主播大秀

I really enjoyed every minute of this two hour video. What I saw quickly was that Miller, a self avowed practicing Catholic, in a much larger sense of his arguement than he intended had unwittingly hoisted himself on his own petard so to speak. He is living proof that the more knowledge you have, the more clever you have to be about reconciling what you know with what you want to believe in because the area for maneuvering becomes drastically reduced. So for someone (Michael N. Hull) who has first class honors in chemistry and a PHD in electrochemistry, God is reduced to just a metaphor. It's a clear cut case of NIMBY, Not In My Backyard or bailiwick. In other words, somebody can convince him of the existance of god but not in the field of evolution and molecular genetics because that is his field of special knowledge and when you challenge him on the facts and theory, he'll rip you to shreds with the science. And of course he did because the one surprise he had at the trial was that he was not challenged on scientific grounds at all where the opposition couldn't touch him, the issue was argued by them entirely on political grounds where the ID proponents were on a more equal footing. But as soon as they were cornered and touched on theology and the supernatural, they set off the Constitutional landmine of separation of Church and State which is part of America's cultural religion. Of course, other scientists such as cosmologists and nuclear physicists would say the same to theists who try to sell their challenges in their own areas of expertise. To the uninformed and untrained these pseudo scientists can often exercise persuasion through intellectual intimidation when they are not in the presence of a true expert in the field who will overwhelm them with mainstream scientific facts and the theories credibly explaining them. How lucky we were that the judge in the Dover case was intelligent enough and intellectually honest enough to see right through the ID arguement. Of course if you have no scientific knowledge to burden yourself with at all as Saint Thomas Aquinas didn't, reconciling his theism with the paltry knowledge of the physical world which at that point was mostly built on abstract philosophy was very easy. However, he did know that the earth was round though, I'll give him credit for that. Very impressive for the 13th century, 200 years before Columbus. I wonder how he knew.

In post 1. Mark said that for someone (Michael N. Hull) who has first class honors in chemistry and a PHD in electrochemistry, God is reduced to just a metaphor.

I thought Hull said that 鈥渢he CONCEPT of 鈥楪od鈥� can not be modeled 鈥� there is no physics, chemistry, biology or mathematics that can be applied to the concept. God can only be metaphorized. He has argued (at some length I agree) that models and metaphors are both equally valid 鈥� one seeks factual truth and the other seeks intrinsic truth. Models are applied to concepts scientists can apply such things as mathematical equations to, while metaphors are applied to things which can not be handled this way. I think that is his position as I understand it. Hull also stated that models and metaphors have equal validity and so to say that those concepts that can not be scientifically approached (his example of 鈥榮uffering鈥� for example) has been 鈥榬educed to just a metaphor鈥� bespeaks of some intellectual arrogance on your part. Luther Barber in a previous blog describes your comments as 鈥渙stentatious deficiency鈥� (Post 82 previous blog). I would place that description in front of you for consideration. I also recall a discussion by Hull and others on the concept of free will 鈥� it is associated with those concepts that must be metaphorized for their study and that there is no free will in the scientific realm. I expect Ken Miller would agree with that position. However, as I recall instead of replying to his argument on free will you dismissed it with some comment to the effect that 鈥榯hat was the first of his mistakes鈥�. You offered nothing else! Then you went on a rant when he said that the comment was 鈥榚mpty鈥� or something to that effect. Initially, I found your comments amusing 鈥� I鈥檝e heard them all before so there has been nothing new that I have learned from you 鈥� but now the humor and personal attacks on people鈥檚 views (Billy for example) are becoming tedious. I think when I see you misrepresent other people鈥檚 views to match your position you are being intellectually dishonest. I see the 鈥淕od is reduced to a metaphor鈥� comment the worst example of your dishonesty. And what with the first class honors in chemistry and PhD in electrochemistry bit? I recall you stated that you had struggled through physics and chemistry 鈥� Hull appears not to have had much of a struggle. So my advice to you is Get Over It (and him)! I recall reading Ayn Rand鈥檚 鈥楢tlas Shrugged鈥� in which she wrote that when one tries to reason with a fool (albeit a very intelligent fool) only the fool benefits. I have enjoyed the discussion but you are starting to appear very foolish to me when you continuously try to put people down.

In peace,
Maureen

Re post 2 by Maureen:

Maureen:
Wow, I didn鈥檛 know you were following the debate! Unfortunately I have already completed all employee bonuses for the year :-)

JK:
In looking through the referenced blogs I realize who you are. Next time I am over in Belfast you and I must have a private chat about this 鈥榶oung earth鈥� belief of yours!

Mark:
Re your deplorable comment in post 1 that I 鈥榬educed God to a metaphor鈥�

If I say that 鈥榖ecause of one鈥檚 sadness the moon is weeping鈥�, would I have made a claim that 鈥榮adness鈥� does not 鈥榚xist鈥� because of the use of metaphor? Would you ask me to defend the proposition 'scientifically' that the moon can indeed weep?

If I compare my wife to a 鈥榣ovely Irish rose鈥� (as I have done on numerous occasions) have I reduced her to the status of a plant?

It鈥檚 sad but ....
Michael

Maureen McNeill #2; Perhaps my understanding of the English language is not the same as yours. "God cannot be modeled...God can only be metaphorized" seems entirely consistant to me with my characterization of that statement as; God has been reduced to a metaphor for him (Michael N. Hull.) But that is not what the Creationists or other biblical literalists are arguing, they are arguing the science of God and creation. Mr. Hull can argue until the crack of doom that scientific models and metaphors are equally valid, I'm not buying it. One relies for finding truth on observable facts and deductive conclusions which can be challenged and are therefore rational, the other stands alone beyond challenge of its truthfulness and is therefore irrational.

You say I offered nothing else to Mr. Hull's arguement about free will than that it was the first of his mistakes? How can you say that in light of how much I wrote about it including my most recent entry. Perhaps I should rephrase and sumarize it again here. In order to postulate free will, the mind must be divorced from the physically operative brain whose constituent elements must conform to natural laws of the universe, by postulating a soul whose existance can neither be proven nor disproven because it lies outside the sensable phyical universe and is therefore not subject to its laws. Is this also irrational? Yes because it also defies any objective study dependent on testable hypotheses!

I strongly suggest that if you don't like what I write, you excercise your free will and don't read any more of it. You may not be amused. The board is fully moderated so if my comments transgress the bounds of civility or other rules, they will be censored (a luxury President Bush didn't have with Nick Robinson's transgressions of civility at his press conference last week, the reason I accidentally found my way here.)

As for Mr. Hull's honors in Chemistry and my having struggled with Physics and Chemistry, perhaps he is just smarter or a better student than I am. Or perhaps the standards are different from where I received my education. Remember, the thermodynamics that the so called expert McIntosh flubbed was freshman chemistry where I come from. This brings up another interesting point. It seems to me from what admittedly little I know of it, and with all due respect to Dawkins, the arguements Miller presented were at a much higher level blasting ID with the latest scientific knowledge such as the discovery of the welding of two DNA strands in the evolution of man from great apes thereby reducing the number of gene pairs from 24 to 23 and the discovery of the multiple functions of protiens in bacterial flagella and blood clotting explaining why they existed at all in more primitive forms before they evolved. As was clear from the presentation, the best scientific minds in the world's most technoligically advanced nation see this as a life and death intellectual struggle and they will marshall all of their forces and knowledge to win because of what they see is at stake.

Here's another quote from Saint Thomas Aquinas; 鈥淏eware the man of one book.鈥� And here's yet another "To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible." Obviously right now I'm where I've always found myself, in the second category.

I think Evolution as well as Creationism should be taught side by side so that people can decide for themselves.

But Roberto - Creationism cannot be taught - it's a faith, although I see they've opened their first lab - The God Lab - where they hope to invent some 'science' to disprove evolution/naturalism. Don't hold your breath!

Michael N. Hull wrote:

JK:
In looking through the referenced blogs I realize who you are. Next time I am over in Belfast you and I must have a private chat about this 鈥榶oung earth鈥� belief of yours!

I'm looking forward to it already!

This is a question for the 鈥榊oung Earthers鈥�.

I know you don鈥檛 like what geologists says they see in the record of the rocks but what do you say about the record in my own personal Y chromosome DNA?

Changes in the Y chromosome act like a clock and the more changes there exist between you and me the further back in time we share a direct ancestor.

As scientists we are able to look at the DNA pattern on the male Y chromosome which passes from father to son without any mixing of the genes from the female lines as occurs with the other chromosomes.

The Y chromosome mutates very slowly over time (the rate is known) and when populations stay in one area for thousands of years a mutation in that population spreads through the population in later generations and becomes an identifying marker for that group of individuals.

I belong to the Haplogroup I group which means that I came from the M89 marker Middle Eastern clan which migrated over thousands of years through the Balkans and eventually spread into Central Europe among other places.

However, about 25,000 years someone in the European group mutated and gave rise to the M170 marker and this marker became prevalent in that European group of men. (M168 鈥� M89 鈥� M170).

