Author Topic: I don't get YEC.  (Read 29520 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Mrjason

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1283
  • Darwins +93/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #145 on: July 03, 2013, 09:39:15 AM »
The theory is that witches were lesbians living separate from society.   Some were into herbal potions they mixed up in their "lairs" in the woods.  And there is more theory about broom sticks as well.

I've not seen these ideas. Can you cite your sources for them please so I can go and read up. Thanks
I've got some sources I could cite for this, but they're all pretty much NSFW videos found on...esoteric...websites...
Some of these sources also indicate that cheerleaders and librarians also have interesting hobbies.

The other theory is that they were people persecuted by the jelous the profiteering and the insane.

This book is a great read on the subject - http://www.amazon.com/The-History-Witchcraft-Lois-Martin/dp/0785822917#reader_0785822917

Check out the first pages from p.19 onwards

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4935
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #146 on: July 03, 2013, 10:05:58 AM »
It was mostly a practical matter.  All scholarly estimates how common life in in the Cosmos suggest
that two sources do not have the time to ever cross paths.
And when was the last time you actually read these scholarly estimates?  I wouldn't be surprised if it was not recently, especially since you're not actually citing any of these scholarly estimates for us to check out.  Never mind the fact that you're almost certainly overstating your case here, since it is exceedingly unlikely that all scholarly estimates agree regarding that.  In short, I don't believe you, and I think you're pulling stuff out of thin air in order to support what you already believe to be the case without actually checking any of it.

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3014
  • Darwins +265/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #147 on: July 03, 2013, 10:21:15 AM »
The theory is that witches were lesbians living separate from society.   Some were into herbal potions they mixed up in their "lairs" in the woods.  And there is more theory about broom sticks as well.

I don't think that lesbians were any more numerous in the days of the witch hunts than today, and that hypothesis doesn't account for the massive numbers of men, women and children who were executed as "witches" in 17th century Germany (q.v. Würzburg).   :'(

Sometimes, a person of influence (church or secular) wanted the land that a childless widow or some other "expendable" person was occupying, and was able to acquire their land by having them killed.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #148 on: July 04, 2013, 12:31:52 AM »
The theory is that witches were lesbians living separate from society.   Some were into herbal potions they mixed up in their "lairs" in the woods.  And there is more theory about broom sticks as well.

I don't think that lesbians were any more numerous in the days of the witch hunts than today, and that hypothesis doesn't account for the massive numbers of men, women and children who were executed as "witches" in 17th century Germany (q.v. Würzburg).   :'(

Sometimes, a person of influence (church or secular) wanted the land that a childless widow or some other "expendable" person was occupying, and was able to acquire their land by having them killed.

I have no argument with your evaluation.  A "Church" is collection of sinners looking for redemption. 
There is no real screening process.

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #149 on: July 04, 2013, 12:42:30 AM »
It was mostly a practical matter.  All scholarly estimates how common life in in the Cosmos suggest
that two sources do not have the time to ever cross paths.
And when was the last time you actually read these scholarly estimates?  I wouldn't be surprised if it was not recently, especially since you're not actually citing any of these scholarly estimates for us to check out.  Never mind the fact that you're almost certainly overstating your case here, since it is exceedingly unlikely that all scholarly estimates agree regarding that.  In short, I don't believe you, and I think you're pulling stuff out of thin air in order to support what you already believe to be the case without actually checking any of it.

Do you claim to be acting otherwise?   Do you know what a citation is?

PLEASE let me state that these links do not support my views.  Make up your own mind, For-Gods-Sake!
......stupid.. idiotic forum rules......

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/resources/seti/3304541.html?page=1&c=y
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120509-the-chances-of-finding-et
http://io9.com/what-a-brand-new-equation-reveals-about-our-odds-of-fin-531575395
http://gizmodo.com/5703835/the-probability-of-finding-aliens-is-now-three-times-higher




« Last Edit: July 04, 2013, 12:44:23 AM by SkyWriting »

Offline alexreflex

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 16
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • ukelele player
    • my songs
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #150 on: July 04, 2013, 12:54:57 AM »
I have no argument with your evaluation.  A "Church" is collection of sinners looking for redemption. 
There is no real screening process.
when mental retards are forcefully brought in to church, they are redeemed how? the holy spirit is drilled into them and they babble mindlessly, regurgitating about, while the perpetrators rejoice?
don't take the last 2 donuts.  leave 1 for the next.

