Author Topic: I don't get YEC.  (Read 22245 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #232 on: July 11, 2013, 04:59:11 PM »

Or stated another way, we are a reflection of God.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2013, 05:06:17 PM by SkyWriting »

Offline Traveler

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2056
  • Darwins +142/-2
  • Gender: Female
  • no god required
    • I am a Forum Guide
    • Gryffin Designs
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #233 on: July 11, 2013, 05:03:23 PM »
You should fix your quote. It makes it look as if I said what you said.
If we ever travel thousands of light years to a planet inhabited by intelligent life, let's just make patterns in their crops and leave.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6218
  • Darwins +783/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #234 on: July 11, 2013, 05:09:32 PM »

...We are made in God's image...

Or stated another way, we are a reflection of God.
[/quote]

Or stated another way, we totally make god up to be whatever we want, and can therefore change his description any time we want.

God is all powerful, but outside of our space and time. God is spirit, whatever that means. God is everywhere, but can't be where there is sin. God loves us, but drowned the whole planet, killing everything. God created everything, but not the bad things, like homos. God lets bad things happen to teach us lessons, that's why there are babies with AIDS. God only does good things, that's why homos get AIDS. God wants everyone to know about him, but hides himself from most people. And god is the best thing ever and anyone in his presence would want to be there all the time, but his own angels ditched him.

Anything we say about god is true. After all, who can prove us wrong? God, the ultimate shape-shifter.
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 #235 on: July 11, 2013, 05:28:46 PM »

...We are made in God's image...

Or stated another way, we are a reflection of God.

Or stated another way, we totally make god up to be whatever we want, and can therefore change his description any time we want.

God is all powerful, but outside of our space and time. God is spirit, whatever that means. God is everywhere, but can't be where there is sin. God loves us, but drowned the whole planet, killing everything. God created everything, but not the bad things, like homos. God lets bad things happen to teach us lessons, that's why there are babies with AIDS. God only does good things, that's why homos get AIDS. God wants everyone to know about him, but hides himself from most people. And god is the best thing ever and anyone in his presence would want to be there all the time, but his own angels ditched him.

Anything we say about god is true. After all, who can prove us wrong? God, the ultimate shape-shifter.

The Bible can be used as a source of information about God to check
or test any statements people make about Him.   One should check
any religious sounding ideas against scripture. 

I stopped visiting the only church I ever attended on a regular basis,
just for that reason, and have not found one to replace it.  I've met
one Christian in 20 some years that I've wanted to emulate, but he
was completely independent as well. 

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12210
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #236 on: July 11, 2013, 05:33:12 PM »
The Bible can be used as a source of information about God to check
or test any statements people make about Him.   One should check
any religious sounding ideas against scripture. 

And with careful selection of scripture, you can make your own pre-fab god from various exchangeable parts.

If the Bible still conflicts with the desired god-model, then its meaning just needs to be massaged a bit.  Thus we have modern Christianity, including yours.  Don't pretend your god comes strictly from the Bible.  It's an unbecoming lie.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #237 on: July 11, 2013, 05:45:52 PM »
The Bible can be used as a source of information about God to check
or test any statements people make about Him.   One should check
any religious sounding ideas against scripture. 

And with careful selection of scripture, you can make your own pre-fab god from various exchangeable parts.

If the Bible still conflicts with the desired god-model, then its meaning just needs to be massaged a bit.  Thus we have modern Christianity, including yours.  Don't pretend your god comes strictly from the Bible. 

My interactions and conversations with God don't have any direct connection with the scriptures.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6218
  • Darwins +783/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #238 on: July 11, 2013, 06:35:12 PM »
^^^Then why bother referring to scripture if you are making it up yourself, out of your own experiences? Why tell us to check religious-sounding ideas against scripture? What religious-sounding ideas? And which scripture? :-\
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 ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6125
  • Darwins +690/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #239 on: July 11, 2013, 06:39:19 PM »
^^^You shouldn't ask questions like that, nogods. They make it harder for Sky to ramble.