The last ice age forced the Europeans into the Iberian peninsula, the Balkans, and the part of Europe that is now Italy. While there the M170 European males experienced more mutations.

For example, the group in the Iberian peninsula mutated at marker M253 and are now classified as Haplogroup I1a (M168 鈥� M89 鈥� M170 鈥揗253). Haplogroup I1b in the Balkans about 15000 years ago became defined by the P37.2 marker. (M168 鈥� M89 鈥� M170 鈥揚37.2)

As the ice caps retreated these particular populations headed north again to colonize present day Northern Europe and the British Isles.

I belong to a recently defined Haplogroup I1C, I have a particular marker that identifies me this way 鈥� the record is right there in my Y-DNA. My DNA clock matches the clock that the climatologists have developed for the evidence of the ice ages and my DNA clock also matches that of archaeologists who study human artifacts.

Haplogroup I is associated with the Gravettian culture of Paleolithic Europe. My subclade, I1c, occurs in parts of Northern Ireland and Western Scotland, as well as in the Northern Germanic parts of Europe. Like I1a, I1c took refuge from the Ice Age in Iberia. So I am a sub group of that Iberian population.

Thus there are three clocks, all 鈥榯icking鈥� in unison, which tell me as a scientist that at the time the YEers (Young Earthers) believe the earth was formed about 6000 years ago one of my ancient grandfathers was in fact slowly moving north from present day Spain.

I have three separate bits of evidence from independent fields to support this view.

What say ye, YEers?

Regards,
Michael

Michael- Your question is way too involved for creation-believers. They don't think about science that hard. As Miller points out in the above clip, they aren't interested in research and science; they're interested merely in sustaining an unsustainable belief.

All swans are white, it used to be said, until someone spotted a black swan. At some point the belief systems of creationists are going to have to acknowledge cold, hard facts and change to reflect them.

Michael:

I'm not a young earther but I know how they would respond to you and I have seen it argued a few times:

God created the world, say, 10,000 years ago, but he created it with the appearance of age and thus whilst the earth is young it looks old to all our available evidence.

The argument is a bit of an ad hoc clause and raises many questions.

To my mind it's nonsense, but that's how they'd answer you - it wouldn't matter how many independent sources you have God created them all together with the appearance of age.

SG

SG #10

You may have seen some young earthers claim this point but it is completely wrong to group all young earthers in the same category.

Personally I believe that claiming God created the earth/universe with the appearance of age is completly wrong and a cop-out.

As to Michael's question I have no knowledge of genitics so I can't give an answer now - I am however doing my best to read up on the subject so I can look into it further.

However, I do have one question about it: you said, "The Y chromosome mutates very slowly over time (the rate is known)"

Do you mean the current rate is known and it is assumed that this rate has been constant throughout history?

The evolutionary theorist fails to take into account of a catastrophic event, a catastrophe such as the universal flood of Noah's day. which accounts for such, as fossils and The Grand Canyon, Imagine that, a catastrophe that created such beauty! he does so because it would debunk his theory and robs him of his day dream of evolution! of a Godless creation, maybe it is the missing link that the evolutionist have been looking for, the missing piece in the jigsaw.

The only thing that evolution creates is a world without morals and limits, a Godless world replaced with endless depravity to gratify the sin that is within the heart of depraved man, freewill to do what ever please's, Ken Miller derided Ken Ham for this belief, another conspirator against God's Word, which gives the inference that he doesn鈥檛 believe in the literal interpretation of scripture, a theistic evolutionist who blames God for evolution, without God man has no limits to his depraved nature,anything goes, a Genesis without God, there is no need for a Savior! this is not surprising for one coming from his religious background".

I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." GENESIS 3:15

In Post 11 JK wrote:

"I have one question about it: you said, "The Y chromosome mutates very slowly over time (the rate is known)" Do you mean the current rate is known and it is assumed that this rate has been constant throughout history?"

That's a very astute question. I recall in an earlier post you pointed out that even the universal physical constants seem to be changing with time according to the latest physics research. So I'm alert to where you are coming from on this.

The current rate is about 50 changes per generation in the several billions of nucleotides which make up the human genome. On the Y chromosome one change happens in a marker region about once in approximately 400 years. (I'm going on memory here so don't quote me in any of your final exams!)

Thus, we know the current rate of the DNA mutation clock. If we use this rate we find that where it puts my ancestors agrees with the climatologists 'clocks' for the ebb and flow of the ice ages. It also agrees with the 'carbon dating' clocks used by the geologists and others.

So the three clocks seem to sync up well. Now while I might agree that 'clocks' might not stay constant over eons of time, it is improbable (though not impossible) that they would all vary as 'clocks' in exactly synchronous fashion.

JK, remember Einstein's admonition: Keep the explanation simple, though not too simple.

JK also wrote:
"I have no knowledge of genetics so I can't give an answer now - I am however doing my best to read up on the subject so I can look into it further."

I can live with that statement. You are studying physic as you mentioned in a previous post and you say will study genetics. You are obviously exhibiting a non-dogmatic mind and your question about the current and the past rate is certainly one that science should not be ashamed to answer for you.

So I still have 3 clocks that shows my old, ancient grandfather was trudging up to Ireland from the Iberian peninsula 6000 years ago when Bishop Ussher made his calculations.

Speaking of Bishop Ussher don't the Irish always seem to get themselves into the middle of any controversy? ;-) Ussher (1581-1656), Archbishop of Armagh, Primate of All Ireland, and Vice-Chancellor of Trinity College in Dublin got his calculation incorporated into an authorized version of the Bible printed in 1701, and thus came to be regarded with almost as much unquestioning reverence as the Bible itself!

Mark doesn't believe that God wrote any of the bible (incidentally I agree with him in that view as I mentioned in an earlier blog) but I bet Mark didn't know that some of us Irish think so highly of our opinions that we can actually get them accepted into sacred canon!

Incidentally Ussher calculated the dates of other biblical events, concluding, for example, that Adam and Eve were driven from Paradise on Monday 10 November 4004 BC, and that the ark touched down on Mt Ararat on 5 May 2348 BC `on a Wednesday'.

This must mean that one of my grandparents must have had to swim part of the way to Ireland ;-)

Regards,
Michael

For John Wright:

In post 98 of the 鈥淐reation Wars The Result 鈥� I quoted Mark (the blogger not the Gospel one) and then I wrote as follows:

Mark said: 鈥淣ot being Irish myself, I cannot accept the equivalent validity of scientifically based models and metaphors as some others can鈥�.

I said: 鈥淚ncidentally what do others think of my position on models and metaphors 鈥� the rest of you are very quiet? Why don鈥檛 some of you throw out a couple of comments or two on the subject. We all might learn something 鈥� I probably will. I know what Mark thinks but the rest of you .....????鈥�

From what I gather, John, you and I seem to be quite similar in opinions, beliefs, etc etc.

While others are contemplating my three clocks scenario, Billy is figuring out what to do with my swimming ancient grandfather, and William is away 'boozing with the bishop' perhaps you would like to chime in (what an awful pun) on my opinions about 鈥榤odels鈥� and 鈥榤etaphors鈥�.

Serously, any thoughts?

Regards,
Michael

Ps: Mark, Shhhhhh!

Re my post 8:

If anyone wants to view these migration maps based on DNA a really good place to view them is:

Click on 'Genetic Markers' towards the bottom of the page.

The closest haplogroup to mine is the I1a.

Michael- I think in general what you say on models and metaphors hits home. Where I've departed from postmodern thought on such things, it's been because I maintain that there is an objective truth - an absolute - whether or not it is possible to percieve it or understand it. A metaphor for something false is an entirely useless metaphor with regard to truth, whether or not it makes us feel better or not.

In terms of the origins debate, it seems to me that either Genesis One is literally factual, or it is not. If it is not, then we have the option of regarding it either as the worthless ramblings of religious zealots, or regarding it as a useful, poetic myth depicting, in metaphor, God's role in creation. That option exists only after we decide how to read Genesis. You and I appear to have concluded that Genesis is not to be read literally... PB and others resist such a conclusion. Hermeneutics, therefore, remains the central part of this debate for me: take away the need to read Genesis in this way and you take away the need to resort to ridiculous ideas of origins as we see in creationism.

In short: teach people how to read ancient texts and we solve (most of) the problem, and everyone can agree that Genesis One is either metaphorical or, alternatively, entirely fictional, NOT literally factual.

I have studied the National Geographic genetic marker map you linked to and seeing that your Ic1 haplogroup is not there, I decided that you probably don't actually exist in the real world after all and therefore you are a figment of my imagination. It appears Camus and Satre were right all along but then I imagined them along with everything else so why wouldn't they be.

I decided that I most likely carry the M170 marker myself although I'd have to say there's a possibility I might carry an M70 (as long as I also don't have to carry an M16.) But either way, when you look at the map, it's clear I'm a blueblood ;>) My ancestors' Y chromosomes swam through Hungary.

I don't know what happened to Maureen. She said over at Billy Graham's cow pasture she would be posting here but I guess she got diverted. Time, tide, and this Yank wait for no woman (or man.)