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #151 on: July 04, 2013, 01:30:13 AM »
I have no argument with your evaluation.  A "Church" is collection of sinners looking for redemption. 
There is no real screening process.
when mental retards are forcefully brought in to church, they are redeemed how? the holy spirit is drilled into them and they babble mindlessly, regurgitating about, while the perpetrators rejoice?

My daughter is a mental retard.  She has never been recruited or forced. 
Redemption is the process of making thinks correct as they ought to be.
When one struggles mightily, they "ought to" see  (redemption) results for their efforts. 

The perps only rejoice when a person finds peace.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #152 on: July 04, 2013, 03:58:09 AM »
It was "Chariots of the Gods" in past years.
 I went through that phase soon after high school.

Interesting.  So what made you change your beliefs?  Did new evidence come to light?

It was mostly a practical matter.  All scholarly estimates how common life in in the Cosmos suggest
that two sources do not have the time to ever cross paths.
 

So would it be fair to say that, at one point, all the evidence you had examined led you to one conclusion that you firmly believed was the case, but that when further evidence came to light, you realised that your previous firmly-held views were not in fact supportable?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4935
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #153 on: July 04, 2013, 06:48:27 AM »
Do you claim to be acting otherwise?   Do you know what a citation is?
Yes, I know what a citation is (I've written a few papers that cited from academic sources in my time).  However, I'm seriously questioning whether you actually know what a scholarly source is (which is necessary to post actual scholarly estimates), given that you seem to only ever quote from internet sites and news articles, neither of which are themselves scholarly.  Furthermore, when you cited a news article relating to the religiosity of scientists from various disciplines, there were serious problem with the way said article reported the study it was supposedly reporting on.  Because of that, I went and found a later study by the same person (note that I linked the actual study so that people could check out the methodology involved), and it flat-out contradicted the report you linked.  That suggests to me that your ability to find accurate scholarly sources is...not good, and thus I have serious doubts as to whether you've ever reviewed any in the first place.

Quote from: SkyWriting
PLEASE let me state that these links do not support my views.  Make up your own mind, For-Gods-Sake!
......stupid.. idiotic forum rules......
Why would you link to sites that don't support your own views?  Perhaps it's because there are few that actually support your view, "that two sources do not ever have the time to cross paths".

I don't know for sure what the likelihood of aliens existing is, let alone how likely it is that we'll run into them, or that they'll run into each other.  But I do know that we've found ways to do things which seemed impossible before (such as flight, such as supersonic flight, such as going into outer space).  So I'm not quite as ready as you to write off space exploration and the search for intelligent life in the cosmos.


<<Modfixed quotes>>
« Last Edit: July 04, 2013, 08:03:40 AM by Anfauglir »

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #154 on: July 04, 2013, 08:35:06 AM »
Do you claim to be acting otherwise?   Do you know what a citation is?
Yes, I know what a citation is (I've written a few papers that cited from academic sources in my time).  However, I'm seriously questioning whether you actually know what a scholarly source is (which is necessary to post actual scholarly estimates), given that you seem to only ever quote from internet sites and news articles, neither of which are themselves scholarly.  Furthermore, <snip>

I can switch to full article peer reviewed if you desire.  I began my degree in Library Science.

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #155 on: July 04, 2013, 08:37:21 AM »
It was "Chariots of the Gods" in past years.
 I went through that phase soon after high school.

Interesting.  So what made you change your beliefs?  Did new evidence come to light?

It was mostly a practical matter.  All scholarly estimates how common life in in the Cosmos suggest
that two sources do not have the time to ever cross paths.
 

So would it be fair to say that, at one point, all the evidence you had examined led you to one conclusion that you firmly believed was the case, but that when further evidence came to light, you realised that your previous firmly-held views were not in fact supportable?

Nope.  It was just research.

Offline alexreflex

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 16
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • ukelele player
    • my songs
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #156 on: July 04, 2013, 10:06:17 AM »
My daughter is a mental retard.  She has never been recruited or forced. 
Redemption is the process of making thinks correct as they ought to be.
When one struggles mightily, they "ought to" see  (redemption) results for their efforts. 
when i see retards, old senile people, and non-english speaking nationals in church, they will be redeemed how?  translation you say?  for the retards and the seniles?  school me.

or is it redemption by forced repetition?
don't take the last 2 donuts.  leave 1 for the next.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #157 on: July 05, 2013, 04:11:16 AM »
It was "Chariots of the Gods" in past years.
 I went through that phase soon after high school.

