I don't get YEC.

[SkyWriting]

Plus, the way you post pretty much screams that you want to change our minds.

T

People post here for one of two reasons (from what I've seen - it can also be for both reasons): 1-to learn or 2-to change minds/teach.

entertainment?

Okay, three reasons - although most of the entertainment would be the reading rather than posting.

1-entertain
2-socialize
3-
<said in a bad Spanish Inquisition accent> Four! The four reasons someone would post here would be:
1-comfy chairs
Wait, wait. Of the reasons someone would post here would be:
1-learn
2-change minds/teach
3-entertain
4-socialize
5?-comfy chairs - maybe - does everyone have a comfy chair? What about a soft pillow?
6-spam
7-penguin on the telly
8-Ministry of Silly Walks Arguments

All possible reasons though spamming is hard to disguise.

But.....I figured out why the acid hostility to my non-hostile posts.  And I thank you for the insight. The aggression and hostility is caused by a physiological phenomenon best described in "Start With Why".   

The author extensively covers the benefits of "starting with why" but because he never mentioned the negative effects, I didn't recognize the problem till just now.  So......what happens if one doesn't start with why....or explain where they are coming from?

I didn't fill out any profile information on myself or even say hello.  I just joined in the threads as if I was part of the regular tribe.

I see now, that without any explanation of WHY I was posting here, the intellect must fill the void with some type of "character".    And because my position is not in sync with the regulars, the mind casts me as their worst nightmare.  And that has a different meaning for each person, and is usually a "character" that they have disagreed with in the past.  So they transfer the worst nightmare background onto me and jump up to defend the tribe from this "attack".

When all I have done is add a dissenting voice to the conversation.   So, I sincerely appreciate this insight from you all.  I take it as a strong lesson about what can happen if a person doesn't properly introduce themselves before speaking out on such core topics as religion, science,  and morality.  I will work to preface all my initial remarks with a "reason why" as I post.  I am sorry for the accidental experiment.   I didn't intend to test everyone's core emotions by not properly introducing myself.    Sorry again.  - Chuck

[SkyWriting]

You will learn that you have no power over what other people say..as you mature.

SkyWriting, try something in your next few responses to people:
Ignore the points you think are relevant and respond to the points you don't think are relevant.

I like to speak on familiar topics.  But there is nothing wrong with changing what's not working.  I'll make a point to do just that.

[SkyWriting]

While space flight and computers are different fields, it's reasonable to conclude that working on space flight would pay similar dividends over time.

Precisely.  I think the main reason we haven't already gotten to Alpha Centauri[1] is financial.  A novice electronics geek can design circuitboards with minimal equipment and can get started for well under $100, and there's tons of free resources for anyone who wants to write software, but designing a spaceship takes some serious $$$ and access to a lot more equipment and materials.

1.	and won this round of Civilization.

My belief that life only exists on earth is bolstered by the incredible high costs involved in looking for life elsewhere.   There is plenty of undiscovered and undocumented territory on earth.  For example, if someone HAPPENS to find fossils at a construction site, it can delay the building process for months sometimes.     Note that I said "happens" and "delay".  It never stops the construction and it is rarely an intentional find.

Couldn't we spend more "space alien" money on either green space or intentional fossil finding efforts?   Are people not breathing the plentiful oxygen that we have and trying to find places there is none to do their work?   I recall the huge benefits promised from work on the space station in zero gravity.  I do not recall any results so far.

I should make a comment on the op.  None of the YEC's I've been around are imbalanced.
They are actually the least confrontational of all Christians.  They were told that the Bible requires you to believe in a young earth and they don't want to rebel against the teaching.  The good side is that they are told to check the scriptures for confirmation of all teachings.  I did that and found that the most literal reading of the passages do not describe a creation that is just days old.  So I don't expect the earth to be literally "young."

Fortunately the sermons in my home church were full of bad teachings, so the idea of poor leadership came easily to me.
 http://www.brethren.org/ 

[Traveler]

My belief that life only exists on earth is bolstered by the incredible high costs involved in looking for life elsewhere.   There is plenty of undiscovered and undocumented territory on earth.  For example, if someone HAPPENS to find fossils at a construction site, it can delay the building process for months sometimes.     Note that I said "happens" and "delay".  It never stops the construction and it is rarely an intentional find.