Michael- Part II. In fact, let me be so bold as to attempt to 'stretch' you here with regard your view of biblical myth and metaphor (presuming that I've accurately defined what you mean by those things).

If I was to sit down and write an account of creation, starting with a God called Betty, featuring a talking reptile of some kind and explaining the details of creation.... would you immediately call it metaphorical? Or would you call it the ramblings of a crazy blogger with either delusions or a desire to decieve?

Now, fast forward a few thousand years. My account has been preserved by, at first, a few people, then, later, many thousands of people who have come to believe its validity. Because my account has been immortalised in religious tradition, it's much easier to believe it to be in some way valid, or in some way even inspired, or even metaphorical, or even literally factual, or even the Word of God! After all, why would God have seen to it that my account continued to remain in the hearts and minds of his people for all the ages? Surely then it's not only valid, but inerrant and infallible too?

Here's what I'm asking you Michael. Is there any particularly good reason to believe that Genesis is metaphorical of anything in the first place? Or is it easier for us 'nervous liberals' to say it's a metaphor because we are theologically compromising with the views of people like PB and Billy, and what to retain a semblance of evangelicalism?

#13 Michael

This debate will have to wait a few days - I'm off to Paris until Wednesday evening.

I'll have plenty of time to think about it on the plane...

John:

Re posts 16 and 18 you have made some very good points. Here鈥檚 is what I think. I鈥檒l just answer them in sequence and maybe if others pick up on this discussion I can expand as needed later ....

In post 16 you wrote:

鈥淢ichael- I think in general what you say on models and metaphors hits home. Where I've departed from postmodern thought on such things, it's been because I maintain that there is an objective truth - an absolute - whether or not it is possible to perceive it or understand it. A metaphor for something false is an entirely useless metaphor with regard to truth, whether or not it makes us feel better or not.鈥�

I agree. For example, the ghost in Hamlet does not physically exist so a metaphor to describe him as 鈥榚xisting鈥� is indeed a useless attempt to make truth out of fiction.

鈥淚n terms of the origins debate, it seems to me that either Genesis One is literally factual, or it is not.鈥�

Not literally factual is where I stand.

鈥淚f it is not, then we have the option of regarding it either as the worthless ramblings of religious zealots, or regarding it as a useful, poetic myth depicting, in metaphor, God's role in creation.鈥�

The latter 鈥� poetic myth/metaphor. Same as Keats鈥� instruments on the Grecian Urn.

鈥淭hat option exists only after we decide how to read Genesis. You and I appear to have concluded that Genesis is not to be read literally... PB and others resist such a conclusion. Hermeneutics, therefore, remains the central part of this debate for me: take away the need to read Genesis in this way and you take away the need to resort to ridiculous ideas of origins as we see in creationism.鈥�

Agree.

鈥淚n short: teach people how to read ancient texts and we solve (most of) the problem, and everyone can agree that Genesis One is either metaphorical or, alternatively, entirely fictional, NOT literally factual.鈥�

A word about the definition of 鈥榝iction鈥�. Again don鈥檛 rush to dictionaries anyone I am just presenting my definition of the term.

I think factual truth exists in what I have termed 鈥榦uter reality鈥�, the world of physics, equations etc. I would be happy saying that a 鈥榤odel鈥� in the outer reality which is proven to be false can be termed 鈥榝ictional鈥�.

For example, at one time it was believed that the solar system was geocentric 鈥� we now know it is heliocentric. The geocentric 鈥榤odel鈥� can now be referred to as a 鈥榝ictional鈥� model though 鈥榝alse鈥� is probably a better term.

I think that 鈥榣ove鈥� exists and that some things we can say metaphorically about love are intrinsically true. I can say that my wife was like an Irish Rose, others might describe their wives as 鈥榯he most beautiful in the world鈥�. I don鈥檛 think, therefore, that we will be ever able to say that 鈥榣ove鈥� does not exist and therefore all of our metaphors about it are by definition false i.e. 鈥榝ictional鈥�.

Now in trying to model a concept of God (which is what some Christians do - he is the Man on the throne sitting up in heaven.) I think one has already set up a 鈥榝alse鈥� model since as I said before I don鈥檛 think there is any science that we can get to test any such model). That is why as a scientist if you asked me does God exist, I would answer 鈥榥o鈥� but the answer is from that perspective alone.

If we metaphorize 鈥楪od鈥� then we can ask the question is the metaphor 鈥榝ictional鈥�. If one can prove that the metaphor is wrong through some form of philosophical or theological argument then the 鈥榤etaphorized God鈥� is indeed 鈥榝ictional鈥�.

Now to Post 18 where you write:

鈥淢ichael- Part II. In fact, let me be so bold as to attempt to 'stretch' you here with regard your view of biblical myth and metaphor (presuming that I've accurately defined what you mean by those things). If I was to sit down and write an account of creation, starting with a God called Betty, featuring a talking reptile of some kind and explaining the details of creation.... would you immediately call it metaphorical? Or would you call it the ramblings of a crazy blogger with either delusions or a desire to deceive?鈥�

Well no doubt what you woul have done is to present a metaphorical account of Betty and the reptile etc. How would it be regarded I suppose depends on ones personal worldview and if it 鈥榚xplains鈥� creation to you. I think Shakespeare, for example, speaks intrinsic truth because everyone seems to recognize in Shakespeare's particular mythologies that the intrinsic truths he metaphorizes are the same for everyone, everywhere, and for all time (my definition of both factual and intrinsic truth which is common to both 鈥榤odels鈥� and 鈥榤etaphors鈥�.) How would the account of Betty and the reptile stack up under this scrutiny would be the question.

鈥淣ow, fast forward a few thousand years. My account has been preserved by, at first, a few people, then, later, many thousands of people who have come to believe its validity. Because my account has been immortalised in religious tradition, it's much easier to believe it to be in some way valid, or in some way even inspired, or even metaphorical, or even literally factual, or even the Word of God! After all, why would God have seen to it that my account continued to remain in the hearts and minds of his people for all the ages? Surely then it's not only valid, but inerrant and infallible too.鈥�

I think I tried an answer on this point above. I would think that the metaphor would be certainly gaining 鈥榲alidity鈥� however would not have reached the point of 鈥榠nerrant and infallible鈥�. I believe in evolution but I would not say I have reach the point of declaring it 鈥榠nerrant and infallible鈥�. That is, it is not yet for me a 鈥榝aith鈥� the same way that 2+2=4 is a 鈥榝aith鈥� statement for me.

鈥淗ere's what I'm asking you Michael. Is there any particularly good reason to believe that Genesis is metaphorical of anything in the first place? Or is it easier for us 'nervous liberals' to say it's a metaphor because we are theologically compromising with the views of people like PB and Billy, and what to retain a semblance of evangelicalism?鈥�

Well I wouldn鈥檛 classify myself as a 鈥榣iberal鈥� but I am 鈥榓gnostic鈥� about things. I mentioned before (and came under some fire) that I am both an agnostic scientist and an agnostic Christian. I 鈥榖elieve鈥� evolution in the model sense and I believe 鈥楪od鈥� in the metaphorical sense. That is I can act on these 鈥榖eliefs鈥� in the expectation that each is true. I think that is what a 鈥榳orldview鈥� describes 鈥� it is that which one 鈥榖elieves鈥� and accordingly acts upon.

I don鈥檛 know what existed before the Big Bang. My science tells me I have a certain amount of intelligence derived from my 30,000 or so genes. My scientific extrapolation causes me to wonder how does one 鈥榤odel鈥� or 鈥榤etaphorize鈥� an 鈥榠ntelligence鈥� with 3 million genes, or 3 billion, or an infinite number of genes.

This wonder leads me to have a belief in the God that I metaphorize and try to understand my 鈥榳onder鈥� from that perspective. Its a better perspective to get at my wonder than approaching it from the scientific perspective.

Sorry to ramble on. I鈥檒l pop in with other comments if others 鈥榗hime鈥� in. The above is offered only as my opinion 鈥� I have to get all of this distilled down into 272 words by January 1 as do you John!

Thanks, John, for the seriousness and thought behind the questions.

Regards,
Michael

Number 17 Mark says:

鈥淚 decided that you (speaking of Hull I think and the ticking timebomb stuff which is way beyond me) probably don't actually exist in the real world after all and therefore you are a figment of my imagination. It appears Camus and Satre were right all along but then I imagined them along with everything else so why wouldn't they be. I don't know what happened to Maureen. She said over at Billy Graham's cow pasture she would be posting here but I guess she got diverted. Time, tide, and this Yank wait for no woman (or man.)鈥�

Mark:
I鈥檓 here 鈥� glad you missed me 鈥� not much going on over in that cow pasture 鈥� you were the only interesting cowboy there!

You keep bringing up this 鈥榝igment鈥� of your imagination stuff and somewhere else you said something about poof and everyone is gone.