On and on and on.
Not everyone is entitled to their opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6218
  • Darwins +783/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #240 on: July 11, 2013, 06:52:15 PM »
I know, I know. But nobody forces us to be here-- we do it for fun. Why the religious people come, who knows? It makes things interesting. ;)
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 magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2829
  • Darwins +175/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #241 on: July 11, 2013, 08:07:44 PM »
But nobody forces us to be here--

Except lack of free will, of course.

"ducks"
The 2010 world cup was ruined for me by that slippery bastard Paul.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12210
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #242 on: July 11, 2013, 08:09:18 PM »
How is the lack of free will a "somebody"?
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2829
  • Darwins +175/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #243 on: July 11, 2013, 08:12:49 PM »
I was just kidding Az. Working to a specific audience (NGFM) who sometimes finds my comments witty and is generally warm for my Aussie form.



The 2010 world cup was ruined for me by that slippery bastard Paul.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6218
  • Darwins +783/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #244 on: July 11, 2013, 08:39:39 PM »
I was just kidding Az. Working to a specific audience (NGFM) who sometimes finds my comments witty and is generally warm for my Aussie form.

Awwww. You keep on being witty for me, you hot ozzie baby. [stroking MM's lustrous Thor-like hair] ;)
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 magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2829
  • Darwins +175/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #245 on: July 11, 2013, 09:00:45 PM »
[stroking MM's lustrous Thor-like hair] ;)

The 2010 world cup was ruined for me by that slippery bastard Paul.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12210
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #246 on: July 11, 2013, 09:03:47 PM »
I was just kidding Az. Working to a specific audience (NGFM) who sometimes finds my comments witty and is generally warm for my Aussie form.

Oh, you'd made that clear enough.  I just like giving serious responses to non-serious posts.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2829
  • Darwins +175/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #247 on: July 11, 2013, 09:09:10 PM »
I tend towards the opposite. Gets me into strife.

FTR, you made a valid point.
The 2010 world cup was ruined for me by that slippery bastard Paul.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1800
  • Darwins +191/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #248 on: July 12, 2013, 01:39:11 AM »

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.

No...

Your personal interpretation of the Christian Scriptures "tells the best story". But that is just one big argument from ignorance fallacy. "It's so complex I just can't see how it could have happened!" Do you know how many bone heads throughout history have failed trying to use this argument? Have you read all the scholarly articles that disagree with your opinion?

Btw, if your view is just your opinion why are you basing your entire life upon it? People don't generally base their lives upon opinions. We usually follow the evidence (say in the case of a fast talking salesmen at the front door) and generally do not buy into extraordinary claims without sufficient evidence (i.e. withhold making an investment).

So where is your sufficient evidence that all of what we CALL life derived from a divine disembodied spirit/mind thing called "Yahweh"? How is this any different from superstitious rhetoric?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1800
  • Darwins +191/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #249 on: July 12, 2013, 01:45:33 AM »
 

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.

HAHA. A Freudian slip for sure - how beautiful! Exactly, you don't have "barely a clue" and so you should stop pretending to.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1800
  • Darwins +191/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #250 on: July 12, 2013, 02:34:39 AM »
There don't seem to be any Physical restraints on what happens.  My point is that the story is internally consistent.   

Ah yes, so you're willing to arbitrarily lower your standard of evidence only for the religion you assumed from the beginning.

In case it's news to you, "internally consistent" doesn't mean squat when it comes to truth value. Anyone can makeup just about anything that is "internally consistent". It means nothing.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #251 on: July 12, 2013, 03:26:05 AM »
There don't seem to be any Physical restraints on what happens.  My point is that the story is internally consistent.   

Ah yes, so you're willing to arbitrarily lower your standard of evidence only for the religion you assumed from the beginning.