Couldn't we spend more "space alien" money on either green space or intentional fossil finding efforts?   Are people not breathing the plentiful oxygen that we have and trying to find places there is none to do their work?   I recall the huge benefits promised from work on the space station in zero gravity.  I do not recall any results so far...

I'm puzzled by this. You previously said that there was not any life anywhere except on earth. Now you seem to be saying that we should not seek out life elsewhere. These are totally different things.

[Astreja]

My belief that life only exists on earth is bolstered by the incredible high costs involved in looking for life elsewhere.

Well, I'll grant that the only life that those of us here are likely to see in our lifetimes is probably on Earth, for that exact reason.  100 years from now, however, it could be a whole different ball game if space technology experiences a growth spurt analogous to the computer revolution of the last 70 years or so.

[wright]

My belief that life only exists on earth is bolstered by the incredible high costs involved in looking for life elsewhere.   
 

Why should your belief in life existing only on Earth be influenced by the relatively high cost of looking for it off-Earth?

And looking for signs of extraterrestrial life need not be expensive. Determining the composition and mass of distant nebulae, stars and even planets is a painstaking process but hardly resource-intensive. Space exploration is an attractive target for budget cuts here in the US, but that's due more to its high profile than the actual cost.

Here's an interesting comparison:http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_money_is_spent_on_space_exploration_each_year

From the linked article:

For those who question the size of NASA's operating budget, in 2009 the US budget is split as follows:

National Debt Payment: $10.2 trillion (580 times larger than NASA's budget)
Department of Defense: $515.4 billion (29.3 times larger than NASA's budget)
Global War on Terrorism: $189.3 billion (10.8 times larger than NASA's budget)
Health & Human Services: $68.5 billion (3.9 times larger than NASA's budget)
Department of Transportation: $63.4 billion (3.6 times larger than NASA's budget)
Department of Education: $59.2 billion (3.4 times larger than NASA's budget)
Department of Housing & Urban Development: $38.5 billion (2.2 times larger than NASA's budget)
Department of Energy: $25.0 billion (1.4 times larger than NASA's budget)

If the above numbers are unsettling, consider the following: in 2009, the U.S. Congress passed a "stimulus" package of $787 billion for the Banking, Mortgage and Automobile industries for one year. That same amount of money could operate NASA for the next 42 years.

[Samothec]

<said in a bad Spanish Inquisition accent> Four! The four reasons someone would post here would be:
1-comfy chairs
Wait, wait. Of the reasons someone would post here would be:
1-learn
2-change minds/teach
3-entertain
4-socialize
5?-comfy chairs - maybe - does everyone have a comfy chair? What about a soft pillow?
6-spam
7-penguin on the telly
8-Ministry of Silly Walks Arguments

All possible reasons though spamming is hard to disguise.

I did not say "spamming" I said "spam" - it has an original meaning unrelated to online activity. You obviously do not watch Monty Python - they include "spam" in some of their routines. I have italicized all the Python-related portions of my post in the quote above.

I didn't fill out any profile information on myself or even say hello.  I just joined in the threads as if I was part of the regular tribe.

I see now, that without any explanation of WHY I was posting here, the intellect must fill the void with some type of "character".    And because my position is not in sync with the regulars, the mind casts me as their worst nightmare.  And that has a different meaning for each person, and is usually a "character" that they have disagreed with in the past.  So they transfer the worst nightmare background onto me and jump up to defend the tribe from this "attack".

When all I have done is add a dissenting voice to the conversation.   So, I sincerely appreciate this insight from you all.  I take it as a strong lesson about what can happen if a person doesn't properly introduce themselves before speaking out on such core topics as religion, science,  and morality.  I will work to preface all my initial remarks with a "reason why" as I post.  I am sorry for the accidental experiment.   I didn't intend to test everyone's core emotions by not properly introducing myself.    Sorry again.  - Chuck

I haven't posted an intro either. For people who haven't done so, those who are already here evaluate new people based on what they write. While this includes content and tone, they also look at whether or not you use facts, answer questions put to you, accept correction, etc. Basically, they read your posts to see if you are competent or not. Those who aren't - based on their own words - are not treated as a reputable member. You might now try to claim that it depends upon whether or not the person is a believer. That is also not a criteria in and of itself. There are believers among the reputable members. If you want to be treated as a reputable member you need to act like one. Sorry, but you haven't been doing that from what I've seen.