Should I be worried? But then I know that George Sand was the pseudonym of the French novelist and feminist Amandine-Lucile-Aurore Dupin so I might actually be a reverse George Sand. Now there鈥檚 a thought!

In that case wouldn鈥檛 it be more correct for you to remove the brackets and write 鈥淭ime, tide, and this Yank wait for no woman or man.鈥�

Incidentally, I have no evidence that you are a 鈥榊ank鈥� though from what I know about Yanks .... ;-)

Well, while waiting for PB or Billy (whoever the two of you are) to ring my bells with this 鈥榤etaphorical God鈥� thing I might just as well wander back over to the cow pasture for a while.

Care to join me?

Just in your imagination, of course!!

Peace to everyone!

Is the validity of a metaphor equal to that of a scientific model? On the face of it, the very notion is absurd which is why I haven't commented so far. But the debate is being taken so seriously, I feel I've got to stick my two cents in. What's the problem with metaphors? A metaphor is a substitution of one word or idea for another. To begin with, there's the definition of the words themselves. Even if we can agree on the denotation of a word, its connotation can be very different. And of course, the definition can vary from language to language and even from region to region, dialect to dialect, or culture to culture within the same language. In English as spoken in Britain, the phrase "table an item" in a meeting agenda means to bring it up for discussion. In English as spoken in America, the phrase "table and item" in a meeting agenda means to defer discussion of it for a later time. Then there is the problem that in a true metaphor, one idea is substituted for another implicitly. But which idea or word? That is also left up to interpretation so it can be rather cryptic.

Michael N. Hull, I'll take your example in #20, "my wife was like an Irish rose." By the way, although it's been over forty years since I studied English grammar I think that statement is technically a simile, not a metaphor. Had you said I was married to an Irish rose, I think that would be a metaphor and I would have had to guess that you were talking about your wife (for all I know you might have meant your cherished sports car you poured your life savings into.) Any English teachers out there? Nevertheless, what did you mean? We can't know explicitly. Did you mean your wife was beautiful to look at? That you felt pleasure being in her presence? That you liked the way she smelled because her perfume reminded you of an Irish rose? Well to me it might have meant something entirely different. Perhaps it means she was thorny, prickly, and therefore difficult to talk to. If I were allergic to roses, perhaps it would have conjured up thoughts of her making me sneeze, my nose and eyes run, itch, and burn. Not someone I'd prefer to be around at all. We can invent endless trite jokes based solely on the ambiguity of words used in this way such as the old chestnut "her teeth are like stars....they come out at night" or "her teeth are like pearls, she puts them away in the dresser drawer every night."

Then if you can't agree on a definition of what the words mean or what the significance of the metaphor is, how do you test it for its validity? You can't. You can't prove it true or untrue because it has no specific well defined universally agreed to meaning. A scientific model on the other hand usually boils down to one or more mathematical equations and specific numbers. Are mathematical equations and terms accurate representations of the physical universe? We could debate that philosophical question 'till Billy Graham's mechanical cows come home without agreeing but I'd think most scientists would agree that whatever their shortcoming, it's the best we've got. In fact, there's one proposal that should we come in contact with an alien race, the way to prove our intelligence to them would be by sending them a signal with the binary code for the first one million digits of the trancendental number pi. Would we recoginze such a signal ourselves? Today probably yes, fifty or sixty years ago, very unlikely. Can mathematical models be tested for their validity? Often the answer is yes. So when Andy McIntosh says that the first occurrance of DNA molecules in nature violates the second law of thermodynamics, we can know with fair certainty if that is true or not and most scientists would come to the conclusion that it isn't not because they read it or heard someone they respect say it or because it sounded good and made sense to them but because they could devise a test for it in their own laboratory if they wanted to and determine its validity for themselves.

Didn't one of my quotes from Saint Thomas Aquinas contend that you can't define God by a mathematical equation? So then how do you prove the existance or non existance of god and the truth of the bible as a metaphor? You can't. And as a scientific model? You can't do that either, all you can say is that there is or is not evidence for it. So far, news of any that's credible hasn't reached my eyes or ears yet.

Billy#12; If you have never seen the Grand Canyon, I highly recommend a visit. Look at the size of the canyon and the rocks it is carved out of. Think about whether "The Big Ditch" was made by a flood which lasted for forty days and nights or a river which sliced through it for may millions of years. If you still haven't figured it out, go look at places which were under water in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina for forty days and nights. If you can find a grand canyon in it, we'll open up another national park there and make a few bucks out of it.

Michael this one is for you.

In post 20 you told John that his story about Betty "would be certainly gaining 鈥榲alidity鈥� however would not have reached the point of 鈥榠nerrant and infallible鈥�".

Doesn't this apply to your model and metaphor stuff? I understand it, but then I have lived with it off and on for 10 years or so. John seems to be partially in favor of your thoughts. But everyone else has given it a big yawn.

Isn't Mark, PB, etc perfectly justified in considering your position to be completely invalid. I mean who have you proved it to yet?

Peace.

Re post 22:

Mark:

Good comments! And I grant you the similie metaphor correction.

Let me sit back and see what others think. You have placed some good stuff in front of the bloggers.

Cordially,
Michael

Maureen, I don't know any easy way to break this to you so I will just say it. I've had a long chat with God. Your name came up. And well, quite frankly.....she is not amused either :>)

Maureen, I am curious. What about what I've posted so far would suggest to you that I am not American? What would be your best guess if you had to guess (no penalty of course for being wrong.) Oh how I love being a man (or for all you know a woman) of mystery :>) Let's make a game of it. I'll award you the brass figleaf and bronze oakleaf cluster if you can correctly tell me which sex I am, where I was born, where I grew up, where I reside, and where my parents were born. Bonus if you can guess where I went to University and my major field of study. One guess.

Michael

This is a question for you; you have previously quickly admitted defeat when I challenged you to find a missing link between man and ape but you seem to have regained some of your jauntiness.

When in science does a model become more than a model and is accepted as fact? What more has to be done with the theory of evolution for it to make the grade? Isnt this something to do with being able to demonstrate a process under controlled conditions and having your results peer reviewed etc? Where does this leave evolution?

I am not a scientist and cant answer your question about DNA though there are quite a few phd and above geneticists listed on answers in genesis website who would be well qualified to if you contacted them.

John, I am asking you at the moment to explain exactly why you have concluded genesis should not be read literally; what are your hermeneutic reasons?

I dont think it fair that you slag of some of us for not being scientists when you are not one yourself.

I imagine the AIG 200 phds would be able to discuss any science question with you.

PB

In post #23 Maureen McNeill wrote:

鈥淚sn't Mark, PB, etc perfectly justified in considering your position to be completely invalid? I mean who have you proved it to yet?鈥�

The answers to your 2 questions are: 1) Yes and 2) Not too many.

But you must understand my motives for tossing out these ideas. I am not concerned about trying to convert anyone. I am testing my own worldview for my own benefit. To do this I throw my ideas into the arena of discussion and see how they hold up.

There is a bit in one of Ayn Rand鈥檚 novels (Atlas Shrugged or maybe The Fountainhead) where Rand points out that if two reasonable people debate an idea and one of the two is proved to be wrong, (s)he has not 鈥榣ost鈥� anything. Quite the opposite (s)he has advanced in understanding.

Has the discussion here changed my worldview about models and metaphors? No, but I have learned more about how to personally think about them. I don鈥檛 mind my ideas being shredded as long as it is the 鈥榠dea鈥� that is shredded and not the person proferring the idea.

I understand Mark鈥檚, PBs, Billy鈥檚 and to some extent John鈥檚 worldviews. Maybe in some small sense in hashing over my ideas they think more deeply about their own worldviews. Maybe what I say even strengthens their worldview and if so I am happy for that. Isn鈥檛 that what the courteous exchange of ideas is supposed to be about?

I sometimes think that we should all blog without our names attached and that all ideas could be considered as 鈥榠deas鈥� and not be shaped by one鈥檚 consiousness of the other person and their personality. In the rational world we ought to be able to do this but in practice we all view the world through our own colored prisms (to paraphrase Disraeli).

As Ever,
Michael

Michael N. Hull, I'm curious, have I convinced you of the correctness of my arguement or just caused you to question the validity of the arguement you made? Was that arguement your true opinion or just one you were "trying on for size" to see how it fit? What was it about my arguement which caused you to question your own? I'm a little surprised in a way because it seems to me that one issue all scientists and engineers I've met struggle with as a basic notion is the definition of terms. It seems to me that they feel that in order to think precisely, they must define all variables as narrowly and specifically as they possibly can and whenever they make an arguement they issue an "all bets are off if" cavaet qualifying their conclusions based on the variables meeting clearly specified criteria including the definition of them. Being a scientist yourself, I am surprised you wouldn't instinctively have already gravitated towards that point of view too.