In case it's news to you, "internally consistent" doesn't mean squat when it comes to truth value. Anyone can makeup just about anything that is "internally consistent". It means nothing.

God is spirit, so physical standards of evidence are not possible.
My first "belief system" was that of my father that anything out of the ordinary
in the Bible was story telling error or just fantasy.    My second was that life came from space or even aliens.  My third was the collection of people who became believers in Jesus had similar experiences on a personal level and not associated with any church activities.
I became a believer due to the testimony or life stories of dozens of different people all being so different yet similar on a personal level.
 

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #252 on: July 12, 2013, 03:48:31 AM »

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.

No...

Your personal interpretation of the Christian Scriptures "tells the best story". But that is just one big argument from ignorance fallacy. "It's so complex I just can't see how it could have happened!" Do you know how many bone heads throughout history have failed trying to use this argument? Have you read all the scholarly articles that disagree with your opinion?

Btw, if your view is just your opinion why are you basing your entire life upon it? People don't generally base their lives upon opinions. We usually follow the evidence (say in the case of a fast talking salesmen at the front door) and generally do not buy into extraordinary claims without sufficient evidence (i.e. withhold making an investment).

So where is your sufficient evidence that all of what we CALL life derived from a divine disembodied spirit/mind thing called "Yahweh"? How is this any different from superstitious rhetoric?

The difference is that there are no rules of nature, laws of science, laws of physics, or even any hints from space exploration that "matter" is anything other than very hostile to life.

Nothing we've found even hints that matter can be coaxed into biological activity.   Even water is lethal if not in the correct dosage.  The creation of life is a very very delicate balance of millions of factors.  It all points to intelligence as the source. 

 I've worked at my current job for 3 years and my boss built or designed our factory 4 years ago.  So I am surrounded by "intelligent design" from my boss or my own fabrication.  I just made a list of 20 things we use every day that I engineered for our plant.

A co-worker is unable to adjust an oven to compensate for thick or thin crust pizza ( a pizza company uses some of our warehouse space) and he runs to the lunch room because he cannot figure out how long a 30 minute lunch break is unless the big hand is on the top or bottom. 

I can't be persuaded away from intelligent design because intelligence gets things done, and stupid produces nothing.   

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2442
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #253 on: July 12, 2013, 04:06:53 AM »

The difference is that there are no rules of nature, laws of science, laws of physics, or even any hints from space exploration that "matter" is anything other than very hostile to life.

Nothing we've found even hints that matter can be coaxed into biological activity.   Even water is lethal if not in the correct dosage.  The creation of life is a very very delicate balance of millions of factors.  It all points to intelligence as the source. 

 I've worked at my current job for 3 years and my boss built or designed our factory 4 years ago.  So I am surrounded by "intelligent design" from my boss or my own fabrication.  I just made a list of 20 things we use every day that I engineered for our plant.

A co-worker is unable to adjust an oven to compensate for thick or thin crust pizza ( a pizza company uses some of our warehouse space) and he runs to the lunch room because he cannot figure out how long a 30 minute lunch break is unless the big hand is on the top or bottom. 

I can't be persuaded away from intelligent design because intelligence gets things done, and stupid produces nothing.

Well, of course if nothing can persuade you to change your mind then I suppose there is nothing to say, really. However it is a pity not to point out the research that has been going on into explaining how living things can come from non-living ones.

AbiogenesisWiki the name for the process has had quite a lot of work and, though there are competing hypotheses on how it  might work, it is clear that there are mechanisms which certainly could explain the fact that there is life on this planet. So I invite you to read the wiki article and any interesting links and consider if your belief, from an old book with not evidence matches up to the science which is being done which may well explain how life developed and, if we are lucky, maybe find that the mechanism is still running and creating life today.