[jaimehlers]

Precisely.  I think the main reason we haven't already gotten to Alpha Centauri[1] is financial.  A novice electronics geek can design circuitboards with minimal equipment and can get started for well under $100, and there's tons of free resources for anyone who wants to write software, but designing a spaceship takes some serious $$$ and access to a lot more equipment and materials.

1.	and won this round of Civilization.

More to the point, for several decades after the first computer was invented, it took some serious cash to be able to build a computer.  It wasn't until fairly recently - the past 30 years or so - that prices dropped enough to make a personal computer profitable to sell in the consumer market.

Even with the lethargic pace at which we're currently working on space travel, we'll probably have it down to the point where businesses can start to exploit space within the next 100 years, possibly less.  It won't take too long after that for us to actually start colonizing, starting with the moon.

[jaimehlers]

My belief that life only exists on earth is bolstered by the incredible high costs involved in looking for life elsewhere.   There is plenty of undiscovered and undocumented territory on earth.  For example, if someone HAPPENS to find fossils at a construction site, it can delay the building process for months sometimes.     Note that I said "happens" and "delay".  It never stops the construction and it is rarely an intentional find.

Couldn't we spend more "space alien" money on either green space or intentional fossil finding efforts?   Are people not breathing the plentiful oxygen that we have and trying to find places there is none to do their work?   I recall the huge benefits promised from work on the space station in zero gravity.  I do not recall any results so far.

First off, we aren't really spending very much money looking for space aliens.  Most of that is due to either private organizations like SETI, or private individuals.  It certainly isn't a government-funded thing.  Second, you're talking about there being plenty of undiscovered and undocumented territory on Earth, which is at least arguably true.  But there is far, far more undiscovered and undocumented territory out in space than there ever will be on Earth.  I don't know about you, but that suggests to me that there is immensely more potential in space than there can possibly be on Earth.  Even if we never found any life forms anywhere else in the universe (which, frankly, beggars the imagination), it would be worth going into space in its own right, despite the fact that you apparently think we should focus on Earth instead.

Frankly, I have little use for such short-sighted thinking.

[median]

Well, I don't see how science could even begin to investigate concepts like sin or the Trinity or the human/divine nature of Jesus.

Yes, science cannot investigate the non-real.

[median]

Cover to cover.  The Bible is about the state of man and why he is the way he is.
Results 1 - 15 of about 274 for "the heart"
http://biblez.com/search.php?q=%22the+heart%22

NOPE. Wrong again, that is your fictional interpretation based in your presupposition which you 'bought' from a pastor, preacher, or whoever sold you this idea of the bible being 'the word of God'.

[median]

 We can't even create life here.  How could it happen by natural causes elsewhere?

That's the fallacy your religion has sold you, "It's impossible! Life couldn't possibly have came about any other way but by my assumed conception." FAIL. Just exactly how did you determine that "it's impossible"? What research did you do? Have you done any investigation in this regard?

[Nam]

Biblegod's creations: http://www.hemmy.net/2006/06/19/top-10-hybrid-animals/ -- oh, no wait...

I know the reply, "He created the animals that those were created from."

How about man-made viruses; that's life, no?

-Nam

[median]

From the looks of his other posts it seems quite clear that he is not interested (i.e. - he doesn't care) whether or not his beliefs are actually true.

[SkyWriting]

Cover to cover.  The Bible is about the state of man and why he is the way he is.
Results 1 - 15 of about 274 for "the heart"
http://biblez.com/search.php?q=%22the+heart%22

NOPE. Wrong again, that is your fictional interpretation based in your presupposition which you 'bought' from a pastor, preacher, or whoever sold you this idea of the bible being 'the word of God'.

Oh, people have always made the claim.  I only agreed after extensive investigation.
Faith comes to different people, different ways.