In post 26 Mark wrote to Maureen:

鈥淢aureen, I am curious. What about what I've posted so far would suggest to you that I am not American? What would be your best guess if you had to guess (no penalty of course for being wrong.) Oh how I love being a man (or for all you know a woman) of mystery :>) Let's make a game of it. I'll award you the brass figleaf and bronze oakleaf cluster if you can correctly tell me which sex I am, where I was born, where I grew up, where I reside, and where my parents were born. Bonus if you can guess where I went to University and my major field of study. One guess.鈥�

Couldn鈥檛 resist breaking in on this one! Here鈥檚 is my shot for the brass figleaf and bronze oakleaf cluster.

Who is 鈥楳ark鈥� and what is 鈥榠t鈥�?

Here鈥檚 the scientist in me.....

I have a few unauthenticated pieces of writing supposedly written by someone called 鈥楳ark鈥�. In the bible there is a 鈥楪ospel of Mark鈥� which was, to the best of our historical research, written anonymously and attributed to 鈥楳ark鈥�. (All four Gospels are the same). I have no evidence that the blogger 鈥楳ark鈥� is not to be similarly considered.

This is an internet discussion group so I am forced to reject anything 鈥楳ark鈥� says that I can not check and verify. 鈥楳ark鈥� indicated that the school motto was ad astra per aspera which would point me to further investigation in Kansas as a starting point. But Mark may be laying a false trail, or I may be jumping to conclusions so I am not going to rush to Kansas to meet 鈥楳ark鈥�.

Mark said he (his word) is not Irish, that (s)he may be a 鈥榊ank鈥�. If I got him/her in a room, swabbed the inner cheek and ran a Y chromosome analysis then I would know at least one thing. Whether our 鈥楳ark鈥� is male or female and if male from what part of the world his most recent ancestor came from.

I could go on about the outer reality of 'Mark' (my term that you all are familiar with) but you get the picture - I know absolutely nothing about 'Mark'. There is nothing I can say definitively about 'Mark'. I can not 鈥榤odel鈥� 'Mark' in my consciousness.

So without a model of 鈥楳ark鈥� what can I 鈥榖elieve鈥� about 鈥楳ark鈥� 鈥� nothing, nothing at all.

I can say that to me at the present time 鈥楳ark鈥� actually does not exist. (I made the same comment about 鈥楪od鈥� in an earlier posting so I trust 鈥楳ark鈥� will understand.)

In the inner reality (my other term) I do have some information.

I have begun to metaphorize 鈥楳ark鈥� based on my inferences.

The thoughts that 鈥楳ark鈥� places before us in text form do betray a definite pattern that causes me to believe there is an 鈥榠ntelligent being鈥� behind 鈥楳ark鈥� and from this point on I will refer to 鈥楳ark鈥� as 鈥業B鈥�.

I believe IB is not, however, a super intelligent being because I鈥檝e seen what I think are some holes.

Notice I said 鈥榖elieve鈥�, this is not a statement of 鈥榝aith鈥�. IB might just be leading me to think IB has limited knowledge so I won鈥檛 make any assumptions about what I think IB doesn鈥檛 know.

My interactions with IB usually give me a sense of pleasure. I look forward to interacting with IB even though sometimes IB punishes me unfairly. Thus sometimes I feel that I should reject IB as unjust and unfair. But then IB responds to my entreaties and I feel loved again by IB. He's a bit like the metaphorized 'IB' in the OT.

I do tend to ramble on a bit 鈥� YOU punished me about this, Maureen! So I will stop. I think we all get 鈥楬ull鈥檚鈥� picture of 鈥楳ark鈥�.

To you 鈥楳aureen鈥� I would say the following 鈥� no matter what you tell 鈥楳ark鈥� or what 鈥楳ark鈥� confirms to you about 鈥楳ark鈥�, I鈥檓 not buying any of it!

Regards,
Michael (whoever I am)

In post 27 pb wrote:

鈥淲hen in science does a model become more than a model and is accepted as fact? What more has to be done with the theory of evolution for it to make the grade? Isnt this something to do with being able to demonstrate a process under controlled conditions and having your results peer reviewed etc? Where does this leave evolution?鈥�

Actually I don鈥檛 think models ever become facts since we can only prove a model to be 鈥榝alse鈥�. So we hammer our models to try to prove them false. However, the longer they go, and the harder they are tested, the more we can feel confident to believe in them if we can鈥檛 show them to be false.

If we know that something is true then we don鈥檛 need a model anymore we have a fact. I think that the equation 2+2=4 is not a mathematical model, it is a mathematical fact.

With most of our models we might never be able to declare them as 鈥榯rue鈥�. But as time passes we can begin to move from belief and towards 鈥榝aith鈥� in them i.e. faith in the sense of 鈥榯rust鈥�. Trust meaning I can use the model to make a decision about something and it probably won鈥檛 come back and bite me.

At the moment I believe in evolution and with every new discovery it is moving towards something I have faith in. I do have faith in gravity.

PB, you also wrote:

鈥淚 am not a scientist and can鈥檛 answer your question about DNA though there are quite a few phd and above geneticists listed on answers in genesis website who would be well qualified to if you contacted them.鈥�

Wouldn鈥檛 it be more appropriate for you to contact them? After all you are the one who needs to seek this particular piece of knowledge for the testing of your own worldview?

Regards,
Michael

Michael N. Hull#30, no fair helping, she has to get it on her own.

"I don't think we're in Kansas anymore Toto."

In post 29 Mark wrote:

鈥淚'm curious, have I convinced you of the correctness of my arguement or just caused you to question the validity of the arguement you made? Was that arguement your true opinion or just one you were "trying on for size" to see how it fit? What was it about my arguement which caused you to question your own? I'm a little surprised in a way because it seems to me that one issue all scientists and engineers I've met struggle with as a basic notion is the definition of terms.鈥� It seems to me that they feel that in order to think precisely, they must define all variables as narrowly and specifically as they possibly can and whenever they make an arguement they issue an "all bets are off if" cavaet qualifying their conclusions based on the variables meeting clearly specified criteria including the definition of them. Being a scientist yourself, I am surprised you wouldn't instinctively have already gravitated towards that point of view too.

Mark:

I agree about the question of narrowly and specifically defining one鈥檚 terms. If you check back to the earlier Creation Wars, and the Creationism 101 blogs I defined a lot of the terms I use there so we are going to swamp this discussion if I start doing it again now.

I really would prefer to hang back a bit here and let others get their two cents in if they want. A lot of people who were blogging on this issue before have gone very quiet. I would like to hear from them.

Incidentally, in your metaphorized form as IB, are you testing me with your five times spelling of 鈥榓rguement鈥�. IB, you punished me with dictionaries before and I鈥檝e tried to follow your law faithfully and seek your Word therein but are you treating me like Job when you lead me not to still waters but to Monty Python and that 'arguement'?

Your servant,
Michael

Post 32. At 01:10 AM on 17 Dec 2006, Mark said:

"Michael N. Hull#30, no fair helping, she has to get it on her own."

Mark:

I don't exist!

Peace

In post 34 Maureen McNeill wrote: 鈥淚 don't exist!鈥�

Mark:

Now this is getting interesting!!!

Back to my post 30 where I said:

鈥淪o without a model of 鈥楳ark鈥� what can I 鈥榖elieve鈥� about 鈥楳ark鈥� 鈥� nothing, nothing at all. I can say that to me at the present time 鈥楳ark鈥� actually does not exist. (I made the same comment about 鈥楪od鈥� in an earlier posting so I trust 鈥楳ark鈥� will understand.) In the inner reality (my other term) I do have some information. I have begun to metaphorize 鈥楳ark鈥� based on my inferences.鈥�

Mark isn鈥檛 my statement acceptable to you that if we look at all of this scientifically I have no evidence that you exist and you have no evidence that Maureen exists?

And isn鈥檛 it OK therefore in the absence of anything scientific that I metaphorize the two of you and base my world view of the pair of you on that perspective?

I looked back at a couple of your previous posts and in Creation Wars The Result, Post 33 you said about David H:

鈥淵ou'd better be careful, if you exist only in my mind, I might just will you into non existance.鈥�

In post 45 you said:

鈥淵ou could be skating on thin ice because if I do inhabit an existential universe, then as Ebenezer Scrooge said to the ghost of Jacob Marley; "You may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato. There's more of gravy than of grave about you, whatever you are!'"鈥�

In Finding Darwin鈥檚 God post 17 you wrote about me:

鈥淚 decided that you probably don't actually exist in the real world after all and therefore you are a figment of my imagination. It appears Camus and Satre were right all along but then I imagined them along with everything else so why wouldn't they be.鈥�

And in post 26 you came up with:

鈥淥h how I love being a man (or for all you know a woman) of mystery :>) Let's make a game of it. I'll award you the brass figleaf and bronze oakleaf cluster if you can correctly tell me which sex I am鈥�

So taking all of these comments together do you not agree that to me you don鈥檛 exist in any outer reality, physical sense, since I can not possible get a model that fits you?

Don鈥檛 you also agree that I can, however, think of you (and 鈥楳aureen鈥� whatever she/it is) as a myth/metaphor until science gives me some way of handling the two of you?