As a final though, you claim your god is invisible and so on. Yet to create material things or to intervene in the material world such a god would have to have a means to interact with the material world. Could we not detect that interaction, at least in theory?
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #254 on: July 12, 2013, 04:21:51 AM »

The difference is that there are no rules of nature, laws of science, laws of physics, or even any hints from space exploration that "matter" is anything other than very hostile to life.

Nothing we've found even hints that matter can be coaxed into biological activity.   Even water is lethal if not in the correct dosage.  The creation of life is a very very delicate balance of millions of factors.  It all points to intelligence as the source. 

 I've worked at my current job for 3 years and my boss built or designed our factory 4 years ago.  So I am surrounded by "intelligent design" from my boss or my own fabrication.  I just made a list of 20 things we use every day that I engineered for our plant.

A co-worker is unable to adjust an oven to compensate for thick or thin crust pizza ( a pizza company uses some of our warehouse space) and he runs to the lunch room because he cannot figure out how long a 30 minute lunch break is unless the big hand is on the top or bottom. 

I can't be persuaded away from intelligent design because intelligence gets things done, and stupid produces nothing.

Well, of course if nothing can persuade you to change your mind then I suppose there is nothing to say, really.

Your welcome to try.  But Wiki-pedia will not overcome the evidence
when I go back to work in the morning that stupid does because
that what stupid is. 


Quote


However it is a pity not to point out the research that has been going on into explaining how living things can come from non-living ones.

AbiogenesisWiki the name for the process has had quite a lot of work and, though there are competing hypotheses on how it  might work, it is clear that there are mechanisms which certainly could explain the fact that there is life on this planet. So I invite you to read the wiki article and any interesting links and consider if your belief, from an old book with not evidence matches up to the science which is being done which may well explain how life developed and, if we are lucky, maybe find that the mechanism is still running and creating life today.

As a final though, you claim your god is invisible and so on. Yet to create material things or to intervene in the material world such a god would have to have a means to interact with the material world. Could we not detect that interaction, at least in theory?

In theory, no.    We call the process of analyzing reality "the scientific method" or some variation on that.  This requires a reproducible test to get past the peer review BS meter. 
Any anything not natural is not reproducible. 

For example, "Hey, this guy just turned water into wine!"   
Really?  Let me taste....ahhhh...B.S. 
No way!"   

Just an example of one scientist actually on the scene.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2013, 04:25:43 AM by SkyWriting »

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2442
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #255 on: July 12, 2013, 06:04:11 AM »

Your welcome to try.  But Wiki-pedia will not overcome the evidence
when I go back to work in the morning that stupid does because
that what stupid is.  [/quote

What is this supposed to mean? To what are you referring?


Quote


However it is a pity not to point out the research that has been going on into explaining how living things can come from non-living ones.

AbiogenesisWiki the name for the process has had quite a lot of work and, though there are competing hypotheses on how it  might work, it is clear that there are mechanisms which certainly could explain the fact that there is life on this planet. So I invite you to read the wiki article and any interesting links and consider if your belief, from an old book with not evidence matches up to the science which is being done which may well explain how life developed and, if we are lucky, maybe find that the mechanism is still running and creating life today.

As a final though, you claim your god is invisible and so on. Yet to create material things or to intervene in the material world such a god would have to have a means to interact with the material world. Could we not detect that interaction, at least in theory?

In theory, no.    We call the process of analyzing reality "the scientific method" or some variation on that.  This requires a reproducible test to get past the peer review BS meter. 
Any anything not natural is not reproducible. 

For example, "Hey, this guy just turned water into wine!"   
Really?  Let me taste....ahhhh...B.S. 
No way!"   

Just an example of one scientist actually on the scene.

OK, nice you raised this problem.