Interesting.  So what made you change your beliefs?  Did new evidence come to light?

It was mostly a practical matter.  All scholarly estimates how common life in in the Cosmos suggest
that two sources do not have the time to ever cross paths.
 

So would it be fair to say that, at one point, all the evidence you had examined led you to one conclusion that you firmly believed was the case, but that when further evidence came to light, you realised that your previous firmly-held views were not in fact supportable?

Nope.  It was just research.

You seem to have a knack of appearing to answer questions - but on further examination haven't actually answered them at all....

When you say "it was just rresearch", do you mean you did NOT ever agree the Chariots of the Gods hypotheses?  Because that seems contrary to your original statement.

Did you ever believe in the CotG?
If you did - and do not any more - what specifically caused your mind to be changed?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4935
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #158 on: July 05, 2013, 05:37:39 AM »
I can switch to full article peer reviewed if you desire.  I began my degree in Library Science.
Considering that you linked a 'study' that was actually a biased news article, if you did start out in library science, you sure have fallen quite far.  Oh, and what was your actual degree in?  Saying you began your degree in library science is not exactly impressive, since it suggests you didn't finish there.

So yes, I'm calling you on that.  Why don't you show everyone here what your idea of peer-reviewed articles/studies is?  I'm sure it'll be enlightening.

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #159 on: July 05, 2013, 10:13:05 AM »
I can switch to full article peer reviewed if you desire.  I began my degree in Library Science.
Considering that you linked a 'study' that was actually a biased news article, if you did start out in library science, you sure have fallen quite far.  Oh, and what was your actual degree in?  Saying you began your degree in library science is not exactly impressive, since it suggests you didn't finish there.

So yes, I'm calling you on that.  Why don't you show everyone here what your idea of peer-reviewed articles/studies is?  I'm sure it'll be enlightening.

Rare Earth: Why complex life is uncommon in the universe
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=7HGXqZLmXW4C&oi=fnd&pg=PR10&dq=chances+life+in+the+universe&ots=CTaOAktqv9&sig=QwYevpFZ6NmW0hAur5x7yU-Xn1I

Occurrence of life in the universe
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/27827376?uid=3739976&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102435463001

The evolution of morphological complexity and diversity
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/27827376?uid=3739976&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102435463001

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4935
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #160 on: July 05, 2013, 11:07:47 AM »
Rare Earth: Why complex life is uncommon in the universe
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=7HGXqZLmXW4C&oi=fnd&pg=PR10&dq=chances+life+in+the+universe&ots=CTaOAktqv9&sig=QwYevpFZ6NmW0hAur5x7yU-Xn1I
Notably, this is a published book about the odds of complex life, rather than a peer-reviewed study.  And furthermore, it doesn't argue anything except that it's 'uncommon' - and the actual assessment of the odds was not in the preview available.  Seems to me that you just pulled this out of a hat called Google search without actually reading it, especially since you posted nothing of your own here.

Quote from: SkyWriting
Occurrence of life in the universe
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/27827376?uid=3739976&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102435463001
You posted a link to this study, but nothing of your own or any citations from it, and the preview only covers the very beginning.  It is irresponsible, to say the least, to post things like this and then expect other people to read the whole thing just to figure out what you were referring to.

Quote from: SkyWriting
The evolution of morphological complexity and diversity
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/27827376?uid=3739976&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102435463001
Same problem as above.  It is irresponsible to post things like this and expect other people to read the whole thing just to figure out what you were referring to.  When you post a study, you should at least mention a short summary of the relevant parts.

By the way, here's an article of my own:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/billions-of-earthlike-planets-found-in-milky-way/

Half of all the sunlike stars in the galaxy have a rocky planet of around Earth's size orbiting them.  Says nothing for other things necessary for life to exist on them, let alone complex life, but that's tens of billions of possible Earths, even excluding the ones which are closer than Mercury.

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #161 on: July 05, 2013, 02:43:51 PM »
It is irresponsible, to say the least, to post things like this and then expect other people to read the whole thing just to figure out what you were referring to.