Regards,
Michael

Michael (et al)- I'm sorry I haven't been able to get back to you sooner. I'm writing this from a hotel room in San Clemente, California where I've got to head out shortly. The debate remains an interesting and a valid one for me, and I'd very much like to continue talking, once I get some time (probably tomorrow at some point).

Maureen McNeill#34, you wrote

"Mark:

I don't exist."

For someone who doesn't exist, you certainly have a lot to say. I should only wonder what it would be like if you did.

Why am I carrying on a conversation with a self admitted non-entity??? Maybe this is what it's like to be insane. I must have read Satre's play "No Exit" once too often.

37. At 11:32 PM on 17 Dec 2006, Mark wrote to Maureen:

"For someone who doesn't exist, you certainly have a lot to say. Why am I carrying on a conversation with a self admitted non-entity???"

Mark:

It beats me! So carry on a conversation with me!

I put a series of statements in post 35 and I am awaiting a response (primarily from you but I would welcome anyone else putting in their two cents).

You believe that equating metaphor with model is absurd. The conclusion of my post 35 was to ask if you agree that John Wright, for example, should think of you (and 鈥楳aureen鈥� whatever she/it is to you) as a myth/metaphor in the absence of any scientific facts about who or what each of them might be.

At the moment no one's scientific mind could come up with a way of modeling the two of them that John, or PB, could test.

Let me ask my question again.

You asked Maureen to guess some facts about you even challenging 鈥榟er鈥� to tell you what sex you are etc. My position is 'Maureen' can鈥檛!

May I challenge you to show me something about 'Maureen' that you can defend as a physical fact about her? Or to put your own question right back to you: 鈥淲hy indeed are you carrying on a conversation with 鈥楳aureen鈥� believing she has a physical existence?

I scanned the posts in all of these blogs and I have seen a 鈥楻ubberDuckie鈥� and a 鈥楤usybee鈥� posting in the 鈥楳echanical Cow鈥� blog. (Can鈥檛 make this stuff up!) Does RubberDuckie exist to you as a 鈥榬ubber duck鈥� or is 鈥楻ubberDuckie鈥� possibly you, Mark, dressed up in feathers? Frankly, I don't know and if you told me you were not 'RubberDuckie' on what basis of scientific fact would I accept that?

I wouldn't! Would you, John, Billy, Pb, Gee?

I can say a lot about 鈥楳aureen鈥� in a 鈥榤etaphorical sense鈥� which I can defend. These statements would be quite similar to things I said about you, Mark, when I metaphorized you as 'IB' in the earlier post.

Recall in my earlier post what I said I could 鈥榖elieve鈥� about you as the 鈥榤etaphorized Mark鈥�. Compare this with what I can say now about the 鈥榤etaphorized Maureen鈥� as presented below....

The ideas that 鈥楳aureen鈥� places before you in text form betray a pattern that should cause you to believe there is an 鈥榠ntelligent being鈥� behind 鈥楳aureen鈥� and from this point on I will refer to 鈥楳aureen鈥� as 鈥業B2鈥�. (鈥楳ark鈥� is my original IB but I will now designate 鈥楳ark鈥� as IB1).

You might believe IB2 is not, however, a super intelligent being because you've seen what you think are many holes in IB2鈥檚 knowledge.

Notice I said 鈥榖elieve鈥�, this is not a statement of 鈥榝aith鈥�. IB2 might just be leading you to think IB2 has limited knowledge so you shouldn't make any assumptions about what you think IB2 doesn鈥檛 know. If IB1 and IB2 are different 鈥榖eings', as I know that they are, then you would be led to consider that IB1 might be a little more intelligent than IB2. (I'm sorry to say that about IB2 but I know it is acceptable!!)

My interactions with IB2 always give me a sense of pleasure. I look forward to interacting with IB2 because IB2 supported my position quite agressively when it was attacked by IB1. Thus sometimes I feel that I should always think of IB2 as just and fair. But then IB2 seems to enjoy interacting more with IB1. IB2 has informed me, IB1 and everyone else on this blog that 鈥榮he鈥� doesn鈥檛 think anyone will ever buy into the metaphor/model world view.

IB1 keeps talking about figments in IB1鈥檚 mind including saying that I don鈥檛 exist. I know I exist but I must admit IB1 does not 'know' that I exist. IB2 says 鈥楳aureen鈥� doesn鈥檛 exist. I wonder if this means that both IB1 and IB2 understand that something can exist in the non-scientifically verifiable sense. I know IB2 accepts this but I don't think that IB1 does.

I have conluded that even though I can metaphorize both IB1 and IB2, and even though I can analyze the ideas that come forth from both of them, John Wright might never be able to say anything about them from a scientific point of view i.e. about who they are in the physical sense. They are in this sense both unknowable to John.

Now maybe one of them will at some time in the future provide definitive physical proof of their state of existence or non-existence but John can still interact with both of them in the absence of this proof as long as he sticks to just considering the ideas contained within the text.

Now I await IB1, (aka 鈥楳ark鈥�) to punish me for this worldview of 鈥榟im鈥� and 鈥榟er鈥�. I fear his anger and verbal punishment but I trust if I suffer too much I will be able to have IB2 step forward to provide comfort and support.

Apprehensively,
Michael

ps John you promised you would be back. Do you exist? ;-)

Michael#35,38; insofar as Maureen is concerened, I've given it some thought and I think her denial of her existance is entirely disingenuous. "Methinks the lady doth protest too much." How much is too much? For a non-entity, any at all. Besides, and I want you to consider this very carefully, and to the rest of you this may be the first time you've heard it anywhere (if anyone has a previous source for this I'd like to know about it), OK here it is....BLOGITO ERGO SUM! That's right; I blog, therefore I am. To anyone thinking that this is an obvious subset of cogito ergo sum, I would point out that bloggers are clearly not a subset of thinkers as there are not only examples but in fact it is frequently the case that many people blog without thinking at all, ever.

So while we would have to agree that all of us exist (including you Michael, I was of course kidding...you hope) we have to ask if Maureen's denial "I don't exist" is a metaphor for a different meaning. What meaning? I got myself in too deep with this stuff, move on Mark and the rest of you and continue to post as though I don't exist, I'm outta here? I've got my eye on someone who pays no attention to me, he acts like I don't exist? Or maybe Maureen is nothing but an alias or alter ego for someone else, unless you believe that her postings came together spontaneously out of cyber mud, which evolved (aha, proof that at least in cyber space, there was a creator...ARPA.) There were Maureen sightings and someone claims to know her by those who have given testament to her existance (Mark is not one of them, any Mathews Lukes or Johns out there want to speak up on her behalf?) How credible that evidence is, could depend on whether or not you are open to UFO sightings and alien abductions. Or...it might have been her feeble effort at a clever quip. Sorry Maureen, you'll have to do a lot better than that. Now about that brass figleaf and bronze oakleaf cluster....

So....are you going to hold your breath Michael waiting for her "second coming" to find out? Personally, I've got better things to do.

Michael, I see in #38 you've signed off apprehensively. Tell you what I'll do for you, I'll try very hard to will you out of existance and if I can't do it, you'll know you can breathe easily and no longer be so apprehensive about it. If you're gone, well you've lost nothing since you didn't really exist anyway and the rest of them will have one hell of a scare thrown into them. I might even be able to bring you back. (There was a Twilight Zone episode something like that, do you remember it?)

Psst. Psst. Michael, shhh. Don't post for a few days, go along with the gag. Let the others think you really don't exist anymore. Keep them guessing. Just don't tell anyone about it. It will be our little secret joke between us :>)

MH:

Maybe I don鈥檛 exist but you are a CLOWN!

Peace

39. At 03:18 AM on 18 Dec 2006, Mark wrote:

"Psst. Psst. Michael, shhh. Don't post for a few days, go along with the gag. Let the others think you really don't exist anymore. Keep them guessing. Just don't tell anyone about it. It will be our little secret joke between us :>)"

OK. I agree! I'll disappear later after I get your reply to posts 35 and 38. I have to stay here for a little while longer as John said he would be coming back. I don't want him to head over to the Billy Graham barn and look for me among the rubber ducks, busy bees, and mechanical cows.

As ever (for now that is)
Michael

Oh cruel fate. My cleverest posting ever in which I coined the phrase "Blogito ergo sum" will forever be justifiably credited to "anonymous" all because haste makes waste.

Micheal re my #40 and your #42....fageddaboudit. Sheeeeesh, what's the world come to.

A couple of comments re 39:

1) Blogging anonymously is an excellent idea. If everyone did that it would remove all of the ad hominem attacks of which there are way too many IMHO. Each writing would have to be examined in the light of its content and not in the shadow of the individual(s) making the comments. On the other hand given Mark鈥檚 strange spelling when Mark gives out 鈥榓rguEments鈥� and mentions 鈥楽atre鈥�, for example, one can understand that in one鈥檚 thinking he might be making an 鈥榓rgument鈥� and be talking about 鈥楽aRtre鈥� and just have quirky spelling. But if the blogger 'Mark' was 鈥榓nonymous鈥� then one might read into his writings some elements of stupidity which on reading 'Mark' I don't think is true. But on balance I would go with the 鈥榓nonymous鈥� blogging as the better route. After all the blog moderator is the only one who need know identities since that is his right.