  • According to your holy book Jesus was supposed to have done this but, of course as you say, its no reproducible so doesn't count as evidence. Come to think of it, all the stories in the bible of non-natural events are non-reproducible so where does that leave your belief?
  • Abiogenesis is being worked on by actually trying to reproduce the conditions of an early earth. The first attempt, in the 1960s, produced amino acids - the backbone of life. You will see a lot more experimental evidence as the science progresses but I suppose you will dismiss is in favour of an idea in a old book be is demonstrably the creation of a structure so unlike we know out planet to be that it is patently a folk-tale type story (well actually about 3 stories redacted together) and, of course, completely unproveable.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1800
  • Darwins +191/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #256 on: July 12, 2013, 10:25:07 AM »
There don't seem to be any Physical restraints on what happens.  My point is that the story is internally consistent.   

Ah yes, so you're willing to arbitrarily lower your standard of evidence only for the religion you assumed from the beginning.

In case it's news to you, "internally consistent" doesn't mean squat when it comes to truth value. Anyone can makeup just about anything that is "internally consistent". It means nothing.

God is spirit, so physical standards of evidence are not possible.
My first "belief system" was that of my father that anything out of the ordinary
in the Bible was story telling error or just fantasy.    My second was that life came from space or even aliens.  My third was the collection of people who became believers in Jesus had similar experiences on a personal level and not associated with any church activities.
I became a believer due to the testimony or life stories of dozens of different people all being so different yet similar on a personal level.

Just like what happens in the Muslim world and what happens in numerous other religions too, right? So instead of taking a critical examination of your interpretation of your alleged 'experience of Jesus' you simply bought it - just like you bought the first two in the same fashion. Why? You do know that personal experiences are often misinterpreted and mistaken, don't you? Again, why is your standard of evidence so low when it comes to a worldview?

In this regard, obviously you have already demonstrated to yourself at least two things. One, that in the past you have come to believe worldviews based upon bad evidence, bad reasoning, and/or poor judgment (So this is somewhat of a habit for you). And two, that on at least two occasions you have been willing and able to change your worldview. So why not actually hold a higher, and more consistent, standard so as to weed out these mishaps and admit your ignorance of the subject? Is it really that hard for you?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #257 on: July 12, 2013, 10:29:16 AM »
Can somebody please explain Young Earth Creationism?  It seems to me that anybody who believes that the Earth is 6,000 years old is a lunatic.  Is there something glaring I'm missing here?

In my understanding of it, it would seem as though a major tenent those that advocate it have is that the Earth and universe it is a part of were created old as if they'd been around for billions of years. The trees already had rings, the man had already reached puberty, and the simulation was kicked off in 4004bc.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1800
  • Darwins +191/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #258 on: July 12, 2013, 10:52:55 AM »

The difference is that there are no rules of nature, laws of science, laws of physics, or even any hints from space exploration that "matter" is anything other than very hostile to life.

Nothing we've found even hints that matter can be coaxed into biological activity.   Even water is lethal if not in the correct dosage.  The creation of life is a very very delicate balance of millions of factors.  It all points to intelligence as the source.

No, it doesn't actually - and this is your confirmation bias (based upon the assumption/emotional investment you made regarding your interpretation of the bible). Mere complexity does not equate to intelligent design, and neither does rarity of occurrence. For that you need actual evidence and not just speculative conjecture based upon your assumed worldview. This is why in another post I asked you how you determine the difference between miracles and rare occurrences. We contrast design with what is found in nature (i.e. - what is naturally occurring). To this point, we have ample examples of what we call human intelligence and/or design. We DO NOT, on the other hand, have any examples of deities creating universes out of nothing, fully grown humans, or old looking planets.

So again, your analogy fails to demonstrate a good justification for thinking that our local experience in this part of the universe is designed by some intelligence. All it shows is that you WANT that to be the case because (for the third time) you assumed your worldview based on an assumption of an alleged experience. Why is it so difficult for you to admit ignorance on the matter?


I've worked at my current job for 3 years and my boss built or designed our factory 4 years ago.  So I am surrounded by "intelligent design" from my boss or my own fabrication.  I just made a list of 20 things we use every day that I engineered for our plant.