Your laziness is out of my control.
(and mine, out of yours)

Quote
So yes, I'm calling you on that.  Why don't you show everyone here what your idea of peer-reviewed articles/studies is?  I'm sure it'll be enlightening.


You can enjoy my fully formed opinions, or
you can enjoy reading peer reviewed literature
some of which I use to form my opinions.

If you are looking for my opinions as found in published literature
it's not going to be my opinion then is it.

You asked for some peer reviewed literature.  If the quality is
not up to snuff, no problem.  Then your just back to the enjoyment
of my conclusions.   : )


Life may still exist somewhere else in the solar system, but the possible places where it might be found are now getting very restrictive.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2744519/

Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe
http://www.amazon.com/Rare-Earth-Complex-Uncommon-Universe/dp/0387952896

Above book by P D Ward.
 An example of Wards publisings:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043052/?report=classic

Some of Wards credentials:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=Peter+D.+Ward

« Last Edit: July 05, 2013, 03:04:39 PM by SkyWriting »

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4935
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #162 on: July 05, 2013, 03:05:24 PM »
Your laziness is out of my control.
(and mine, out of yours)
It's hardly laziness on my part.  I actually read over what you provided, such as it was (the two jstor links require an account to access in full) - and I generally tend to like reading science stuff.  My complaint was because of your attitude that you could just drop a link on someone and not explain how it pertained to your argument.

Quote from: SkyWriting
You can enjoy my fully formed opinions, or
you can enjoy reading peer reviewed literature
some of which I use to form my opinions.

If you are looking for my opinions as found in published literature
it's not going to be my opinion then is it.
Every time you play this kind of game, my opinion of your intelligence level goes down.  And it's not exactly high at the moment.

You can certainly quote the parts that led you to the opinions you hold, especially since you claim that some of it is used to form those opinions.  I should not have had to point this out to you.

Quote from: SkyWriting
You asked for some peer reviewed literature.  If the quality is
not up to snuff, no problem.  Then your just back to the enjoyment
of my conclusions.   : )
Do you really think it was an issue with quality that I was complaining about?  Then you'd better start polishing up those reading comprehension skills of yours, because they're clearly lacking.

If you're going to cite peer-reviewed literature, then you need to actually discuss it.  Not simply give me this ridiculous false dichotomy of claiming that I either read the literature or I accept your conclusions.  That is not acceptable, and I would not be surprised if it violated the forum's rules.

----

Last I checked, we weren't discussing life in the solar system.  Indeed, I'm not questioning the likelihood that it does not exist (except possibly single-celled organisms) outside of Earth.

By the way, I'm not questioning Ward's credentials.  What I read of his book from the previous link you gave leads me to believe that he is a competent scientist.  I just don't agree with his conclusions - which are based largely on educated guesswork, the same as previous estimates re: the Drake equation.

EDIT:  Modified due to edits on his part.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2013, 03:14:24 PM by jaimehlers »

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #163 on: July 05, 2013, 04:10:01 PM »
It was "Chariots of the Gods" in past years.
 I went through that phase soon after high school.

Interesting.  So what made you change your beliefs?  Did new evidence come to light?

It was mostly a practical matter.  All scholarly estimates how common life in in the Cosmos suggest
that two sources do not have the time to ever cross paths.
 

So would it be fair to say that, at one point, all the evidence you had examined led you to one conclusion that you firmly believed was the case, but that when further evidence came to light, you realised that your previous firmly-held views were not in fact supportable?

Nope.  It was just research.

You seem to have a knack of appearing to answer questions - but on further examination haven't actually answered them at all....

When you say "it was just rresearch", do you mean you did NOT ever agree the Chariots of the Gods hypotheses?  Because that seems contrary to your original statement.

Did you ever believe in the CotG?
If you did - and do not any more - what specifically caused your mind to be changed?

My observations were that life does not develop on it own.  Nothing indicates that it does.
If it did, not enough time has passed for life to develop randomly.
if it did, given the published rates of evolution, it would not have time to have evolved
into it's current states.  One possibility to solve this is alien visitation to earth.
Having read a number of sources on this, the likely hood of us not having conclusive
evidence on this source of complexity are small. 

Ruling out alien influence on our current levels of complexity, the Supernatural is another
candidate for our complexity as well as the complexity of the universe.

The Christian scriptures tell the best story on origins that fits our environment.
'Best Fit" in my opinion.