[SkyWriting]

From the looks of his other posts it seems quite clear that he is not interested (i.e. - he doesn't care) whether or not his beliefs are actually true.

Some parts of Faith have more supporting factors than others.
Neither science or historians are good at nailing down past
events.  Most all history takes faith in the sources.

[SkyWriting]

Biblegod's creations: http://www.hemmy.net/2006/06/19/top-10-hybrid-animals/ -- oh, no wait...

I know the reply, "He created the animals that those were created from."

How about man-made viruses; that's life, no?

-Nam

We've not made any viruses. 
Not any sort of life at all.
Unless your talking about my dog.
She was custom made.

[SkyWriting]

 We can't even create life here.  How could it happen by natural causes elsewhere?

That's the fallacy your religion has sold you, "It's impossible! Life couldn't possibly have came about any other way but by my assumed conception." FAIL. Just exactly how did you determine that "it's impossible"? What research did you do? Have you done any investigation in this regard?

Religion does not mention space aliens or other forms of life.

I didn't say it was impossible.  I just said there is zero evidence for it.   That usually means "not." 
I like to stick to the practical. 
Zero evidence =  Not happen.

A person is dead.  They are not missing and there is no body.  They are not dead. 
Zero evidence =  Not happen.

[SkyWriting]

Well, I don't see how science could even begin to investigate concepts like sin or the Trinity or the human/divine nature of Jesus.

Yes, science cannot investigate the non-real.

Science can only investigate the effects of the supernatural, not the events themselves.

[SkyWriting]

Precisely.  I think the main reason we haven't already gotten to Alpha Centauri[1] is financial.  A novice electronics geek can design circuitboards with minimal equipment and can get started for well under $100, and there's tons of free resources for anyone who wants to write software, but designing a spaceship takes some serious $$$ and access to a lot more equipment and materials.

1.	and won this round of Civilization.

More to the point, for several decades after the first computer was invented, it took some serious cash to be able to build a computer.  It wasn't until fairly recently - the past 30 years or so - that prices dropped enough to make a personal computer profitable to sell in the consumer market.

Even with the lethargic pace at which we're currently working on space travel, we'll probably have it down to the point where businesses can start to exploit space within the next 100 years, possibly less.  It won't take too long after that for us to actually start colonizing, starting with the moon.

There is nothing valuable out there.  We've not gone back to the moon for that reason.
Sending waste into the sun might happen, but there may be effects that will stop that as well.
There is nothing worth loosing a life for.

[SkyWriting]

My belief that life only exists on earth is bolstered by the incredible high costs involved in looking for life elsewhere.   There is plenty of undiscovered and undocumented territory on earth.  For example, if someone HAPPENS to find fossils at a construction site, it can delay the building process for months sometimes.     Note that I said "happens" and "delay".  It never stops the construction and it is rarely an intentional find.

Couldn't we spend more "space alien" money on either green space or intentional fossil finding efforts?   Are people not breathing the plentiful oxygen that we have and trying to find places there is none to do their work?   I recall the huge benefits promised from work on the space station in zero gravity.  I do not recall any results so far.

First off, we aren't really spending very much money looking for space aliens.  Most of that is due to either private organizations like SETI, or private individuals.  It certainly isn't a government-funded thing.  Second, you're talking about there being plenty of undiscovered and undocumented territory on Earth, which is at least arguably true.  But there is far, far more undiscovered and undocumented territory out in space than there ever will be on Earth.  I don't know about you, but that suggests to me that there is immensely more potential in space than there can possibly be on Earth.  Even if we never found any life forms anywhere else in the universe (which, frankly, beggars the imagination), it would be worth going into space in its own right, despite the fact that you apparently think we should focus on Earth instead.

Frankly, I have little use for such short-sighted thinking.

My sight is the same length as your list of potential benefits.   Zero.

[Mrjason]

There is nothing valuable out there.  We've not gone back to the moon for that reason.
Sending waste into the sun might happen, but there may be effects that will stop that as well.
There is nothing worth loosing a life for.

Here's some benefits we've derived from space exploration

http://www.boeing.com/boeing/defense-space/space_exploration/benefits.page

[SkyWriting]

There is nothing valuable out there.  We've not gone back to the moon for that reason.
Sending waste into the sun might happen, but there may be effects that will stop that as well.
There is nothing worth loosing a life for.