2) I think 鈥榓nonymous鈥� has indicated that 鈥榠t鈥� might be accepting the point that in the absence of scientific evidence or models we are better generating metaphors about each other. That I think is plain. I think he has picked up on my George Sand point so unless he can prove that I am not a reverse 鈥楪eorge Sand鈥� I agree he should 'metaphor' me (MH: is that the correct expression?). It will be interesting to see what John Wright says when he reappears as he indicated he has some further thoughts. BTW 鈥� Wright and Hull are in very strange agreement which makes me wonder ... hmmmm ....

3) I鈥檓 not the sharpest blade in this pack but I still don鈥檛 think I鈥檝e seen a clear response to the two posts that are outstanding. I see lot of words being bandied (sp?) about but I still don鈥檛 know if I am to be regarded as a metaphor or what. Until this is clarified I am going to stick to my own position which 鈥楳ark鈥� helped me establish and 鈥榓nonymous鈥� helped me define. Blogito ergo sum is something I think is clearly true about me but Cogito ergo sum 鈥� isn鈥檛 that the question you are asking everyone Michael or have I really wandered into a Latin jungle here? As I see it now Mark ?Surname? and John Wright are like the anonymous writers of the Gospels which have been attributed to THE Mark and THE John. So as I see it, the Gospels are 鈥榖logs鈥� which were 鈥榓nonymously鈥� authored and the given the names of 鈥楳ark鈥� and 鈥楯ohn鈥� for purposes of credibility.

Learning something new every day!

Christmas Peace to All (while awaiting the advent of John Wright, whoever he is)

Maureen

Ps: Michael: You are still a CLOWN but I love you anyway! Just because I appear to think doesn't prove that "I am"! Now I can reread the Gospel of John in an entirely new light.

Michael

ref post 31

Thats a bit naughty. You were the one asking questions about DNA so to suggest I should contact the creationist Phds about your queries in order to test MY worldview is mischevous.

If you were sincerely interested in the answer and not just trying to make a point you would pursue the matter and not use it to try and smear me, methinks.

PB

Maureen #43, I assure you that I didn't deliberately post anonymously, it was entirely an accident. The software in some message boards precludes this possiblity, this one doesn't. Why would I not claim credit for "Blogito ergo sum," the best of my modest collection of coinages (I also claim credit for coining the term "telephone tag" in 1996 when I became frustrated over exchanging voice mail with people I needed to contact before cell phones were ubiquitous.) I also assure you that I for one have not intended an ad hominem attack against you, if I had, you would have felt a very sharp pain just before you went unconscious. As for my spelling errors, some of them are typos due to my rapid typing and inadequate editing and some are just the consequence of me not being a good speller...well actually I'm an awful speller. I don't use any tools like spell check on these blogs either. You'll have to live with it or as I said in my first post responding to you, not read my entries.

I'm still waiting for an answer about my question regarding your opinion about my not being American. You seem to be avoiding the issue entirely. I'm not looking for a concession but an explanation. Is it that the thought was less than "Christian" as I suspect? Funny isn't it, how in life sometimes you think you are just going to dip your toe into something to test it and before you know it, you've gotten yourself up to your neck in hot water?

I woke up with a headache this morning 鈥� no jokes please, I鈥檓 too old 鈥� so please forgive this....

I reread the whole of this blog just now and a couple of things puzzle me ....

JK: I think you鈥檙e traveling until Wednesday so can we expect to hear from you later this week? I thought you raised a good point that the physical constants may not actually be constant. Then you presented this in response to the DNA clock thing. Michael says he has 3 clocks and I am still interested to know if in your opinion he does or does not. I know Michael indicated that he knows you and maybe you have corresponded to him privately but I still am waiting to hear what you as a young earth believer say to him.

Billy: I鈥檓 not a creationist and so I thought the bit you brought up about the flood, the Ussher reference, and the guy swimming from Spain to Ireland was slightly amusing. But I still would like to see you either drown the swimmer or tell me if he got into the Ark.

Mark: Methinks you do talk too much. Every idea you placed before me I have read before 鈥� you quote and quote but you don鈥檛 synthesis the ideas into some new thought that I can mull over. You are intelligent but for goodness sake place all of your knowledge into some original thoughts that can get me pondering. Michael is a bit whacky and I鈥檓 not sure as quite well read as you in the theological area but from what I see he at least tries to put some new thoughts in front of us.

Michael: You don鈥檛 get off my roasting hook! In the NT one anonymous blogger by the name of Matthew posed the question 鈥淲ho do you say that I am?鈥� May I ask you, Michael, not who you are but who do people say that you are?

Off to look for the aspirin and maybe drop in to Billy Graham鈥檚 mechanical cow pasture. I get what 鈥榖usybee鈥� and 鈥榬ubberduckie鈥� are buzzing and quacking about over there 鈥� its mindless but then it is easier on the mind!

Peace,
Maureen

Re 47. Mark wrote: Maureen #43, I assure you that I didn't deliberately post anonymously, it was entirely an accident.

Mark: My point is that it doesn't matter. I try to read the blog for the idea contained therein and react to that, not to the person behind the idea.

Incidentally, I too have been published accidentally under 'anonymous' but I think one can usually guess from the writing style and the POV that the latter 'anonymous' posting was not put there by 'billy'. I would venture to bet that MH and the missing John Wright figured that out too.

Even though I don't exist I am not stupid. FYI, today I am publishing as "Maureen"!

I've just posted some other stuff and I still haven't found the darn aspirin!

Again peace and blessings to you.

Maureen

Re 48: "Michael: You don鈥檛 get off my roasting hook! In the NT one anonymous blogger by the name of Matthew posed the question 鈥淲ho do you say that I am?鈥� May I ask you, Michael, not who you are but who do people say that you are?"

That is similar to the question I am working on for the Crawley December 31 deadline on the Gettsburg address question. I have 272 words to get the essence of this question answered and so I will defer my answer to this January 1.

By the way, Billy has put his document into Crawley's hands and I think JK, JW have also committed. Mark - I don't know? You? Now that is THE question!

Regards,
Michael

Maureen, my thoughts are as coherent as I can make them. Without apologies, what you see is what you get. If you are not convinced or even amused, well so be it. I'm still waiting for an answer about that crack you made about me not being American though. Many at 主播大秀 seem to have an obsession with everything about Britain's former thirteen colonies in North America. What's yours? I highly recommend that you listen to the current airing of "The Interview" with Sir Christopher Meyer. Perhaps he will give you some insight into how little of meaningful substance most Brits actually know about America and Americans. Much of what you think you know even if you have visited numerous times is proably superficial.

Mark- I absolutely agree with what you said in your post 51 about people at the 主播大秀 being obsessed with America. I would widen that to British media in general, and to many, many Brits. In fact, Mark, your post needs repeated in BOLD.

"Many at 主播大秀 seem to have an obsession with everything about Britain's former thirteen colonies in North America. What's yours? I highly recommend that you listen to the current airing of "The Interview" with Sir Christopher Meyer. Perhaps he will give you some insight into how little of meaningful substance most Brits actually know about America and Americans. Much of what you think you know even if you have visited numerous times is proably superficial."

Everyone else- I am almost entirely confused about the direction this thread has taken. Could someone summarise what main point needs to be addressed to take the conversation forward?

John:

Posts 35 and 38 about sums it up.

Michael

Re Mark鈥檚 post 51.

Mark wrote:
鈥淢aureen, I'm still waiting for an answer about that crack you made about me not being American though. Many at 主播大秀 seem to have an obsession with everything about Britain's former thirteen colonies in North America. What's yours?鈥�

Mark:
I am now convinced by Hull鈥檚 argument that when one doesn鈥檛 know anything about a subject or an object, and when one can鈥檛 scientifically analyze it or model it, then one should stop reaching for the science tool and try the metaphorical one 鈥� it is just as good.

I have no scientific evidence that you are an American nor do I know if you are male or female. (See your own post on this matter). I don鈥檛 know if 鈥楳ark鈥� is your name 鈥� I don鈥檛 need to know. I see Hull鈥檚 point even more clearly now that if you want to conceptualize things, people, Gods etc and science can鈥檛 be used as a tool then you should use his metaphorical tool (though correct me if I鈥檓 wrong but I seem to remember someone saying the metaphorical tool is a Marcus Borg origination).

You continued:
鈥淚 highly recommend that you listen to the current airing of "The Interview" with Sir Christopher Meyer. Perhaps he will give you some insight into how little of meaningful substance most Brits actually know about America and Americans. Much of what you think you know even if you have visited numerous times is proably superficial.鈥�

Now let me help you with some better metaphorization of me. I fear that you picture me as some Irish lass who has never ventured outside her local village and I can鈥檛 for the spirit of me understand why you think I would be interested in the 鈥榮ubstance most Brits know about America鈥� ...

