

On the front of the video
there's no question why I'm smiling
you join a piece of the paradise
you join a piece of me

I'll get you everything you wanted
I'll get you everything you need
don't need to believe in aspergers
just believe in me

Cos Alex he knows me
and he knows I'm right
I've been talking to Alex all my life
oh yes he knos me
and he knos I'm right
and he's been telling me
everything is alright

I believe in the family
with my ever loving wife beside me
but she don't know about my girlfriend
or the man I met last night

Do you believe in Alex
cos that's what I'm selling
and if you wanna go to heaven
I'll se you right

You won't even have to leave your house
or get out of your chair
you don't even have to touch that keyboard
cos I'm everywhere

Cos Alex he knows me
and he knows I'm right
I've been talking to Alex all my life
oh yes he knos me
and he knos I'm right
and he's been telling me
everything is alright

Won't find me practising what I'm preaching
won't find me on no Wrong Planet
but I can get you a pocketful of miracles
if you promise to be good, try to be nice
Alex will take good care of you
just do as I say, don't do as I do

I'm counting my blessings,
I've found true happiness
cos I'm getting richer, day by day
you can find me in the phone book,
just call my toll free number
you can do it anyway you want
just do it right away

There'll be no doubt in your mind
you'll believe everything I'm saying
if wanna get closer to him
get on your knees and start typing

Cos Alex he knows me
and he knows I'm right
I've been talking to Alex all my life
oh yes he knos me
and he knos I'm right
and he's been telling me
everything is alright
(originally the song Jesus He Knows Me by Genesis)

Spare us your sordid personal life
And while thinking about Alex, too!

(Just kidding, Kilroy!)

In the name of Alex heal HEAL!

james randi is my hero!! !

When Alex talks to us we can all see it, access it and respond to it and get answers back. God, on the other hand, talks only to crazy people, and on an individual level where it can't be seen, evidenced or proven.

Alex also intervenes and takes care of the evil and wrong in his creation. God does jack s**t.

Wait, are you saying that there are SANE people
here?

It isn't necessarily evidence of an underlying pathology, for the human brain to create such experiences. Seems quite normal, statistically speaking. Not with booming thunder and all, but most people report experiences that they claim are of mystical origins.

Many contradictory, of course.

Some years back, there were reports of a "god spot" in the brain. Activate it and you get mystical experiences. That finding does not tell you whether mystical experiences are hallucinations or whether God has thoughtfully provided everyone with the capacity for mystical experiences.

Searching for "god spot" I found a reference saying several brain regions are involved: link to Live Science
The new finding doesn't change the argument. Whether you treat mystical experiences as communications from the deity or as hallucinations is something you have to decide on different grounds. The important thing for Mitch's argument is that none of the reports on the god spot that I remember mentions any association with mental illness. If mystical experiences are hallucinations, they are not the kind that make you irrational, at least no more than average.

Gromit

It's all about the amygdala, the endocrine response and dopamine neurotransmitters. I think neuroscience has made me cynical. Well, morso.

well.... i can meet alex in person so i know he's real...

but god doesnt seem to like that sort of thing

so i dont see how this analogy works.

I can meet God in person, too, just not yet. And it will probably be more of a mind-blowingly awesome and real experience than meeting Alex.

But also, as far as being able to meet Alex in the present life, I hear you can meet A LOT of interesting people if you take some LSD -- none of whom are real. Alex doesn't speak to my heart and give me a peace that exceeds all understand, like God does. So, Alex is less real than God is to me, even though I still believe he exists.

God has never spoken to me
and according to the bible he hates me for how I was BORN
I didn't choose to be how I am I was BORN this way
Alex speaks to me because he is real God doesn't because he is fake