Here's some benefits we've derived from space exploration

http://www.boeing.com/boeing/defense-space/space_exploration/benefits.page

Nothing on that list requires space exploration to achieve.
It just happens if you spend billions of dollars on a tough project
you'll get results.  Improved baby food and better car tires don't need space
travel to improve them.   

I didn't see one item that is a space benefit.  Just plain old R&D.   Same as I've done here on earth.

[jaimehlers]

My sight is the same length as your list of potential benefits.   Zero.

You know, when I called you short-sighted, I never thought you'd actually admit it.  Or that you'd blindly claim that the various benefits we've actually achieved from research related to space exploration only required money to accomplish.  You seem like a textbook case in point of someone who is too ignorant to even realize that you are ignorant.

All of those things on that list came about as a direct result of research into space exploration technologies.  Every single last one, your opinion notwithstanding.  And as for your claim there's nothing valuable out there, it seems to me that you aren't even remotely qualified to make that judgment.  If you had the slightest idea of what you were talking about, you'd realize how utterly stupid such a pronouncement was.  If nothing else, there are billions of tons of various minerals out there, in asteroids, moons, and planets, just in this solar system.  Many of which are likely to be very scarce here on Earth.  By itself, that would make space exploration/exploitation worthwhile.

[SkyWriting]

My sight is the same length as your list of potential benefits.   Zero.

You know, when I called you short-sighted, I never thought you'd actually admit it.  Or that you'd blindly claim that the various benefits we've actually achieved from research related to space exploration only required money to accomplish.  You seem like a textbook case in point of someone who is too ignorant to even realize that you are ignorant.

All of those things on that list came about as a direct result of research into space exploration technologies.  Every single last one, your opinion notwithstanding.  And as for your claim there's nothing valuable out there, it seems to me that you aren't even remotely qualified to make that judgment.  If you had the slightest idea of what you were talking about, you'd realize how utterly stupid such a pronouncement was.  If nothing else, there are billions of tons of various minerals out there, in asteroids, moons, and planets, just in this solar system.  Many of which are likely to be very scarce here on Earth.  By itself, that would make space exploration/exploitation worthwhile.

If that were only true rather than fantasy.  We've not discovered any valuable materials out there.  Our last hope is diamonds or other rare minerals.   Minerals are notoriously difficult to harvest. 

It was imagined that there would be minerals on the moon of value.  We've not gone back.

I always was enthralled by the stories of underwater cities.   Developing those would have 100 times the impact of wasted time in space.  ALL of the research on that would benefit mankind.  I guess you are too ignorant to even realize that you are ignorant.

[median]

Science can only investigate the effects of the supernatural, not the events themselves.

Except you are using the term "supernatural" as an argument from ignorance (which is irrational) to be used as anything you personally do not understand (or think is impossible). How said that you don't see your own hypocrisy here, in that you don't apply that kind of irrationality to other extraordinary claims in the world, or other things in your life for which you do not yet comprehend.

YOUR CREDULITY IS SHOWING.

You should admit when you are ignorant of things instead of leaping to a belief you assumed from the outset.

[median]

Religion does not mention space aliens or other forms of life.

Arguably it does actually. Ever heard of the Annunaki beliefs (via the god Marduk) from the ancient Sumerians (which btw predate your religion by at least a thousand years)?

But this a red herring (changing of the subject) from my original point. Whether or not religions mention aliens or not is irrelevant to whether YOUR claims are correct. Do you just believe every claims you hear (first) and then look for evidence to support it? It certainly sounds like you have done that with your bible. Yet taking that approach to fact finding is both backwards and hypocritical (and might I add, flat out wrong). The time to believe a claim is AFTER sufficient evidence has been presented, and not before. I don't care if you take Paul's words in Romans 1 "on faith". Faith is not a pathway to truth. It is unreliably for separating fact from fiction. You need to DEMONSTRATE how you know these biblical claims are authoritative and true.

I didn't say it was impossible.  I just said there is zero evidence for it.   That usually means "not." 
I like to stick to the practical. 
Zero evidence =  Not happen.