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #164 on: July 05, 2013, 04:13:14 PM »
Your laziness is out of my control.
(and mine, out of yours)
It's hardly laziness on my part.  I actually read over what you provided, such as it was (the two jstor links require an account to access in full) - and I generally tend to like reading science stuff.  My complaint was because of your attitude that you could just drop a link on someone and not explain how it pertained to your argument.

I don't "drop links" on anybody or
even request that they follow them.
It was a response to your request:

Quote
So yes, I'm calling you on that.  Why don't you show everyone here what your idea of peer-reviewed articles/studies is?  I'm sure it'll be enlightening.

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #165 on: July 05, 2013, 04:16:24 PM »
Every time you play this kind of game, my opinion of your intelligence level goes down. 
And it's not exactly high at the moment.

I have lost interest in your views as well.
We have much in common!   See ya!

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4935
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #166 on: July 05, 2013, 04:41:10 PM »
I don't "drop links" on anybody or
even request that they follow them.
It was a response to your request:
I see.  So you pull out BS[1] until you get called on it, then you drop whole studies on people and act like they asked for it.

I have lost interest in your views as well.
We have much in common!   See ya!
First off, learn to read properly.  I didn't say I had "lost interest in your views".  I said that your attitude and game-playing was leading me to have a poorer and poorer opinion of you.

So instead of doing the slightest thing to even attempt to turn that around, you just say, "see ya!"  You aren't the first theist on this site to try to pull that kind of crap, and you probably won't be the last.
 1. And yes, it is BS, given that you've been shown to be clearly wrong more than once and have actually used a link which posted fraudulent results from a study.

Offline wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1859
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #167 on: July 05, 2013, 05:29:36 PM »

My observations were that life does not develop on it own.  Nothing indicates that it does.

Again, incorrect. Though abiogenesis is a new field of science, there are indications, backed up by repeated experiments, of how life could develop naturally. These are not conclusive and may or may not be correct, but they do serve as a basis for further inquiry.

Wikipedia is hardly the end-all reference, but serves as a starting point for any interested parties:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

If it did, not enough time has passed for life to develop randomly.

First, life does not develop "randomly" in the sense of "anything can happen"; living and nonliving systems alike are constrained by the same physical laws. With regard to time, things that we would define as "alive" have apparently existed on Earth for over 3 billion years. Moving up to the present, we have a biological heritage that has survived multiple extinction events and countless other challenges (most of which can be observed in our present era). What would you define as "enough time"?


if it did, given the published rates of evolution, it would not have time to have evolved
into it's current states.

AFAIK, there really is no fixed rate for evolution, no baseline that holds true across all biological lineages. It really depends on the kind of evolutionary change being discussed. Major morphological changes tend to take multiple millions of years, while natural selection can effect changes in just a few generations. What are these published rates you're referring to?
 

Ruling out alien influence on our current levels of complexity, the Supernatural is another
candidate for our complexity as well as the complexity of the universe.

The Christian scriptures tell the best story on origins that fits our environment.
'Best Fit" in my opinion.

Without the same level of evidence that evolutionary theory can produce, your opinion isn't well-informed.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2013, 05:39:53 PM by wright »
Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #168 on: July 05, 2013, 06:28:38 PM »

My observations were that life does not develop on it own.  Nothing indicates that it does.

Again, incorrect. Though abiogenesis is a new field of science, there are indications, backed up by repeated experiments, of how life could develop naturally. These are not conclusive and may or may not be correct, but they do serve as a basis for further inquiry.

Wikipedia is hardly the end-all reference, but serves as a starting point for any interested parties:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

If it did, not enough time has passed for life to develop randomly.

First, life does not develop "randomly" in the sense of "anything can happen"; living and nonliving systems alike are constrained by the same physical laws.

And all known natural laws point to death.  Now if science had even one tentative law suggesting life, then they'd have a start. 

Now you'd think with life teeming all around us, there would be at least one physical or natural law that suggested life.  Really, there should be a handful of laws and 1000's of theories to test.   Plus, life should be generating on a daily basis and you'd have 1000's of examples of life attempting to start up and failing every minute.  Not the case.  Instead we have barely a clue as to how it possibly could have happened. 

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6858
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #169 on: July 05, 2013, 06:39:18 PM »
Quote
if it did, given the published rates of evolution

What are the published rates of evolution?