1) I am not female. Does that tell you why I am not going to venture a guess about your sex? I hinted to you that I might be a reverse George Sand. You hinted that people might be figments of your imagination. I followed up with this theme and said that I don鈥檛 exist (except in the sense that you defined of Blogito ergo sum). Those last three words can remain as part of your metaphorization of me.

2) I do not live in Ireland or in the United Kingdom and that might tell you why I am not going to venture a guess about your nationality and why I am uninterested in a rant about the Brits and their former colonies.

3) You write about rational thought and scientific principles but then you make the following statement:

鈥淢uch of what you think you know even if you have visited (the USA) numerous times is proably superficial鈥�.

I have now changed my metaphorization of you to one of an intelligent being that is neither rational nor principled. Might I venture to suggest that some creationism beliefs are of a higher level than this belief of yours about me.

I have suggested to you numerous times that you should stop seeing people through the prism of what you think they believe and you should stop viewing them through the arrogance of what you think about their beliefs.

If you could do this you would not make such irrational statements about who you 鈥榯hink鈥� I am. You certainly do not 鈥榢now鈥� what you 鈥榯hink I know鈥� and that what I know is 鈥榩robably superficial鈥�.

Those are not the thoughts emanating from what I would hold to be a reasoning, scientifically trained mind. I suspect that I won鈥檛 find anyone on this blog who will disagree with my statement concerning this one point.

In my opinion Hull has now proved his point to me and so I am going back to the cow pasture.

I leave wishing you peace and many blessings.

鈥淢补耻谤别别苍鈥�

I will try to keep my promise to myself that this will be my last posting about Maureen McNeill or directed to Maureen McNeill. Maureen McNeill, I have also reread the postings on this thread and it has confirmed the conclusion I have inevitably been coming to all along. Your postings began and continued with a tirade, a litany of lies and mischaracterizations about what I said and about me and have not let up. You said in your first post #2 that I mischaracterized Michael Hull鈥檚 description of God as being reduced to a metaphor but when challenged you could not show where or how. You say I exhibited intellectual arrogance, ostentatious deficiency, that I rant, that I am not amusing (cruelest cut of all), that I misrepresent other people鈥檚 views (where? how?), that I am tedious and intellectually dishonest, that I am a fool, that I am foolish, that I continuously put people down. And that was in your first posting. You find fault with my challenges to ideas which you characterized as 鈥減ersonal attacks on people鈥檚 views. Where I come from, attacking an idea or point of view IS NOT THE SAME THING as attacking a person. Views and ideas as I see it are fair game, all open to relentless challenge, debate, and can be shredded to bits if the forceful truth of an opposing view is strong enough. Why is that a problem for you? Isn鈥檛 that what a discussion and debate are supposed to be about? As for insulting people, if you think any of what I said was an insult, then you have no concept of what a real insult is where I come from which by the way is Bronx New York, a place AFAIK which is by far the toughest place on earth, tougher than Baghdad and Mogadishu at their worst combined, tougher than anywhere. Believe me, with your tender sensibilities you don鈥檛 want to ever find out the reality of that first hand. You鈥檝e criticized my spelling, my struggle with chemistry and physics (hardly surprising considering the level they were taught at), you even would deny my origin. You were right in saying 鈥渇rom what little I know about Yanks鈥�, which is very little indeed, the Bronx is the home of The New York Yankees baseball team. Apparently I am incoherent as well (#48 you do not synthesize ideas into some new thought I can mull over ) nor can I explain them even if I try extensively, I am merely tedious (#48 methinks you talk too much.)

Maureen McNeill, can you point to one original or even unoriginal statement you鈥檝e made here on this thread which would merit further consideration and thought? Your view that you are a later day George Sand is a comparison which never would have occurred to me from any of your postings.

I have exercised the maximum restraint I possibly can in replying to you and for all I know, I may have tested the bounds of what is acceptable here already. It is clear we are not talking to each other, but past each other. I have concluded that no real communication between us is possible. Therefore, I strongly suggest you neither read nor reply to any of my future postings and I will do the same with respect to yours.

Michael #42, in reply to your postings on #35 and #38, here is my answer. Whether there is an objective world outside myself or if the universe exists merely inside my mind, whoever you are, by posting on the internet you have left a trail which can be traced right back to your corporial self. Certainly in the United States, and in many if not most other countries too I suspect, law enforcement authorities have the tools to trace all of your messages on the internet right back to the real you. Whether you are visiting illegal child pornography sites, sending threatening e-mails, cruising web sites to lure unsuspecting children into illegal activities, you could and would be traced and when you are found, the jail cell you will wind up in will be no metaphor, iron bars will a prison make.

Post 56 Mark wrote:

"Whether you are visiting illegal child pornography sites, sending threatening e-mails, cruising web sites to lure unsuspecting children into illegal activities, you could and would be traced and when you are found, the jail cell you will wind up in will be no metaphor, iron bars will a prison make."

Mark: Good heavens! What happened here? It's quite easy to find me e.g. see the book review to 'First Strike: TWA 800 and the Strike on America". Here I am writing a review for Barnes and Noble

on a book in which I am referenced.

If you also do a Google search on 鈥淗ull Thread鈥� you will find me there and a private email address if you would like to talk to me directly.

I assure you that I am not in hiding and have no fear of any investigation on the matters referenced above.

The blog has been long and intense so let us rest for a while. I have been working with someone who had quadruple bypass surgery one week ago today and I need to pay more attention to him tomorrow.

So let鈥檚 all cool off, enjoy Christmas and maybe we can pick the discussion up again later.

Regards,
Michael

AHA! Michael, so you admit it, I knew all along you weren't just a metaphor, I was just testing to see how long it would take.

Isn't it funny how the real ones in the end always come out of the closet and show themselves in the light of day? Even the most fanatic Japanese holdouts in those island caves eventually came out if it took 20 years after the war to do it.

In post 46 pb wrote:

"Michael ref post 31 Thats a bit naughty. You were the one asking questions about DNA so to suggest I should contact the creationist Phds about your queries in order to test MY worldview is mischevous. If you were sincerely interested in the answer and not just trying to make a point you would pursue the matter and not use it to try and smear me, methinks."

PB:
Good heavens! What happened here too?

How in the world did you think I was trying to 'smear' you?

I don't have time to follow up on websites that might answer 'my' questions about genetics etc. I was suggesting that if you took what I said, and on going to the website you found a particular item that opposed my comments, I would be happy for you to direct my attention to it and ask for my comment.

In the exchange you said:

鈥淚 am not a scientist and can鈥檛 answer your question about DNA though there are quite a few phd and above geneticists listed on answers in genesis website who would be well qualified to if you contacted them.鈥�

And I replied: "Wouldn鈥檛 it be more appropriate for you to contact them? After all you are the one who needs to seek this particular piece of knowledge for the testing of your own worldview?"

I can't see the smear. But if another blogger reads this exchange and supports your interpretation I will apologise.

In a former discussion on free will (post 39 of Creationism 101) I wrote:

"In my view in the inner reality we have free will and in the outer reality we do not. In the outer reality the only option is to state 鈥淚 accept鈥� - what is, 鈥榠s 鈥�. In the inner reality, however, we have the option 鈥淚 choose鈥�. For example, in the outer world we experience the sun鈥檚 heat on our face or hear the wind rustling the trees or suffer the consequences of an earthquake - we have no control over these observations 鈥� we can simply experience them through our perception. The physical experience regardless of how painful or how joyous can only be 鈥榓ccepted鈥�. In the inner world we might experience anger at something or someone. In this case we are not trapped with the single option of 鈥榓cceptance鈥� for we can 鈥榗hoose鈥� to let the anger go. Pain, an outer reality, is not what makes us suffer. It is how we choose to deal with pain in the inner world that causes us to suffer."

I have exercised that free will in my post 57 reply to Mark following his comments to me in 56. I require no apology from him - I have forgiven him completely and unconditionally and I hope you will do the same with me.

As I said in post 57 to Mark, maybe we all need a rest on this topic?

Cordially,
Michael

Re 58. Mark wrote:

"AHA! Michael, so you admit it, I knew all along you weren't just a metaphor, I was just testing to see how long it would take. Isn't it funny how the real ones in the end always come out of the closet and show themselves in the light of day? Even the most fanatic Japanese holdouts in those island caves eventually came out if it took 20 years after the war to do it."

Mark:

Let's rest!

I'm no longer sure if you have or have not understood what I have been trying to say all along about model and metaphor but we have both given it a good airing and I certainly have had personal growth from the discussion. If others (PB, John etc.) got some value, that's great too.

On an entirely different subject, I don't know what you believe re TWA 800 but I would be interested to hear your analysis of "The Tale of the Tapes" on the Hull Thread. Email me at the website address if you want to comment.

Happy Christmas,
Michael

If a metaphor was equally as valid as an scientific model, when Americans astronauts landed on the moon, there would have been Irishmen already there to offer them a pint just to say hello.

If a metaphor was equally as valid as an economic model, Ireland would be the richest country in the world...and so it is. What's the proof? It's capital is always D(o)ublin' :>)