A person is dead.  They are not missing and there is no body.  They are not dead. 
Zero evidence =  Not happen.

Wrong again, on both counts. Even IF it were true that we had no evidence of abiogenesis (which isn't true) this would not imply your "not happen" claim. We DO in fact have scientific evidence that abiogeneis is NOT impossible and that those conditions were likely the case on the early earth. But even if we didn't have that, your answer should still be "I don't know", not "God did it" b/c that isn't any explanation for anything. You cannot explain a mystery by an even bigger mystery. And if you can claim that your God always existed, then I (via Occam's Razor) can claim that energy/matter always existed. The difference of course would be that I have evidence on my side for that claim (i.e. - 1st Law etc). You have none for yours.

Again, you are making irrational arguments in an attempt to prop up your assumed religious beliefs (for which you have a precommitment). It fails when Muslims try your tactic just as it fails when you try it.

[wright]

If that were only true rather than fantasy.  We've not discovered any valuable materials out there.  Our last hope is diamonds or other rare minerals.

An ignorant statement easily refuted:http://mashable.com/2012/04/26/planetary-resources-asteroid-mining-trillions/

Nobody with any real knowledge of the field is claiming that accessing space resources would / will be easy or cheap, at least to start with. There are economic problems to be overcome as well. But those resources do exist and reaching them is possible, even necessary for the human race to prosper in the long run.

It was imagined that there would be minerals on the moon of value.  We've not gone back.

The US moon-landing program was a politically motivated one from the start, no argument. That some good science got done along the way was merely a side benefit.

I always was enthralled by the stories of underwater cities.   Developing those would have 100 times the impact of wasted time in space.  ALL of the research on that would benefit mankind.  I guess you are too ignorant to even realize that you are ignorant.

Increased oceanic research would be of immense benefit, agreed. But it would be unlikely to lead to the technologies used for modern GPS and telecommunications. As has been pointed out, space exploration and related research is a tiny fraction of the US budget, yet it has paid off time and again. From the article I linked to earlier in the thread (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_money_is_spent_on_space_exploration_each_year):

All things relative -- even in the financial meltdown and economic retrenching of 2008-2009 -- the cost for space exploration in the United States is neither a significant tap on social programs, nor a drain on the overall $3.1 Trillion Federal Budget or $14 Trillion U.S. economy.

Nevertheless, trying to estimate the economic value of the space program to the U.S. is surprisingly easy. A 1971 NASA study by the Midwest Research Institute concluded:

"The 25 billion in 1958 dollars spent on civilian space R & D during the 1958-1969 period has returned $52 billion through 1971 and will continue to produce pay-off through 1987, at which time the total pay off will have been $181 billion. The discounted rate of return for this investment will have been 33 percent."

This statement is plausible since those were the years when NASA's spending on the Apollo program was at its height, but NASA also invested in other programs and they are included in the mix, so the conclusion is not as definitive as one would like.

Also, a 33 percent return on investment is not really big enough to make the normal venture capitalist go wild -- but for a government program, however, a 33% ROI is quite respectable.

[jaimehlers]

If that were only true rather than fantasy.  We've not discovered any valuable materials out there.  Our last hope is diamonds or other rare minerals.   Minerals are notoriously difficult to harvest.

Actually, there are trillions of dollars of minerals in a single asteroid, as wright posted.  The problem is mining them, but they assuredly exist.

It was imagined that there would be minerals on the moon of value.  We've not gone back.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/moon-mars/1283056
We've barely even scratched the surface of the moon, and yet we've found noticeable quantities of helium-3, worth roughly $40,000 per ounce.

I always was enthralled by the stories of underwater cities.   Developing those would have 100 times the impact of wasted time in space.  ALL of the research on that would benefit mankind.  I guess you are too ignorant to even realize that you are ignorant.

Let's see.  Asteroids with trillions of dollars of minerals in them, sufficient quantities of helium-3 on the moon to power commercial fusion reactors, and you think that's wasted time?  Maybe you should reevaluate just who is ignorant here.

I'd be perfectly okay with underwater cities and such.  The thing you don't seem to get is that it isn't one or the other.