Please cite the scale of measurement, and the publication.
You believe evolution and there is no evidence for that. Where is the fossil record of a half man half ape. I've only ever heard about it in reading.

Offline wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1859
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #170 on: July 05, 2013, 06:48:31 PM »
And all known natural laws point to death.  Now if science had even one tentative law suggesting life, then they'd have a start. 

Now you'd think with life teeming all around us, there would be at least one physical or natural law that suggested life.

I'm not sure what you would define as a "law", but the well-established properties of certain compounds to form monomers under certain conditions, as in the Miller-Urey experiments (see the link I provided earlier), are at least a starting point.   

Really, there should be a handful of laws and 1000's of theories to test.

Why? We've only been seriously investigating abiogenesis for a few decades, and there are never guarantees when or even if a breakthrough will be made in any field of inquiry.

Plus, life should be generating on a daily basis and you'd have 1000's of examples of life attempting to start up and failing every minute.  Not the case.  Instead we have barely a clue as to how it possibly could have happened.

Ridiculous. All that we can infer about the earliest replicators indicates that they were absurdly simple by the standards of modern bacteria and viruses. If abiogenesis were even possible today, any resulting replicators would immediately face competition that has an evolutionary heritage of billions of years. They would be consumed by microbial life within minutes, if not seconds.

Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6464
  • Darwins +769/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #171 on: July 05, 2013, 07:25:53 PM »

And all known natural laws point to death.  Now if science had even one tentative law suggesting life, then they'd have a start. 

Point to death? You mean entropy and all that jazz? Yep, without a source of energy, things kind of diminish down to close to nothingness, including living stuff. But since we have a source of energy, not all of those laws apply on a daily basis.

Quote
Now you'd think with life teeming all around us, there would be at least one physical or natural law that suggested life.  Really, there should be a handful of laws and 1000's of theories to test.   Plus, life should be generating on a daily basis and you'd have 1000's of examples of life attempting to start up and failing every minute.  Not the case.  Instead we have barely a clue as to how it possibly could have happened.

Man, you are so good. You can extrapolate your ass off. If life started once, then it must start and fail every minute? Which orifice do you get this stuff out of? Oh, sorry. I already answered that.



Gods are pretty much the same way. Starting up every minute.If it happened once, it surely happens all the time. Infinity doesn't care what time it is.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6685
  • Darwins +892/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #172 on: July 05, 2013, 08:03:58 PM »

My observations were that life does not develop on it own.  Nothing indicates that it does.

Again, incorrect. Though abiogenesis is a new field of science, there are indications, backed up by repeated experiments, of how life could develop naturally. These are not conclusive and may or may not be correct, but they do serve as a basis for further inquiry.

Wikipedia is hardly the end-all reference, but serves as a starting point for any interested parties:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

If it did, not enough time has passed for life to develop randomly.

First, life does not develop "randomly" in the sense of "anything can happen"; living and nonliving systems alike are constrained by the same physical laws.

And all known natural laws point to death.  Now if science had even one tentative law suggesting life, then they'd have a start. 

Now you'd think with life teeming all around us, there would be at least one physical or natural law that suggested life.  Really, there should be a handful of laws and 1000's of theories to test.   Plus, life should be generating on a daily basis and you'd have 1000's of examples of life attempting to start up and failing every minute.  Not the case.  Instead we have barely a clue as to how it possibly could have happened.

If god created all life, he should be creating new life forms all the time, all around us. Really, there should be thousands of clear, obvious pieces of evidence of god as the creator of life to test. Where are god's newly created life forms? What life has suddenly magically appeared on the planet, not related to (evolved from) any other life form?  And, the life that god creates should never fail or die, and certainly should never go extinct. Right?
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #173 on: July 05, 2013, 09:39:01 PM »
If god created all life, he should be creating new life forms all the time, all around us. Really, there should be thousands of clear, obvious pieces of evidence of god as the creator of life to test. Where are god's newly created life forms? What life has suddenly magically appeared on the planet, not related to (evolved from) any other life form?  And, the life that god creates should never fail or die, and certainly should never go extinct. Right?

Very very good! 
If my scriptures are correct, God stopped creating on the 6th day.  Some say era.
If my scriptures are correct, death entered the world based on Adam's decision
to not follow God's request.   Adam and Eve would not have died except for Adam
following some poor life counselling.  On that day, he was destined to die.