A co-worker is unable to adjust an oven to compensate for thick or thin crust pizza ( a pizza company uses some of our warehouse space) and he runs to the lunch room because he cannot figure out how long a 30 minute lunch break is unless the big hand is on the top or bottom. 

I can't be persuaded away from intelligent design because intelligence gets things done, and stupid produces nothing.

Does this mean that you are now attributing anything that happens in nature as coming from this thing you call "God"? How can you distinguish between naturally occurring things and "intelligent design"?

Btw, you are simply wrong that nature can't produce things. Evolutionary biology overwhelmingly demonstrates that the diversity of life on this planet comes from nature (new species of plants/animals etc which did not exist before) as well as biological adaptation (such as mutating viruses that resist antidote). Had you taken the time to actually educate yourself on these subjects perhaps you would know this (mere home study doesn't cut it). Geology and plate-tectonics demonstrates that nature produces beautiful places like Niagra Falls and the islands of Hawaii. And there are plenty of things in nature that demonstrate happenstance, strikes of luck (based on chance), and rare occurrences.

Again, if you think your deity thing somehow orchestrates it all then you are going to need demonstrable evidence to backup that assertion and not just your-saying-so.

Btw, an Argument from Ignorance/Incredulity is not evidence.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1800
  • Darwins +191/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #259 on: July 12, 2013, 11:00:47 AM »

Your welcome to try.  But Wiki-pedia will not overcome the evidence
when I go back to work in the morning that stupid does because
that what stupid is. 

We are dealing with Forrest Gump theology here folks.


In theory, no.    We call the process of analyzing reality "the scientific method" or some variation on that.  This requires a reproducible test to get past the peer review BS meter. 
Any anything not natural is not reproducible. 

For example, "Hey, this guy just turned water into wine!"   
Really?  Let me taste....ahhhh...B.S. 
No way!"   

Just an example of one scientist actually on the scene.

You haven't demonstrated there is any such thing as the "non-natural". You just keep CLAIMING it over and over. Saying it is so doesn't make it so. It's actually quite sad that you refuse to see the error in your reasoning. It's weird though b/c you did see your errors at least twice before. Why not again?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2442
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #260 on: July 12, 2013, 11:14:32 AM »
Perhaps, Skywriting, a little clarification on chance for you.

We all know that if we have a 1 in 4 chance of winning something that's pretty high chance (expect for me who doesn't win anything!). How about a 14 million to 1 chance? Could anyone manage to win at those odds? Well, yes, most weeks in the UK lottery someone wins at those odds. One does not have to wait for 14 million entries for a winner - it could be the first one.

So it is with other things that are based on chance. A 'one in a  billion' will sometimes happen though the odds seem so small that they really don't count. So with biogenesis - there might be a frighteningly small chance of the relevant chemical joining together but sometimes they do. That's what the researchers into biogenesis are looking at.

Then again, what are the chances of life on other planets? There are lots of guesses going round but just think how many planets there are. We have no direct count and we can' guess that all stars have planets. At one time I heard that the number of stars amounted to 10^28 - that's 10 with 28 '0's after it. Its an incomprehensibly large number - one I cannot even begin to think about. A proportion of those stars will planets and a proportion of these will have planets that can host life. It might be a billion planets, say. On one of them there is life - us. Do you not think it possible, indeed probably there is life on other planets too, given the numbers involved?

So the fact that you think something is not even possible doesn't mean it can't happen. Even if you think the chances are vanishingly small, they still happen. Imagine if you told your great, great grandfather that you would by typing with keyboard and a screen to other people all over the world now - what would he have said? "Don't talk rubbish, boy" I suspect.  We have no need to introduce ideas to explain that for which we already have an explanation, like evolution for example. It explains the development of life beautifully, has vast amounts of evidence for it and none against it so we do not need other ideas like Intelligent Design.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)